[Tom Clasman]

Ohh ????, it was THAT simple? Christ …
They say the first thing you go blind on, is your eyes. 😛
Thank you Ann.

[Tom Clasman]

Just got Rematch installed. But .. I couldn’t get it to work, so I looked at the manual and watched about 5 “how to” videos on youtube.
Whatever the guys on youtube are doing, is not working in Premiere Pro 2015, at all. They just put the plugin on the target clip, select another track beneath – with a clip running in parallell timewise with the target clip – as source, and bom it works.
For me, it just shows a red frame on the target clip, all the time, no matter what different techniques I try. There are no special circumstances involved in the setup I got here either.

Just as a quick follow-up question, could anyone tell me if this ‘Should’ be working straight away like that? Is Rematch known to have problems with Premiere? Or am I seeing something which seems pretty odd?
Just so I know I’m not crazy …
(which I kindof am, but .. you know)

thx

[Tom Clasman]

Ah thanks. That will settle it for me.
Sometimes all one needs to hear is what one sort of/kindof already suspects. Best to ask though 🙂

[Tom Clasman]

@Roei Tzoref: Yes, you could say that what I see in different players, different computers/operative systems makes me question players makes me doubt what I see in the editor. In the editor, things look like I expect. I no longer feel confident that what I see is what others will see. What I see there is what I’m using to decide what is the right amount of colors and brightness/contrast.

I re-imported the video into AE as you suggested, and it looks the same as it does in the editing project. This equates to what I call the ‘darker’ rendering above. That’s what I want it to look like.

You say different players and playbacks will differ etc. I understand what you’re talking about. But what makes me post this question is that I feel I have identified what seems like two distinct playback lightings, which causes a dramatic difference (check moon pic above).
I mentioned that my partner plays this video back in QT and it looks brighter that it does for me. I can reproduce the brightness he gets pretty much exactly, by simply changing my VLC settings from OpenGL to Automatic. This makes me think I am not seeing the results of subtle differences you get through different players or playback systems, monitor calibrations etc, but rather the effects of two distinct different playback/rendering modes.

Assuming I’m more right than wrong about this, I am asking which of these two modes should be use for more predictable playback results overall. And as a secondary question I’m asking what these two modes are, or what the heck I’m seeing here, and how I can understand this.

I don’t think my Dell U2711 screen will qualify as ‘professional grade’ monitor for serious graphic work. But I don’t think it will lead me too far astray either.

[Tom Clasman]

“Pretty easily” too? Man, I’d love to know how something similar could be done easily in AE.

I may not be experienced with this, but if I look at the clip above, and shoot from my hip on how to do it in AE … I’d say I need to use approx 120 tracks of motion image clips/tracks (representing each ‘virtual screen’ in the clip, 60 on each side), resize and skew each clip in such a way that lining them up side by side will create a 3D depth illusion on a wall. Requires quite a bit of precision to not mess upp the 3D illusion.
Make two of these, to create 2 ‘walls’ slanting inwards. Then put one clip in the center and zoom it out to fit in between the walls.
Then make a copy of this whole creation, flip it over upside down and and mirror it (with lower opacity) beneath the main screen landscape, to create the mirror effect. Finish it off with a zoom-into-the-whole-thing effect.

Yes, I am fairly new. Maybe there’s a way to create such a thing in AE ‘pretty easily’ that I have no idea about. The process I described above – however relevant – sure doesn’t fit under easy, nor fast, in my world.

That iswhy I asked if AE perhaps isn’t the foremost tool to get this kind of thing done quickly.
If something similar CAN be done easily in AE, or if it cannot be done ‘easily’ and someone might recommend tools that are quicker for these kinds of things … either way, I’m all ears ☺

Thx

[Tom Clasman]

@Richard Garabedain: Actually I havent tried a Luma Matte, yet. I though the Photoshop option was the safer bet so I went with that, since whatever option I go with is probably going to be .. lengthy.
This is not only nuts, as LaRonde pointed out above, but I’m not as experienced in AE either 😛 Spent a some time in Vegas before though.

[Tom Clasman]

@Walter Soyka: Didn’t want me to put film online, so I took screenshots every 0,5 secs instead. Raw footage screenshots, original quality is XAVC 1080i. Begins with background, then she comes in from right. We need her to have black hair, or at least looking like black. Settle for ‘dark’ I guess, during the circumstances
https://welder80.byethost31.com/fotd_ss12/

[Tom Clasman]

Thanks for responding!

Oh, a Matte?
I’m rather new to AE so I may not know the nomenclature yet. I used to be on Vegas but trying the Adobe tools out now.

In trying to create this, a Matte, I’ve been adding a new layer on top of an existing footage – either solid or shape layer – and used the ellipse tool to create an ellipse which will constitute the ‘vignette’ shape. I run into alot of problems in doing so.
For example, the ellipse tool creates a solid shape with a solid edge. Not a gradual transition from transparent to black.
The only way I found to create a gradual ‘edge’ is to create a mask and draw an ellipse shape onto it, and use the mask controls to “feather” the shape edge. But if I do that, then the shape can’t be moved independently over the canvas.
And if I use a mask on a shape layer, then I can’t get the shape to blend onto the underlying layer.

That’s kindof where I get stuck and don’t know where else to look for a solution. I haven’t found anything immediately useful in the FX list either. I may be spoiled from Vegas too, because it is user friendly to the point of oversimplification sometimes. So, maybe I’m just going about this a totally wrong way.