Robin S. kurz
Forum Replies Created
-
If you need an alpha, then you obviously need to use a codec that in fact SUPPORTS an alpha. In which case, of all the available codecs, as already stated, ONLY 4444 does, hence the forth number in the name. Namely: R, G, B… and A. Technically H.265 will also store an alpha, but that’s certainly no option for you and your ancient set up.
As far as the odd outline is concerned, you’ll want to set it to STRAIGHT and not PREMULTIPLIED matting. Or at least make sure that ol’ 7 is interpreting it right, which is generally a crapshoot.
And yeah, you don’t want to hear it, but… switch to X already. Or even Premiere or Resolve if X scares you so much. Seriously. If not for the sake of remedying rather ludicrously avoidable problems such as this, then for the sake of your overall sanity, disk space and practicality? None of which you would have to worry the least bit about if you were using X, as you should when using M5 anyway. FCP 7 is dead for a (a very good) reason. What is it you think you’re protecting yourself from? Efficiency? ???? (in which case… it’s working ????) It’s not like you’re going to get away with it forever, so what exactly is the point of prolonging matters for over six years? But then you may well not need to actually make money with what you do, in which case… oh well.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Interesting.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Jeremy Garchow] “The initial post and video from Simon is simply a question.”
Yes, I very much realize that, Jeremy. Thank you. Which is why it wasn’t in fact directed at Simon. MY reading comprehension in fact does go far enough, that I can differentiate between the terms “Mystery“, which was used, and “Bug” or “Problem” or “Broken“. ????
It was directed at no one in particular, rather just anyone that does consider the matter to be a bug or problem or whatever before anyone in fact knows for sure. Be it through Apple or any other reliable channels. I am in fact not judging anything either way, just curious to see what any subsequent explanation of it all may be.
Or to OVERexplain: “different is not inherently wrong” in this context means that a LOT about FCP (especially in the early stages as we know) has been considered to be “Wrong!”, when it in fact was merely a different, misunderstood approach. One merely had to grasp the WHY to define the “wrong or right” for ONESELF. Preferably without pretending as if that conclusion is globally applicable to any and everyone. Whether it’s the same this time around I do not know, but something tells me little to nothing of this magnitude is just BY ACCIDENT with Apple and FCP. We shall see.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Tony West] “that it’s a bug that’s fixed in an update”
You realize of course, that that would change any and every instance of the filter that you have used by then after updating? Which is why I can’t see that it’s a bug nor that it would or could be “fixed”. At least not in that way, should it in fact even need fixing.
That would literally require an additional filter, so as not to muck everything up. Unless there are other options to avoid that which I’m not aware of, which is obviously entirely possible. Seeing that I’m not a programmer. A “Do you want to update your color filters?” prompt if you open the old with the new? No idea. But again, it seems no one can argue 100% that it’s in fact a bug or not, so ultimately pretty moot conversation, no?
But then different is not inherently wrong. I’d have thought FCP users of all people would have understood that by now. ????
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Will Jones] “The last time I had this issue I paid a compositor big money to fix with After Effects”
In which case it would of course be interesting to know exactly what it is he did. Since there is VERY little that I’d say is only possible in AE, in a case like this, that isn’t in Motion and most of it is due to a markedly more advanced plugin ecosystem as opposed to just the standard toolset.
[Will Jones] “the issues I’m currently dealing with are a lot lighter, I figured there would an inordinate amount of work with masks, going frame by frame”
Again, one would have to actually see the footage to better assess how inordinate the task could actually be. But no, I suspect that there is only a very low likelihood that it could be “easy” in any sense of the word.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Simon Ubsdell] “As I showed in the video, the Color Board adheres to these fundamentally useful basic principles.”
Only I’m personally not actually seeing that what you describe as far as 0/100 values staying put. Neither (max/min) highlights nor shadows stay completely unaffected when adjusting the midtones, even with the color board as you describe. At some point they will go well above/below 100/0, too. Far from locked. It’s something that has always irked me and had hoped the color wheels would alleviate or rather offer an alternative to, only to in fact make matters worse, yes. Unless I’m doing/expecting something wrong?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Simon Ubsdell] “I’ve made a short video to try and explain my confusion:”
I take it you deleted it, since it’s showing up as non-existent for me? I’d be very curious to better understand the confusion.
[Bill Davis] “This kinda got hashed out 2 weeks ago on the 28,000 member Final Cut Pro X Editors Facebook Group.
“Any chance one could get you to post a Link?
Cheers,
RK____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[David Powell] “In the past, collapsing audio would reattach detached audio.”
You’re mixing two entirely different things here, making it (for me) unclear what you’re actually talking about. Because detaching audio is something entirely different than expanding it. Both of which you’re talking about in the same sentence. One has never been able to simply REATTACH detached audio, other than replacing the clip. And expanding/collapsing hasn’t changed in 10.4.
So you may want to clarify if you in fact DETACHED the audio or not. In which case it would of course be irrelevant whether you were working with lanes or not. But even if you were, the audio still wouldn’t act the same as actual detached audio. So again, at this point it’s not making very much sense for me.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Some people pay BIG $$$ to get that look!! ????
The only “fix” that I can think of would entail an inordinate about of work using masks, jogging frames in time etc. etc. Certainly nothing one can just jot down a quick tutorial for here. Especially without having actually seen the footage beyond that frame.
But then there may well be some sort of “VHS Correction” filter out there that I’ve never heard of (or needed), or Motion (less likely) or some other NLE. Have you googled?
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
Sounds to me like you simply inadvertently set keyframes for the anchor point as well. At least that’s the only reason I know and can think of for why it would/could do that.
If not, then you’d have to post the project. Otherwise I don’t see how anyone can know what is going on without actually seeing it.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich!