Bret Williams
Forum Replies Created
-
The most important part is what format you have to deliver. If it’s 24p then put the 25 in a 24p. Or vice versa. Probably won’t even notice the drop (or repeated) frame since it’s an interview.
-
Just learned that it’s XF-AVC from the XC10 which is currently unsupported by FCP X. Resolve 12 has no issues with it and I’m converting to ProRes. But takes a loooong time. About 2 min for every minute of footage. And it’s making the fans in the iMac scream. Looking at getting EditReady software to convert. Says it’s XC10 compatible.
-
[chris walker] “But I will still have to stabilize twice far too frequently”
This is what I don’t understand. What do you mean by having to stabilize twice? It analyzes the clip. That is the stabilizing. Once it has analyzed (tracked) the motion of the clip, you can flip between the different types of stabilizing.
-
I guess another option would be to duplicate and detach from the duplicate instead of turning the opacity down. The original you’d have turn off the audio tracks of course if you were just adjusting for lip sync or whatever.
OT: Trying to do a simple project in resolve and enjoying the audio sync feature it has where you can take the external audio source and sync it with your camera clip with its on camera audio. Resolve lets you add the audio tracks to the original clip. They are listed in the clip attributes as linked tracks. So you don’t have to clutter up the interface with another instance of a synced clip.
X could use some more work in these areas.
-
Easier for audio editing but insanely tougher for editing in general in X! Don’t detach if you can help it. And even when I do I usually duplicate the clip and turn the video opacity all the way down just so I’ve always got reference instead of detaching.
-
There’s no need to render to see the results. Essentially all it’s doing is applying transform/scale/distort.
My point though what does it matter when it does the analyze? It only does it once. The way it analyzes doesn’t have anything to do with your type of stabilization. And if your system requires rendering to see the results then you’d have to render no matter what type you choose. But you shouldn’t have to render. When it’s done analyzing choose a type and hit play.
-
Track X or Slice X don’t have pan behind either. This isn’t something you’d generally find in an NLE. More of a compositing feature. But the easiest way to accomplish “panning behind” if you’ve already applied a draw mask for instance, would be to right click the clip and choose “open in timeline” and move the shot around with the transform tools. Unfortunately you’re kind of working blind so you’ll have to enter and exit the shot’s timeline to get it right. But it’s a simple enough work around in a pinch. If you haven’t added the mask yet, the preferred method would be to compound the clip and add the mask to the compound. A compound is essentially the same thing as an AE pre comp.
In Motion you’d accomplish the same thing by applying the mask to the group which contains the shot. A group is akin to a pre-comp in AE land. The beauty of a group is that instead of opening it up as it’s own sequence (like an X compound or an AE pre-comp) to see and alter it’s contents, you simply twirl open the group and can adjust the layers in context with the parent composition – allowing you leave the mask in place and simply move the background image around.
-
You’re right. But it only analyzes the clip once. Then you’re free to switch between the different types of stabilization. It doesn’t analyze it again when you switch types. You said it rerenders. Do you have auto render turned on? Turn that off for sure.
-
Don’t stabilize until you put it in the timeline. It only analyzes the portion you use so you’d both save space and time because you could choose the type up front. (For multiple clips at once too for that matter)
-
Obvious perhaps, but have you tried lowering the volume of the clip? How many channels does the clip have? Is it visually clipping in the waveform? Is it clipping in the meters?