Simon Ubsdell
6
COW Coins
Forum Replies Created
-
Go to Preferences/Open CL.
I’d strongly recommend you try using Fusion Connect which will remove any problems you might be having with syncing your mattes.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Jeff Markgraf] “le sigh… Here we go again.”
As for this …
I fervently hope that you and your lusty Sancho Panza prevail against the imaginary assailant against whom you are so quixotically tilting.
He sounds like a very stupid person indeed, incapable of sense and worthy only of your loftiest condescension.
(Cervantes was right. While patently risible, there is something tragically poetic about the heroic effort to combat a foe conjured out of the thinnest of air and existing only in the obsessed and fevered mind.)
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Jeff Markgraf] ”
The Premiere process of putting a clip into the timeline without regard for track patching that you are describing is similar to FCPX in its end result, although rather different in how it accomplishes that result.”Agreed.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Bill Davis] “I actually don’t care much about “uniqueness” per se.”
Now, Bill, put your hand on your heart and tell me that you really, really mean that.
????
[Bill Davis] “Every NLE “inserts” – only X inserts into a magnetic environment. “
I’m not talking about insert editing. Overlay is quite different – see above.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Simon Ubsdell] “dragging a clip to Overlay in Premiere has the exact same result as hitting Q on the FCP X keyboard.”
I should perhaps expand on that a bit.
In every respect the two operations are the same, except one.
In FCP X the Q action both adds layers where required and creates a connection between the added clips and the clip in the Primary Storyline. In Premiere the action adds layers where required but does not create a connection to anything. However, as I pointed out above, this can be done manually using the Group command.
So surely FCP X is the superior method because it avoids the need to manually create a connection?
Well, I would contend, and I think it would be very hard for anyone to prove the opposite, that in the overwhelming majority of cases the editor’s intention here is not to create a connection but simply to place a clip at a particular point in time. Of course, the auto-connection is a very useful default if you are placing titles that go with a specific picture or sound effects that sync to a specific frame. But I don’t think anyone can argue that these represent anything like a majority of the edits you are performing when you use the Q function.
Am I arguing that Premiere is superior here? No, not that either, though I would suggest that Premiere’s Group option offers a functionality that goes considerably beyond what you can do in FCP X with connected clips alone. Conversely, as Bill was I think pointing out, shuffling the vertical order of connected clips is much easier in FCP X. And so on.
I think it’s healthy with whatever applications we are using to celebrate the strengths, critique the weaknesses and at the same time acknowledge the similarities – as in this case.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
You’re talking about something slightly different if I have understood your comment.
All I was pointing out, more for the benefit of Premiere users who also use FCP X but might not be aware of this functional similarity, is that dragging a clip to Overlay in Premiere has the exact same result as hitting Q on the FCP X keyboard.
Incidentally, using Group in Premiere creates a vertical connected relationship that is functionally identical to connected clips in FCP X. It’s arguably a little more flexible since it’s not relying on a single clip to form the basis of the connection, though I suspect I will find it hard to convince you of that! (Of course, just like connected clips in FCP X, a Group relationship is not for life and can be assigned and reassigned at will.)
I do wonder whether perhaps the “uniqueness” of the FCP X timeline doesn’t sometimes get a little oversold. That’s not a criticism of it – I love working with it! – just an attempt to get some perspective on the subject.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
I think David meant to say opt/down arrow and option/up arrow (that’s alt on a PC).
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[Tero Ahlfors] “I would probably murder by pet hissing cockroaches if somebody came up with a plugin that would automatically and perfectly rotoscope any object I clicked on without having to outsource that to India.”
As I mentioned above it’s called a Keyer and it’s available now.
😉
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
[David Roth Weiss] “I think the original poster would like to have his text element move behind, ir from behind more likely, one element in his live video, i.e. the title moves out from behind one of the foreground trees in the forest.
If that is the correct interpretation, then Tero is correct, in that rotoscoping an existing tree on a second instance of the primary clip may be the solution”
Yes, I think you’re right and I’m wrong.
However, as a lazy VFX artist I always look for a solution that doesn’t involve leaping right into rotoscoping.
A Color Key, a Luma Key or even a Difference Matte can often work in cases like this.
Rule One: Never rotoscope if you can possibly avoid it.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki -
I’m pretty sure the OP was asking about using text to partially or completely mask the action and didn’t accurately describe what he meant.
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo productions
hawaiki