Aaron Strader
Forum Replies Created
-
The Squigglevision was less an effect and more the fact that they didn’t draw consistently to achieve that look.
There’s text animation presets that have wiggling letters in the preset library. You could get by on one of those.
To get the full Squigglevision look, you’ll have to trace the same title repeatedly for a few seconds worth of what you need.
-
The Squigglevision was less an effect and more the fact that they didn’t draw consistently to achieve that look.
There’s text animation presets that have wiggling letters in the preset library. You could get by on one of those.
To get the full Squigglevision look, you’ll have to trace the same title repeatedly for a few seconds worth of what you need.
-
You need to make sure you’re using the latest version of the filters.
https://www.genarts.com/download-sapphire-ae-windows.html
Older versions were designed for older versions of AE, and have buggy issues like this.
-
Aaron Strader
November 1, 2005 at 9:07 pm in reply to: EXPERTS.. plz have the patience to watch THIS …please..This is why you have budgeting on your projects.
It’ll depend on your markets you’re trying to go after.
Do they have someone else as equally skilled that charges less?
Go to some of your potential competitors and get bids on work. Find out what they charge. Offer your own services to them and see what kind of percentage deal they’d offer you.Are you located someplace that’s lousy with talent at all levels? (NYC, LA, Chicago, etc)
How many years experience do you have? Time factors in on your side. I know so-so editors who get buckets of money/work thrown at them because they’ve been in the industry a long time. I also know really skilled editors who are VERY green who can’t get work to save their lives.
Those factors determine where you can place yourself pricewise on your projects.
I would also advise you to go check out the Cow’s business forum since there’s people hitting this question out a thousand times a day over there, and you could wind up learning about your specific market by reading some posts.
Just don’t expect AMPAS to roll up to your house and offer you money for uncontracted freelance. 🙂
-
Aaron Strader
November 1, 2005 at 7:05 pm in reply to: EXPERTS.. plz have the patience to watch THIS …please..Much nicer than some of the stuff I get asked to do around here.
Don’t hinge your whole career in the industry on being able to be “the best”.
There’s a lot of mediocre art out there from people making a killing in this field. I know people who think the titler built into Premiere 6.5 is the living end of MoGraphics.
What you’re doing is miles above what I’ve seen from other people.
I mostly get asked to do titles, the occasional masking, and such, so that’s about what I do out of AE. That suits me fine, and the less 3D I have to deal with the better.
So, if something strikes you as “eh..” about your abilities, don’t force a career change on yourself out of self-doubt. There will be someone out there who thinks it looks fantastic and will pay you a great deal of money to do it for them full time.
-
Seeing as how it’s going to do it no matter what, take this time to embrace what is referred to in the industry as a “Coffee/Cigarette Break”. Take it, enjoy it and don’t stress out. The conformed files can be deleted as soon as you finish the project.
Also of note, you CAN start editing your project while it’s conforming. If you don’t apply any transitions or effects during the conforming process it should be stable enough to start cutting. The conforming will take a wee bit longer, but it won’t be anything outrageous. I time the conforming at about 5 minutes per hour of ingested footage on the machines I work on.
-Aaron
https://www.stopfcc.com/
Knock it off! I like my radio and television the way it is… -
Aaron Strader
October 24, 2005 at 9:40 pm in reply to: Premiere Pro and Matrox x100 causes soft focus on still imagesAre you doing any slo-mo effects at all?
That might be the root cause of what you’re seeing. Again, in between the first set of x.tools drivers (3295’s) and what’s currently shipping (6078’s), they did a major overhaul of the driver’s handling of the image. I, and most other people, felt that there was a great deal of improvment in the image when this change occured.
If you have the opportunity to roll back to Premiere 6.5, this would likely resolve your issues. Aside from Premiere interface being what it is today, little’s changed between version 6.5 and the current in terms of what the Matrox card provides. A few filters and MPEG-2 capture via Firewire is all really. If it’s a big enough issue for you, you might consider rolling back.
-
Aaron Strader
October 24, 2005 at 2:41 pm in reply to: Premiere Pro and Matrox x100 causes soft focus on still imagesYou definitely want to use TGA’s or BMP’s. You’ll kill your projects if you don’t. Premiere w/Matrox doesn’t like JPG’s.
As for softening. I haven’t seen anything like this happen on my systems. I do know that they changed the image processing procedure overall between the earliest revision of the Matrox drivers and what they are now, but that was done for everything, not just stills.
You wouldn’t happen to have any before/after shots of what it’s doing to your pictures would you? So I can make an educated guess at what’s going on?
As a practical fix, you could try to use Photoshop to “pre-” sharpen your pictures before going into premiere with them. That could help out past whatever you might be experiencing with the Matrox drivers.
-Aaron
https://www.stopfcc.com/
Knock it off! I like my radio and television the way it is… -
I’ve just avoided Premiere and Xvid altogether. Had a lot more sucess by shifting Xvid encoding duties to VirtualDub instead and it seemed to run a lot faster than what premiere does with my xvid files. Didn’t help much with premiere since I have to lay out video for the timeline and THEN export. It’s too much headache to set it all up when I can use a full res uncompressed AVI and throw that into V’Dub and get it 10X faster and get the same results.
-Aaron
https://www.stopfcc.com/
Knock it off! I like my radio and television the way it is… -
The new iPod is supposed to support MPEG-4 and the new H.264 codec.
The actual supported formats are found here:
https://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html
Quoth the website:
“H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats
MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats”
The latest version of Premiere Pro seems to have the compatible codecs needed to output to H.264 in the Adobe Media Encoder. My testing it with itunes produced decent results. No one will know for sure until the units start shipping though.
I’ve also seen QVGA quality quoted (first Q based alliteration ever!) in some of the various trades, so you can adjust your settings accordingly.
I’m kinda more psyched about video on this device than any other previous portable. Look at the potential based on iTMS sales… WOW! As soon as we can figure out how to get this out there as paid content, that’s money in the bank.
-Aaron
https://www.stopfcc.com/
Knock it off! I like my radio and television the way it is…