Forum Replies Created
-
Hey David
What you’re describing is not at all consistent with the usual behaviour of FCP when keyframing motion properties where normal operation allows only for setting keyframes on a clip by clip basis … there’s actually no basic facility for changing keyframe properties on a track by track or global basis at all.
I’m guessing you may have some project or preferences corruption that’s causing this inconsistency, so as a first step you might try trashing your FCP preferences (or restoring a previously saved set). A good and free tool for this is Preference Manager from Digital Rebellion.
Best
Andy -
Andy Mees
December 20, 2009 at 11:59 pm in reply to: xmEdit node-based Non-Linear Editing replacement?Send an email to Anreas Kiel at Sherico Film Tools … he can fix you up
https://www.spherico.com/filmtools/ -
Andy Mees
December 19, 2009 at 8:54 am in reply to: xmEdit node-based Non-Linear Editing replacement?Am assuming you mean Traffic (xmedit is/was the company name) …. as for a replacement product, it may be helpful if you explained what it was you wanted to do, then folks can hopefully offer some alternative products or workflows that you could look into.
Best
Andy -
Andy Mees
December 19, 2009 at 8:50 am in reply to: Compressor: Any way to batch remove FCP project from filename?did you try FCP’s simple Batch Export option?
-
I don’t see that very clear. Normally QT display Square pixels so make faces more elongated, Greco like.
Yeah, you had me going for a while there Rafa, but then I remembered that we are PAL boys and Alexander is in NTSC land. Pixel Aspect Ratio of course is deternibed by the format, and D1/DV – NTSC, as per the original format here, has a native PAR of 0.9 … its supposed to be slightly taller than it is wide. (In PAL land its 1.07 so just slightly fatter than it is tall). D1/DV NTSC, when displayed with square pixels as in the first (upper) image, will appear somewhat fat.
But in the FC picture (lower) there is a big cropping on top of the head of the boy.
You know what, as the letterbox is encoded in the image then I’d say most likely that we’re looking at screen shots of different frames, not far off but different nonetheless, hence the slight change in the framing.
-
After Effects, Shake and Avid … probably more but those are the ones that spring to mind. In FCP you can set your FCP Canvas/Viewer to 100% in order to see the interlacing but its none too easy to discern right/wrong field order from that view.
-
Hey again Alexander
When you open this file in Quicktime Player and press Cmd-J to open the Movie Properties window, what is the Display Size and Normal Size as noted in the Video Track’s Visual Settings tab? If they differ then uncheck “Preserve Aspect Ratio” and set the Scaled Size to the same settings as given for the Normal Size.
That should bring your files display size back to where it should be.Best
Andy -
[Mohamed Kamel] “if your main output format is DVD, then you must de-interlace your work before authoring it.”
Patently false statement Mohamed .. its certainly a choice available but its utterly wrong to suggest that it is either required or advisable.
Sorry for being blunt, perhaps I’ve missed your intended meaning.
-
Wasn’t this weirdness specifically addressed with the 7.0.1 update Simon? Or is this one just same same but different and not fixed?
Fixes a situation where if you edited a freeze frame as the first shot of a sequence, then edited in a second shot after the freeze frame, the sequence name would change to match the second shot.
https://support.apple.com/kb/TS2521
-
Thats a good catch Rafa.
What we’re missing are some more details as its hard to know quite what we are looking at with these screen shots, like how and where they were captured …. we know that they visually describe the problem but we don’t know quite what they contain eg are those letterbox bars or is it just the capture background? if they are they letterbox bars then are they part of the original source / master? was the footage shot full frame 4:3, letterboxed 16:9 or anamorphic 16:9? where are the screen captures coming from ? (the loss of headroom in the FCP image is conducive with a clean aperture representation of a 10 bit uncompressed image).
On reflection, the upper image looks like a letterboxed 16:9 clip thats been incorrectly given a 16:9 display size (ie its a letterbox 16:9 that is displaying with an anamorphic stretch).