Forum Replies Created

Page 692 of 699
  • Bret Williams

    May 21, 2005 at 5:12 am in reply to: Registering QT Pro in FCP5?

    I don’t have 5 yet, but you misspelled QuickTime. Should be a capital T.

  • Bret Williams

    May 18, 2005 at 5:17 am in reply to: clean newspaper clippings

    Don’t use freeze frame, you probably just cut the quality in half.
    Do use the flicker filter on max.
    Scan the images so they aren’t too high res. No higher than you need. FCP does a better job of enlarging than it does scaling down when you have thin lines and small sharp objects like type.

    Generally 1000×1000 is pretty good for scans that are just going to creep in. If you’re going to go waaay in you’ll have to go higher and maybe utilize photoshop and after effects.

  • Bret Williams

    May 16, 2005 at 2:38 am in reply to: Adobe Premier Pro to Final Cut Pro Switch

    How many times have you seen the splash screen, and you still can’t spell Premiere? 🙂

  • Bret Williams

    May 14, 2005 at 12:48 am in reply to: What’s the deal with DVCPRO50?

    Regular DV, 25mbs, is around 5:1 compression. DVCPro50 is closer to that of digibeta, at around 3:1 compression. So, no, it’s not uncompressed. Anything that isn’t uncompressed will lose something (whether you can see it or not) when rendered. Normally I’d say don’t sweat it, but if you’re going to blow this us to 35mm (won’t those be some big pixels?) I’d guess you should go uncompressed and output to something better. But if you output to digibeta, it’s going to compress it to 2:1 anyway, so I’m not sure if it’d be all worth it. If you’re not doing a lot of heavy processing, I guess you’d be just as well off to go back out native to DVCPro50. Anything that didn’t require rendering would be the same, pixel for pixel, as it was on the original DVCPro50 tape, just like regular DV works.

    Just my rambling thoughts.

  • Bret Williams

    May 12, 2005 at 4:24 pm in reply to: final cut pro 5

    Ah, I’m not being that heavy really. But sometimes you gotta hit people over the head. Sure it’s funny. When you’re broke too and you’ve just scammed a bunch of folks. Ever watch that show “con” on comedy central? It’s pretty funny. But the people he cons do actually get advertising out of it by being on TV. And the fact that they fall for his pathetic cons almost makes them deserving.

    I’m just saying don’t fall for this con. He probably needs the money because he’s one of those editors that underprices himself at $100 a day. We all love those guys don’t we?

  • Bret Williams

    May 12, 2005 at 3:04 pm in reply to: final cut pro 5

    The guy actually has the nerve to admit he wants a 23 inch display, while I sit here making money on a couple of CRTs that are pushing 10 years old! I’m running a dual 1ghz. He could’ve asked or a single used 1.8ghz or something but he’s obviously going for the latest and greatest.

    He even goes so far as to say that the 30 charge that Paypal charges for doing each donation is “ridiculous.” I find that to be an utterly amazing low amount. If you’re doing credit cards they charge 2.9% plus the 30 cents. Go out and try to get a merchant account for cheaper.

    If he doesn’t raise the $5000 is he going to blow it up anyway or send back your money? Send your money. I’ll watch for free.

  • Bret Williams

    May 12, 2005 at 2:55 pm in reply to: final cut pro 5

    First I don’t want to see him blow up a perfectly good G4. If it’s running Motion, he had to beef it up significantly. The stock G4 he has will not even install motion.

    Second, he’s a beggar. Nothing more. He says he makes videos for a living. He should run his business better. A new computer every 5 years should be a fairly simple business purchase. If he can’t afford it, he doesn’t need it.

    Tell ya what. I’ll push my 1992 Pathfinder off a cliff if everybody will send me fifty cents for a used Subaru Forrester. It’ll be a hell of a lot cooler to watch.

  • Bret Williams

    May 11, 2005 at 2:38 pm in reply to: Pan & Zoom

    If you’re going to ease in and ease out anchor points is the way to go. And if you’re going to do more than 2 keyframes. Otherwise, a linear start here end there is the same thing.

    If you really want to be authentic, you could do it in 3D space with a virtual camera actually panning and scanning the photo. 🙂

  • Bret Williams

    May 10, 2005 at 8:37 pm in reply to: Pan & Zoom

    Set a keyframe at the beginning, set a keyframe at the end. Set position and scale on first keyframe, set position and scale on last keyframe. Render to Avid codec. That’s all there is to it.

    Can’t Avid do this now without After Effects?

  • Bret Williams

    May 10, 2005 at 8:34 pm in reply to: Grungy jittery video

    I’ve done this stuff by hand before, and it usually looks fine. All you usually have to do is create a few keyframes, then copy and paste. You can then copy and paste selective keyframes in the middle. Then reverse a few in time, etc.

    On the jittery stuff, make sure your keyframes are all hold keyframes. Except maybe for the roll effect. On the roll, don’t forget to squish the screen vertically. I’d just create one squish/roll, and layer that up on itself, offsetting in time until you’ve got the amount of roll you want.

    I’m sure there are some plugins out there. I generally don’t use any.

Page 692 of 699

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy