Even with the latest verision 2019.11 theres still no vertical justification, no alignment frame left, right, top, bottom like the "old" tool, and plain white text STILL has an outline to it, when edge is not enabled. 

Despite the best intentions of Customer Care, I can only imagine the promised Titler + documentation/user manual/video tips et al is taking so long because the title SW is too wonky and, more importantly, unfinished. With the approaching holidays...who knows. 

How hard (relatively) would it have ben to port/recode ye olde Title Tool to 4K/resolution independence? For the time being I've stopped trying to use Titler + for more than a straight-up lower third - bad news when creating titles in Photoshop is faster, and better, than Avid's built-in title app.

bonang:

How hard (relatively) would it have ben to port/recode ye olde Title Tool to 4K/resolution independence?

  +1 

I've been wondering about this, too.   Just gives us the tried and true Title Tool in 4K.  It may not have been the slickest and prettiest, but for simple graphics it was fast, easy and efficient.

bonang:

creating titles in Photoshop is faster, and better, than Avid's built-in title app.

Same experience here.

There were several bug fixes to Titler+ in 2019.11 - anyone give that a try?

bonang:

Despite the best intentions of Customer Care, I can only imagine the promised Titler + documentation/user manual/video tips et al is taking so long because the title SW is too wonky and, more importantly, unfinished. With the approaching holidays...who knows. 

I published a short cheat sheet over in the other TItler+ thread (here's the post: http://community.avid.com/forums/p/197433/888335.aspx#888335). Terry's already given it a good try. See his post here: http://community.avid.com/forums/p/197433/888697.aspx#888697.

BarkinMadd:

There were several bug fixes to Titler+ in 2019.11 - anyone give that a try?

I have, and it's getting incrementally better. The problem is it's incremental, not major jump-for-joy type changes.

Frankly, if I were product management, I'd be fixing Marquee to make it resolution independent. I think it would have been a better use of resources. But that's me and my humble opinion.

 

 

DStone:

Frankly, if I were product management, I'd be fixing Marquee to make it resolution independent. I think it would have been a better use of resources.

4K Marquee would be great.   Even a 4K Title Tool would be light years better than Titler+.

Makes me wonder if Avid and NewBlue have some kind of secret deal where Avid no longer supplies a built-in titler and pushes users to NewBlue...the wonky Titler+ being just enough to say they are still including a titler while not really providing anything of use.

 

DStone:

I'd be fixing Marquee to make it resolution independent.

Probably not possible as Avid brought Marquee. It was almost as old as MC and a very expensive program even by software prices way back then.

Marquee appeared to have been purchased to give MC and Avid DV Pro an advantage over the then relatively new Apple NLE competitor Final Cut. Within months Apple added a "modern" interfaced graphics  program that was fast with lots of glitzy features for Final Cut.

Avid almost immediately appeared to lose all interest in developing Marquee.  This was possibly because they never employed many, if any, of the Marquee design team.  20 years later I think reworking Marquee would have been impossible. 

Studying Marquee's features and functions combined with talking with grass roots editors who regularly use the Title Tool and Marquee (as apposed to those being supplied with titles by a graphics department) might have been a far better place to set the design parameters for the new Title Tool + in my opinion. 

FWIW Photoshop and Fusion are now my go to options. 

Alayne

Alayne Holmes:

e.  This was possibly because they never employed many, if any, of the Marquee design team.  20 years later I think reworking Marquee would have been impossible. 

I'm a software developer (a very long time developer, about 50 years) and even 20 years ago it was still pretty much standard to define a bunch of constants which dictated the limits of things. This could literally be as simple as changing a couple of constants from 1920 & 1080 (or whatever they're set to currently) to 4096 & 2048 and recompiling the code.

One thing I like to do is play around with things to try and make them work. So I played around with Marquee and got a 4K title out of it. Here's a link to the post: http://community.avid.com/forums/p/198410/888832.aspx#888832

Titler+ is simply a disaster.   Let me count (some) of the ways:

1.  It's unstable.  If you select the text and right justify it, the next time you click on the bounding box, the text moves to part way inside and partway outside the bounding box.  

2.  I have a fairly powerful machine (higher than the Avid specs) and if I don't render the titles, I get stuttering and playback issues.  If this is supposed to be used in higher res project, shouldnt it play in higher res projects?  There's also no way to lower that resolution.

3.  I am working on a project which is being finished in Resolve.  I can't export the titles in an aaf because Resolve won't read them and will spit out error messages.  This means I have to go back and redo all of my titles in Photoshop and replace them.

4.  You can't name the titles.  It's just called "filler."  So if I wanted to search for a specific title, I either have to put a marker on it (I already have enough markers) OR use a Photoshopfile.  (and yes, you could name them in the old title tool.  I did it all the time.)

5.  It opens not one but TWO things: the titler+ and the effect editor.  But when you click off the title, it doesn't always close the effect editor. Why couldnt those parameters ben in the Titler+ effect box.

6.  There is no way to to leading. If you want spacing in a multi-line title you have to create more than one box. and group them.  It's very inefficient.

7.  It doesnt always save the title.  I've changed the color of a title.  Gone out of it and gone back in and when I clicked on the bounding box, the title changed back to white.

8.  Don't get me started on rolling credits.

9.  When you click on the T+ button, even though you have the title selected, it will jump to another thing like my timecode burn-in track.

This may be ok for something like a documentary or lower third but it is woefully inadequate for anything else.

I could go on and on.  I'm just having power through because this project is almost done but Titler+ isn't helping.

Samincanada - this is a good list - something for product management to take into account, I hope.

I'm not overly found of the dual windows of the UI but I could work with it if the specialty control UI could be docked (at least then I could setup a dedicated workspace for titling).

I miss the fact that you can't access the title's alpha channel (or at least matte) so that you could blend it with other effects (just to add to samincanada's list which I totally agree with).

samincanada:

6.  There is no way to to leading. If you want spacing in a multi-line title you have to create more than one box. and group them.  It's very inefficient.

You can do it in the Effect Editor, not in the T+ window. But it doesn't quite work right for me and led to weird text formatting issues.

 

Working it in MC2020.5  Titler+(I believe “Frustration” is what the + sign refers to) is astonishingly NOT AVIDesque.  Not to detail all of its obvious interface .. issues, I put a hold keyframe into a roll and the shadow filled with video snow. Really.  Disableing Roll effect and messing with the shadow had no impact on turning the snow back into black. Never saw anything like that in ye olde Title Tool.

More like Titler +%!#@* 

For quick and dirty titles the good old Title tool was much better than this bloatware replacement. Couldn't we ask for a simple Title tool port to 64 bit and a 4k upgrade over the features request forum or via the ACA? Or else, since the Title tool Is abandonware, can Avid donate the source code to the community, so that further development can take place in an open source fashion?