Bret Williams
Forum Replies Created
-
I can definitely say I hardly ever animate opacity. I do adjust it to taste in a multiple layer composite usually in conjunction with overlay or multiply modes. 99% of the time I use a dissolve to animate opacity. I utilize the animation bar to adjust Keyframes in time (usually position and scale) after I’ve added them via canvas in transform mode. I definitely wish they would add easing and bezier controls to the animation bar for other attributes other than opacity. But since they’ve mangled easing into the “smooth” control in the canvas they felt they didn’t need to? It’s all a bit of a mess for motion graphics that could be sorted out by having a send to motion command for more complex animation like we had in legacy.
-
Ah, yes I did. But why would you think you could add them with their tabs open? Nothing else in X works that way. That’s a clip by clip thing. Not a terrible idea though.
-
[Andy Neil] “just as you can’t add new clips into the timeline with the animation tab showing. Not sure why it was designed this way, but perhaps they felt having the opacity bar out in the open like that led to too many instances of accidentally adjusting opacity when just selecting clips. I know things like that could happen fairly easily in FCP7. Regardless, it’s much harder to get to now (too hard, I know).”
I’ve never seen this behavior. I can add clips all day long with the animation tab open.
-
The confusion you have is you thought you were opening a clip in its A timeline. You weren’t doing that. You were opening the clip itself. Every clip in X is a timeline and you were just peering into the guts of the clip. So I guess removing it’s innards left it with no reason to exist and it simply self destructed.
-
Just publish the scale of the drop zone(s). In your case, to make things easier, I’d put the anchor point at the bottom of the lower drop zone, and at the top of the upper drop zone. You might only publish the Y scale of the drop zones also. There’s probably a way to rig it to scale one up while you scale down the other with a slider too.
-
Maybe solitary storyline.
I tell you, Adobe After Effects owes much of it’s early success to Media100 editors who had no choice but to use After Effects if they wanted to do anything but a cut, dissolve or a wipe. Oh, wait, there was a second graphic track where you could fade still titles in and out.
But man was it organized!
-
Last time I used Media100 it had tracks. Or should I say track. It had only 1. But, that was 1998.
-
The same $695 product they usually sell?
-
So, that said. Do you believe Apple’s description of the requirements for the course are neglectful? That’s what it all boils down to. Can a reasonable person be expected to have a shot at certification with only a basic knowledge of video editing terminology and a basic understanding of an OS even be permitted to take a course like this? In fact, basic editing terminology isn’t even required. Just “highly recommended”. Nothing about editing experience with NLEs in general or prior training. It’s a hard test even for seasoned FCP X editors. I personally think that the neglect falls a bit in Apple’s court. Bill points out that there are many resources that should have clued him in that this was beyond his knowledge, but as a beginner, you’re not aware of these resources.
-
Like Noah I use them all the time for visual fx. And quite often. The reason they were bogging some down initially was whenever you split a compound, it created a whole separate instance. Ditto on duplicating one. So if you had a complicated compound and then sliced it all up for effect or editing, each slice was referencing a new compound (or something like that.) that changed when they changed the way compounds work in 10.1 or even earlier. Been a non-issue for years.