Andy Neil
Forum Replies Created
-
If realism or a natural look is what you’re going for, I’d go ahead and animate each frame as there are only about 5-6 frames in the entire animation for the leg.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
You notice the benefits of sub-frame editing when you’re dealing with frankenbiting and multiple microphone phasing. Being able to edit the audio in a sub frame environment is very nice in those circumstances.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
I would certainly break these files up. 45GB x 14 is still taxing to the system. You lose all the benefits of multicam if you can reliably play back all the streams at once.
I would break them into 20-30min pieces myself. You should be able to handle that. If not, you can always offline in Offline RT, but Proxy is much nicer to work in if you can.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
You know, I’ve got to stop posting when I don’t have my X beside me. I don’t know why I thought there was a drop shadow. Perhaps because it’s so similar in UI to Motion now. Ok. I take it back, the easiest thing would be to create a pillarbox effect in Motion. Just clone the placeholder then scale and blur the lower one.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Though it’s not impossible to create this as an effect, it’s pretty easy to do outside of motion. In fact, it’s done the same way that you do it in FCP 7.
Duplicate the clip. Scale the lower clip to whatever you need to in order to make it fit in the 16:9 frame without pillaring. Apply a blur effect to the footage.
Crop the top layer, scale it if you like, and add the drop shadow.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
Not that I’m aware of. What in particular (no pun intended) are you wanting to accomplish that you can’t with Motion particles?
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Walter Soyka] “I just hate to see FCPX sacrifice power or control to gain simplicity.”
Agreed.
[Walter Soyka] “will Apple’s “you don’t know what you want until we show you” strategy (which works so well in the consumer space) also work in the professional space?”
For some people I expect it won’t. I believe Walter Murch said in his most recent interview that “consumers consume, and professionals demand.” Most amateurs (used in the “non-paid” sense, not derogatorily) know what they want in only the broadest of terms. Professionals tend to know what they want in very specific terms because it’s what we do every day.
I don’t really have much of a dog in this fight. I rarely use plug-ins in my line of work. Most plug-ins are not very useful IMHO. I would much rather see a strong integration with a CC app than a CC plug-in. But that’s me and I realize I’m in the minority (obviously since there are plenty of plug-in manufacturers).
I may not use many plug-ins, but I certainly hope my NLE can accommodate them. So hopefully, time will bear out some solution to all this.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Walter Soyka] “I don’t particularly care if Apple has control of the aesthetics of its inspector UI. I want control over my effects…why prioritize Apple’s aesthetic for the effects tab than have a more flexible workspace, that supported custom UI elements or resizing?”
I know you don’t care, and truth is, neither do I really. But I do UNDERSTAND it. AE is a perfect example. The effects UI has room for sliders, checkboxes, curve editors and such. And on complicated effects, it’s a mess. On top of all that, there are custom editor buttons that open a completely separate UI for that particular effect.
Aesthetics have always mattered a great deal to Apple. They have always come from a position where the experience of using a product is as important (or nearly so) to what you are using it for. They may be restricting developers to prevent FCPX’s user experience from becoming muddled. Or maybe not. Maybe custom UI elements will be allowed in the future, or maybe Apple will come up with a third solution (like a HUD).
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
True it’s annoying, but it’s also unsurprising. After all, digital film making has been available to the masses for low cost since the late 80s, early 90s, but only recently has there been a relatively low-cost option for shallow DOF. This has led to the inevitable over-doing of the technique.
It’ll shake out in a couple of years. Until then, RACK that focus!
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com
-
[Walter Soyka] “Look at S_Blur, for example. You can adjust the overall blur amount and relative X and Y blur visually with the OSCs, or you can adjust them parametrically in the effects panel…With this design, on-screen controls complement the standard host controls. With FCPX’s design, they replace them entirely.”
Come now. That’s not true. OSCs already compliment (not replace) a host of effects that exist standard in FCPX as well as effects that I’ve created myself. In the case of something like S_blur, you could do the EXACT same thing with an OSC to adjust blur and a reflective parameter in the effects panel.
The issue is “custom” UI elements. The fact is, the majority of plug-in effects can be handled by the standard UI elements in Motion (check box, slider, rotation, drop down menu). The real issue are with plug in manufacturers who NEED a custom UI to make it work intuitively like Colorista (who needs a color wheel), or someone else who needs a curve editor or something similar.
I’m in favor of a HUD control for those types of plug-ins vs OCS. I think that would be the most elegant solution (I can’t imagine three color wheels in the space the inspector allows anyway). That way, Apple has control over the aesthetics of it’s inspector UI, but users get all the controls they need in ADDITION to inspector parameters.
Andy
https://www.timesavertutorials.com