Latest post Sat, Sep 13 2014 10:39 AM by Job ter Burg. 84 replies.
Page 1 of 6 (85 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Sat, Feb 1 2014 4:50 AM

    • drbgaijin
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005
    • Kumamoto, Japan
    • Posts 6,836
    • Points 85,770

    Your views on Frameflex, please

    I have been unable to find any scenario where I would find that using Frameflex would be simpler or easier than using tools already available to Avid editors through the many AVX filters.

    I have a plan to make a short tutorial that will touch the alternative ways of achieving "frameflex-like" effects.
    However, before I go ahead, I would like to hear from:

    1. Those of you who use Frameflex. Please describe what you are using it for.

    2. Those of you who are thinking of using Frameflex. Please describe what you are planning to use it for.

    3. Those of you who have tried Frameflex and then put it aside. Please describe what reasons you had for "abandoning" it

    Thank you, in advance, for your comments.

    Regards

    Douglas

    System 1:Edius Workgroup 8, AMC 6.5.4.5, - Windows [view my complete system specs]
  • Sat, Feb 1 2014 9:20 AM In reply to

    • mjolnarn
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Feb 8 2006
    • Sweden
    • Posts 13,344
    • Points 159,255

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    Using it currently mostly for stills Douglas, and fast turnarounds together with the mouse alt dragging feature introduced with MC 7.

    If you plan to do movements like fe panning and scanning there still seems to be some developemenys needed, I use BCC for that, but for fast turnarounds it works fast and well for me.

    Remember to add MI and MO in the source viewer if you need handles, I sometimes forget that, also trimming to a longer clip doesn´t seem to work, you need to replace it from the source viewer from what I have seen, maybe there is a better way but I haven´t examined as replace goes fast for me.

    Mac: 17" Macbook Pro i7 2,66 ghz with 8Gb Ram, 500gb 7200rpm drive___ PC_NEW Win10 Pro Mbo Asus Rampage IV Black CPU Ivy Bridge-E 4960X ( = 12 x 4... [view my complete system specs]

    Tomas 

     

  • Sat, Feb 1 2014 9:27 AM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    drbgaijin:
    I would like to hear
    Hi Douglas, this might be of interest to you: http://24p.com/wordpress/?p=154

    Media Composer /w Symphony option | PT-HD | Win7Pro64 HP | OSX MBP | ISIS5000 | Nitris DX | Artist Mix & Transport & Color | AJA T-Tap | Decklink... [view my complete system specs]
  • Sat, Feb 1 2014 12:16 PM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    Use it as a replacement for the seriously unreliable Pan & Zoom.

    If we can use tools within MC we have far less issues with freelance editors and their experience or lack of with other methods.

    Works well with RAW footage that has greater than HD resolution and re-framing of wide shots.

    ACI Moderator. I'm not employed by Avid or work for them. I just do this in my spare time. Symphony V8.6 / 8.3.1 HP Z400 system [view my complete system specs]

     

    Broadcast & Post Production Consultant / Trainer  VET

     

    T 07581 201248 | E pat@vet.co.uk | W www.vet.co.uk |


    Media Composer V8.2 Review Background Render

    -

    Follow me on Twitter Pat_H_VET

    Filed under:
  • Sat, Feb 1 2014 12:19 PM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    Pat Horridge:
    Works well with RAW footage that has greater than HD resolution and re-framing of wide shots.
    Read Michael P's blog about that? Not as transparent as you'd expect, or so it seems.

    Media Composer /w Symphony option | PT-HD | Win7Pro64 HP | OSX MBP | ISIS5000 | Nitris DX | Artist Mix & Transport & Color | AJA T-Tap | Decklink... [view my complete system specs]
  • Sat, Feb 1 2014 10:05 PM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    Maybe I have not explored FrameFlex as much as I should but From my experience with it I want far more control over when it gets automatically applied!  Or at the very least a one button for removing FameFlex. For me having not found either of these functions in MY workflows FrameFlex is currently a major PITA.

    For the decade plus I have used Avid's P&Z I have never had a functionality issue with it. But like all video effects, different images sometimes require different treatments (other suppliers P&Z functions) to get the you the best results. 

    So IMO, if you use a lot af image resizing, it pays to learn the strengths and weaknesses for all of your options.

  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 2:01 AM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    Douglas,

    I may be wrong, but I don't believe there is an alternative for resizing larger than HD video and keeping full quality. That goes for both using any of MC's other built in tools or third party tools.

    MC 8.2, AvidFX 6.4, BCC 8.2, Squeeze 8.1, QT 7.7.3, Nvidia driver 310.90, Window 7 Professional 64-bit SP1, IE9. Quadro 2000 and 600 videocards (three... [view my complete system specs]

    "When I spent 60k on a discreet edit digisuite system 10 years ago someone came up to me to offer fcp 2, I said it was a scam too." -Ric

  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 2:42 AM In reply to

    • jef
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on Sun, Feb 26 2006
    • Maryland
    • Posts 3,069
    • Points 37,190

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    Frameflex is MUCH too limited in it's scope.  What is needed is a full featured DVE like tool that is resolution independent in all directions.  A 3D Warp without restrictions.

    First problem.  It is not an effect in the normal effect tab.  The fact that it is "automatically" applied and there is not a unique icon telling you that it has been is a time waster on a big timeline.  The green dot has become overused.

    Second problem, it does not work well when uprezing footage.  It seems limited to taking larger than raster and reducing / reframeing to raster size.

    Third, no rotation.

    Fourth, no choice of filters.  Not all images perform the best with only one filter choice.

    Fifth, no Avid DNx at larger than  HD sizes.  This does impact Frameflex's usefulness.

    Sixth, as said before, limited tool set.  Avid had a product to look for on how to implement this.  They killed it.  Avid DS.

    Thanks for asking Douglas.

    Jef

     

    Avid DS 11.0.2 R.I.P | MC 8.4.5 / 8.5.2 | OS 10.10.x / OS Yosemite - various MacPro Towers - home system MacPro Dual 2.8 8core GTX680 "Harpertown"... [view my complete system specs]

    _____________________________________________

    Jef Huey

    Senior Editor

    New Stuff  http://vimeo.com/album/3037796

  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 6:48 AM In reply to

    • drbgaijin
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005
    • Kumamoto, Japan
    • Posts 6,836
    • Points 85,770

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    Thank you for the replies, so far

    One reason that I am asking is because I, like some others, am not really sure how useful Frameflex really is in its present form.
    To me it seems like yet another "work in progress" that Avid seems to throw out from time to time.

    Since Frameflex popped up, I have been curious as to what it could be used for that cannot already be done.

    Using it as an alternative to PnZ on stills?  Well yes and mainly no. Avid FX can not only manipulate a large still, quicker and with more parameter controls than frameflex can do, it can also add from a full range of effects in the same compositing session.

    As to zooming and panning on a 4K movie clip - Yes! Avid FX can do that too!

    Today I got hold of a "4K" prores clip.  It was a few pixels short of full 4K, but close enough.

    I brought it into Avid FX. My Avid FX project was 1920x1080, so the 4K clip was approx. double that when it was present at 100%

    By reducing the scale by to 50% I had the full 4Kclip showing in my 1920x1080 Composite window. I could then zoom in to 100%, still keeping the quality of the 4K clip. Zooming further would, of course, result in deterioration of the sharpness.

    I also tested an effect while I was in Avid FX.

    The result of my little, non technical test, is shown at the link below.

    Please take into account that my video is only encoded at 1500Kbps, which is nowhere near high enough to show the full quality. Also the tearing which you might see is due to the limitations of Camtasia Studio when recording screen captures.
    But, Yes you can pan and zoom in 4K footage, in Avid via Avid FX.

    Here is the Test Clip

    Regards

    Douglas

    PS. I would still like to hear more about how you are using Frameflex.
    So far I have not heard any convincing reasons for trying to get to grips with it.

     

    System 1:Edius Workgroup 8, AMC 6.5.4.5, - Windows [view my complete system specs]
  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 2:25 PM In reply to

    • jef
    • Top 50 Contributor
    • Joined on Sun, Feb 26 2006
    • Maryland
    • Posts 3,069
    • Points 37,190

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    drbgaijin:

    So far I have not heard any convincing reasons for trying to get to grips with it.

    The one use I feel it does have is if you are presented with a large amount of larger than HD material that you wish to reduce to HD size while adding a LUT (or not).  Doing this as a batch process is fine.

    I have one client who is planning on reducing a 4k interview to HD size and again not quite as much.  Then he will have 2 different framings ready to cut multicam style.  Not a bad idea.

    Jef

    Avid DS 11.0.2 R.I.P | MC 8.4.5 / 8.5.2 | OS 10.10.x / OS Yosemite - various MacPro Towers - home system MacPro Dual 2.8 8core GTX680 "Harpertown"... [view my complete system specs]

    _____________________________________________

    Jef Huey

    Senior Editor

    New Stuff  http://vimeo.com/album/3037796

  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 2:55 PM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    I have been pretty vocal about my criticisms of frameflex. 

    Frameflex is designed to be set on masterclips, before placing a shot into the edit.  There are several problems with this:

    1) re-framing often occurs on the timeline, in order to match to other shots or be creative with the edit once it has progressed a bit.  Rarely will the editor have the knowledge of framing before he even inserts the shot. Even worse - reframing on the timeline is entirely possible (and indeed done in Avid's own marketing demo), but this can result in errors such as losing the exact framing, when transcodes are done with 'apply transformations' on. In short: if you do any timeline FF moves at alll, avoid the 'apply transformations' in any transcode at any time.  I know, you'd only use this at the end of your edit, in order to preserve quality and void any future editing of the framing, but if you've done any FF manipulation via timeline THIS IS BROKEN.  If you need to preserve your timefline FF maneuvers with full quality, do a video mixdown of the area in question.  Save yourself the potential headache.

    2) Going back to the design of frameflex being tied to masterclip source settings:  Due to this design you can only have 1 frameflex setting per clip.  This means we cannot adjust for long takes, or takes that could be split up by different frameing. There are examples on this forum where users have tried to re-adjust source settings multiple times, in order to get different frameing for shots with have multiple instances on the timeline (but still not touching frameflex via the timeline), and still witnessing with horror as all their framing is lost on transcoding.  For example: an OTS shot, where the shot gets slightly tighter and tighter as the conversation progresses; this is a good example of how frameflex COULD have been useful -- but it falls part all because it's the same shot, and FF can only handle 1 framing per shot. 

     

    In conclusion, so long as you keep your AMA media online, frameflex will allow you the wonderful playground -- skirting around all these rules without any consequences.  However, once you try to transcode/archive your sequence, it will break apart.  So... for someone who works at an online facility that receives work from all kinds of editors, we've become too paranoid to wonder exactly how/when the editor used frameflex.  We must do a video mixdown of all frameflex shots, just in case the final transcode screws it up.

     

    Edit: To further answer your questions Douglas, here's more:

    - I initially used frameflex to create a series of "ken burns' effects on my pictures.  When transcoding my sequence (a final archive) I noticed that most of my pictures looked 'softer' then the originals.  At this point I chalked it up to the codec I was rendering to (AVC100), but I learned later that this was the result of using frameflex on the timeline:  transcoding will turn timeline FF moves into just another DVE effect, which was now only utlizing a 1080p image, not the full rez of my AMA material (even tough I was 'applying transformations' - which I thought would eliminate the abliity to further edit, but retail full quality... NOT the case with timeline FF moves). In order to maintain the full quality of my timeline FF material, I had to stay connected to the AMA files.  That's the same as using the pan-and-zoom effect...so...frameflex became rather redundant in that scenario.

    - I later used it on 4K RED material.  Again, due to the nature of my projects, it involved a lot of 'animated' frameflex moves - zooming/panning/etc.  Once again, on a last/final transcode to DNx444, many of the FF shots looked softer.  Same reason as the case above.

    - I honestly have yet to inherit a project where I could safety set the FF parameters in the source settings (somehow magically knowing exactly how I'd frame the shot before the edit even started), and then not have to touch it again, and end up with a proper quality transcode on the final archive.  I know it can be achieved in theory, I just haven't run into a project that used 2K or 4K material and yet was compatible with the severely narrow band of frameflex as it exists today. 

     

    In case you're wondering why I inherently break these frameflex rules so much -- it's because literally every other NLE has its own version of frameflex with is without these problems:  FCP7/X and Premiere Pro have the generic "motion" tab, which does everything that FF does, along with Z axis too, and Grassvalley Edius has the 'layouter' -- exactly same concept as FF, except it also has z-axis rotation.  So, you could say that I've been conditioned to have this freedom.  I'm looking "in" from outside the Avid paradign walls, and so I'm just calling it as I see it.

    Home: 2012 rMBP 2.6ghz, 16GB RAM, OSX 10.10.5, MC 8.4.1 || Work: HP Z400, Win7 Professional, MC 6.5, ISIS/Interplay @danielfrome on twitter [view my complete system specs]

    Avid GoPro

  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 6:24 PM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    drbgaijin:
    Today I got hold of a "4K" prores clip.  It was a few pixels short of full 4K, but close enough.

    I brought it into Avid FX. My Avid FX project was 1920x1080, so the 4K clip was approx. double that when it was present at 100%

    By reducing the scale by to 50% I had the full 4Kclip showing in my 1920x1080 Composite window. I could then zoom in to 100%, still keeping the quality of the 4K clip. Zooming further would, of course, result in deterioration of the sharpness.

    Hi Douglas, may I ask, are you doing this in AvidFX standalone or launching from inside MC? Thanks.

    MC 8.2, AvidFX 6.4, BCC 8.2, Squeeze 8.1, QT 7.7.3, Nvidia driver 310.90, Window 7 Professional 64-bit SP1, IE9. Quadro 2000 and 600 videocards (three... [view my complete system specs]

    "When I spent 60k on a discreet edit digisuite system 10 years ago someone came up to me to offer fcp 2, I said it was a scam too." -Ric

  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 8:59 PM In reply to

    • drbgaijin
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005
    • Kumamoto, Japan
    • Posts 6,836
    • Points 85,770

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    BobbyMurcerFan:
    Hi Douglas, may I ask, are you doing this in AvidFX standalone or launching from inside MC? Thanks.

    From inside MC, BMF

    Regards

    Douglas

    System 1:Edius Workgroup 8, AMC 6.5.4.5, - Windows [view my complete system specs]
  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 9:40 PM In reply to

    • drbgaijin
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Nov 4 2005
    • Kumamoto, Japan
    • Posts 6,836
    • Points 85,770

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    BobbyMurcerFan:
    Hi Douglas, may I ask, are you doing this in AvidFX standalone or launching from inside MC? Thanks.

    BMF,

    Have you watched this explanatory Tutorial in which I talk about the relationship between the standalone version of Avid FX and the one from inside of MC?
    The relevant part starts around 5:50

    Regards

    Douglas

    System 1:Edius Workgroup 8, AMC 6.5.4.5, - Windows [view my complete system specs]
  • Sun, Feb 2 2014 9:53 PM In reply to

    Re: Your views on Frameflex, please

    If you are right Douglas (and being very familiar with your work, I bet you are!) then one has to wonder if Avid was aware that this functionality already existed inside AvidFX?

     

    P.S. The reason why I asked was that I thought effects launched inside MC used MC as a video frame server, which would limit the effects' source resolution to the maximum of MC's resolution. Now I am aware that Boris has some effects that allow you to designate a source file, thereby bypassing MC, but I thought that those only worked for still files. And I thought that (on the PC anyway) AvidFX needs to use MC as frame server for QT files b/c it can't read the 32-bit QT wrapper.

    I should wait until I'm in front of my Avid before all this, LOL!

    MC 8.2, AvidFX 6.4, BCC 8.2, Squeeze 8.1, QT 7.7.3, Nvidia driver 310.90, Window 7 Professional 64-bit SP1, IE9. Quadro 2000 and 600 videocards (three... [view my complete system specs]

    "When I spent 60k on a discreet edit digisuite system 10 years ago someone came up to me to offer fcp 2, I said it was a scam too." -Ric

Page 1 of 6 (85 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »

© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc.  Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Find a Reseller