Josh Bass
Forum Replies Created
-
Ah. Ok. I will mess with those.
-
Ok, related. . .if you want the effect of “rays” shooting toward the “camera”, this is another thing I can’t figure out. I’m talking where the particles would emit but each ray would appear to shoot toward you (or, think of the general look of any spaceship zooming through space/stars at high speed). Seems simple but I can’t quite get it. If you use a line as the particle/cell, it’s not going to shoot toward you correctly…we would want the line to travel toward you along its long axis, appearing to enlarge as it reaches you. But Motion will just spit them out the way they look as stills/images, which breaks the illusion. Know what I mean? I tried using a dot and extruding but that did the same thing, even making the “back” of the extrusion smaller than the front.
-
Ah. Intriguing.
-
We will see. I have watched a bunch of youtube and other tuts on it, googled a few things. There are still things I don’t get but hopefully I can find the answers at some point. Doesn’t help that my first project with it is editing podcasts.
-
No of course not, but the specific issue I had this time was new to me, and if something’s working, why spend money/change? Anyway I got the issue resolved (prores 4444 and Best render settings was the way to go) but I bought FCPX after. I was going to start using Resolve but since I’m already pretty familiar with Motion I didn’t want to have to learn 2 new pieces of software from scratch (i.e Fusion) so X seemed like the lesser evil. Not sure how I feel about it yet.
-
If you say so. I am not saying I won’t get into X but starting a new project with a short deadline using unfamiliar software that requires a complete different way of thinking was not going to be a good idea.
-
I am not seeing alpha options like prmultiply when exporting from Motion…that option just isn’t there for me. In FCP those clips have had their alpha selection options greyed out.
I have resolve and started this project with it but backed out cause it seemed like a bad idea trying to learn the software while working on a tight deadline. If I get more familiar with it and don’t like it I will get FCPX. The two track/magnetic timeline thing makes me not want to get into it. I know FCP7 pretty well so that’s what I went with this time. Have Premiere CS6, not a fan, not goin for the subscription thing.
-
Thanks. Another thing I don’t understand is that when I previously had my sequence settings in FCP [foolishly] set to h264 (brain fart—was working with a. bunch of smart phone footage and let it conform sequence settings to the best quality clip—later changed to prores), the titles worked fine when set to export as h264 or “same as source”. But the export from FCP from that codec was a mess so I couldn’t stick with it. May just have to bring thr video clips that need titles into motion and make it all one file if I can’t get it sorted.
-
I can’t find one that shows the 3D-ness, but here’s the basic idea. Just imagine that if you turned the word/letters you’d see the same thing making up the sides as the front. And I hadn’t gotten to animating/sequencing the individual particles/replicator cells, or the overall glow. Still trying to figure out the basics of it.
-
Bah. Two issues. . .the “add” mode makes it too “hot”. I realize I can control this with the opacity of one of the duplicates, but it’s still not quite the right look. The glow has more texture/definition, add just creates a solid circle.
Also, even though on the initial text the replicator cells always face cam, since I have to use that entire replicator as the cell for the next one, to make it 3D, I can’t use the “face camera” option or the whole text always faces the camera since it is now the “cell.” So close.
Maybe instead of another replicator, make the “ranks” from duplicate layers, put em in a group?
