Eric Rosenfeld
Forum Replies Created
-
I was able to get the filters loaded into the clips by dragging them into the regions, or by dragging them into the viewer pane, but anything I did with the sliders didn’t show up as visual changes to the image in the canvas. I made sure that “play base layer only” was unchecked and that “filters” was checked in “render controls” in the user settings, but it didn’t help. I even tried moving the sliders around in color correction and exporting the project to see if color changes would show up in export if not in playback, but they didn’t.
But finally I tried something last night that DID work: I exported the whole movie and then re-imported it into a new FCP project, and in that new project, lo and behold, I was able to add video filters and make them appear and stick. The only thing I can possibly pin it to is that this new project had RT set to “safe RT” instead of “unlimited RT”.
Could “Unlimited RT” have been preventing video filters from applying?
-
I took your advice, although I had to settle for a bit rate of 8000 cause my computer seemed incapable of processing 12000 (It’s an old 2007 Macbook). The results on youtube were definitely improved.
-
I’ve figured out a way to resolve this issue by just re-introducing the clips from the browser into the sequence but not doing any rendering. Somehow they just eventually settle themselves and play back fine.
-
OK, I’ve learned some more about what’s going on. It turns out that I can add filters to my heart’s content to the master clips in the browser. What I can’t do is then drag those clips into the sequence and still have the effects. They will neither show up in playback nor will they export. I even tried setting effects in the sequence and then exporting the project to see if they’d show up in the final product. No success.
If no one still has any idea what this could be, I’m going to conclude that I have gremlins and need to download a new copy of FCP 7.
-
How’s this for utter weirdness?: I have a still frame JPG that I stretched out to a few seconds and added motion to (pan from left to right). In playback, it’s doing the thing I’ve described above (playing the same frame twice in a row and appearing to skp in-between frames). But then I sliced a cut in the middle of it to add a white flash transition, and lo and behold, the new region that was thus created to the right of the transition now has smooth playback with sequential frames, but only after a delay after the cut and transition. In other words, the smooth playback doesn’t come in immediately.
Do I have gremlins in my Final Cut Pro?
-
Wow, even Preference Manager didn’t help. I trashed my preferences, relaunched and made sure “filter” was checked in render control + RT “play base layer only” was unchecked. Then I went to one of my clips and set a video filter on it and tried moving the sliders around on a key frame, but no visual changes in the canvas. Is there anything else you can think of?
-
Never mind that last comment. Checking “filter” in render control didn’t do anything. What on earth could this be?
-
I thought that last comment would be the big solution to my problems. At least, that had been the issue last time I couldn’t see my video effects in the palate. But no such luck. Even with “filter” checked in the “render control” options of user preferences, and even with “Play base layer only” unchecked in RT.
-
By the way, when it comes to data rate, I know that Youtube is tricky. I’ve looked into this matter quite a bit. On the one hand, Youtube themselves recommend something like an 8000 data rate. On the other, people have said that Youtube’s automatic compression will reduce it to as low as 1200 anyway when you upload the video. I’ve also seen tutorials on Youtube that show the results of exporting at various data rates, and there are differences in the final product, but 5000 doesn’t look much different from 2000. It’s only when you go much higher that you see a noticeable difference. And then you have the problem of really unweildy, heavy files. And some say that the higher the data rate, the more chance that it won’t play well on Youtube because people’s computers and internet connections are not strong enuff to process it well, or because Youtube itself can’t process it well, or, or, or… People just don’t seem to know the real answer.
-
No, I didn’t slow anything down. I just added two key frames, spaced about a second apart from each other, and made the image zoom in and change centering as it went from the first key frame to the second.
For now, the way I’ve dealt with this is that I used the razor blade tool to cut the clip right where the first key frame is, so now that second of motion is its own separate clip. That way, the weird rendering has only applied to that one second of footage and didn’t affect the rest of the clip.
By the way, the visual effect of the footage staying on the same frame for twice as long has not been for it to look slower. It looks more flickery. So that suggests to me that frames have actually been lost in the process of that happening. For example, let’s say you have 3 sequential frames in the original footage and then this weird rendering happens. The result is not for frame 1 to stay on for twice as long, followed by frame 2 staying on for twice as long. Instead, it seems what happening is that frame 1 stays on twice as long and eats up frame 2 in the process. Therefore, the next frame you see is frame 3. Frame 2 is lost.
You see what I’m saying? Not sure if that’s the case, but that’s what it looks like visually in playback to me.