Forum Replies Created

Page 1 of 3
  • adcritic.com – You have to have a subscription to Creativity magazine to watch the commericals – $99 a year

  • David Robinson

    January 28, 2006 at 8:52 pm in reply to: 4×3 into anamorphic sequence – something change?

    Thanks!

  • David Robinson

    January 28, 2006 at 8:37 pm in reply to: 4×3 into anamorphic sequence – something change?

    Yes, I’m trying to go from 4×3 to anamorphic with a pillarbox on the left and right of the 4×3 footage in the anamorphic sequence. FCP stretches the 4×3 when I drop it into the anamorphic sequence. I want black on each side of the 4×3 (actually I’m going to drop a graphic behind it) and I want to know exactly how much I have to change aspect ration in distort. 33 looks right but I’m not sure. I thought when I did this before, FCP didn’t stretch the footage.

  • David Robinson

    January 17, 2006 at 1:36 am in reply to: Transition between 2 layers – not transparency

    Thanks Antony. Pre-comping still didn’t work with animating opacity, but I was able to use Channel – Blend. It wouldn’t work before because choosing the layer in Blend was using the layer without Keylight. The pre-comp fixed that. Thanks!

  • David Robinson

    August 22, 2005 at 2:10 pm in reply to: Why is FCP5 so sluggish???

    Toby, i have that same sluggish feeling. Kind like that first version that ran on OS X. I have a sequence set to Apple Uncompressed 8bit and its sluggish when scrubbing through the timeline. All of my clips are graphics or photos rendered from AE with the Apple Uncompressed 8bit codec. I also have a Decklink card and have Effects Handling set to Final Cut Pro, but when I change effects handled by: to Blackmagic SD the sluggish timeline goes away. Don’t know if this is a solution, but you’re not the only one experiencing the slow down.

    David Robinson

  • David Robinson

    August 17, 2005 at 1:42 pm in reply to: How to export great looking Quicktimes

    Jason, I think it may have just as much to do with your source material. The trailers you’re talking about are being compressed from source material of high quality film transfers.

  • David Robinson

    June 6, 2005 at 6:28 pm in reply to: Moving to Intel by 2007 is true

    Walter, my second post above mentions Rosetta – I didn’t see it earlier.

    I think that as long as developers are good about creating universal binaries (and you know Apple definitely will) this won’t be much of a headache for the end user.

  • David Robinson

    June 6, 2005 at 6:09 pm in reply to: Moving to Intel by 2007 is true

    OK, there will be something called Rosetta that will run PowerPC apps, but I can’t imagine running FCP this way. We’ll see how it all plays out.

  • David Robinson

    June 6, 2005 at 6:05 pm in reply to: Moving to Intel by 2007 is true

    I totally agree. It doesn’t matter what’s under the hood. Its the operating system and FCP that make using a Mac to edit on so great. But existing software will not work. You will have to buy new software.

  • David Robinson

    June 3, 2005 at 4:01 pm in reply to: Camera Flash Effect

    The maths may end up the same with opacity at 100, but once you change the opacity, see what you get. It doesn’t really matter, however. The scripts Gunner mentioned above (2 much 2 soon) work great AND it gives a blur option AND they are FREE! Thanks for the link Gunner.

Page 1 of 3

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