Kristian Tigersjäl
Forum Replies Created
-
That is actually a very simple solution to it that I didn’t think about. The reason why it never crossed my mind is the effect it would have on the viewer. While this solution is a typical movie-like way of doing it, in a budget production it loses some of the “wow factor” as people are looking for cheap-looking effects and solutions. So while it would be perfectly fine, it would probably give more UMPH doing it without a cut. The best thing I’ve figured out so far is making two shots and mixing them together in a motion that is blurry on it’s own, making it (hopefully) virtually seamless. Maybe there’s a better “non-closeup” solution, I’m not sure. Thanks for bringing my attention to the classic way of doing it nonetheless.
-
I just realized this too, that something does happen when selecting a range and dragging. Thanks!
Does the RANGE feature still work the same? I still just see ONE color selected, and I assume this is an average calculated from the area selected?
Kristian
-
Just some minor comments on this one.
I’m coming from the coding world coding 5 languages, so I’m used to tough learning but the thing with vegas is that things often enough aren’t documented properly in the manual. Like someone here said, it’s a way of reducing costs and offer the software at a more competitive price. This may very well be true but is still a strange thing to me coming from the coding world where even open-source software with no money involved at all usually is so well documented you can find the information you are looking for within minutes.
I still love vegas however, it’s the best video editor in my world. Premiere is a slow, fat, beast that takes half an hour to install and basically needs half your harddrive for some video editing. Vegas is such a smooth ride compared to that so I’m certainly willing to hunt down the pieces of information I need to use it. It’s still strange however that group out there did a site about vegas fully documenting the parts that are left out in the manual.
Kristian
-
After some tests, that didn’t turn out perfect, I still got an idea about what can be done. Have a look at this youtube clip from the experiment to see the results and some comments on this on the voice over. It’s actually my first 720p youtube upload too which seemed to work just fine, nice!
-
I think you nailed that one perfectly 😉 Nothing wrong with training videos, they generally give you a very complete knowledge that allows for creativity and your own ideas while quick tutorials merely gets the job done of a specific task without adding much understanding to the process 😉
-
I could imagine a “how-to” guide regards one single task and is usually pretty quick to watch just to learn how to do one single thing. A training video in my book is more of an area, such as composition. Also how-to’s are usually short and free while training videos are comprehensive and usually not free.
-
I guess I am abit snowed in on a narrow topic here with my composition questions. As a relatively high level coder I’m just not used to leaving topics in the gray because of lack of information but I guess I’m going to have to make an exception here. Yes Vegas is a very deep software in a very clever way because it seems so simple but the more you use it the more you realize how complicated and deep it really is. Composition DETAILS isn’t really THAT important for any current project I am doing etc, I’m just used to another level of documentation and speed of education because of this 😉
-
There is a lot of tutorials for Vegas out there I think but some things aren’t explained very often. Composition tracks are one of those things that are poorly explained. Sure, lots of info on how to mask, but never ever is the underlying system mentioned as in HOW it works. I always want to know the HOW so I can use it in other ways than the explained. There’s so much you can do in vegas, it’s almost staggering, so I can only agree here.
Kristian
-
Oh!
I was under the impression that transparency worked the same under all composition modes (read as it does in multiply). If this is not the case, the results are not as surprising anymore. I read somewhere in the manual that the composition mode “decides how tracks are combined together” so I guess it’s a more complicated picture than just saying it’s a transparency slider alone in all the composite modes. It seems the effects vary alot between modes and it’s not particularly logical.
Is there any list or reference anywhere at how the different composite modes work in this regard? It’s almost hilarious how little the manual to a bought product reveals of such a complicated system. Even more so surprising as it’s very complete in the other areas I’ve used it so far (I usually don’t read them much but rather explore myself).
I guess the only thing left to do is fiddling around, testing, going HUH alot and finally have some sort of understanding for the differences between the composition modes.
Kristian
-
After some more investigation I realize that “subtract” acts just as expected but “add” is a weird one. Even if I set the child at 50% to a 100% parent with add composition, anything below WILL NOT shine through even though there is a 50% of transparency to shine through. In subtract, it doesn’t act in this weird way. Even weirder in the add example here is that if I move up the third track that I want to shine through the 50% of transparency as a second child BAM it works like expected. Why does transparency get “lost” if the child really is to consider a “source” and the parent a “filter”. Even if I add 100% RED to 50% BLUE, I should still end up with 50% transparency for the track below, right?
Apart from this weirdness I think I got it all under control now and it all acts as expected. It’s still a kind of confusing system though but your reply helped heaps in understanding it all. Especially the “see the children as source” idea was helpful. Thanks!
Kristian