#Flyerproc.Arexx Macro
11 messages in this thread
I tried using the Flyerproc.Arexx macro yesterday to create a Slow Motion clip.
After a bizillion attempts using every combination I could think of it worked!
I clicked my way into "FLYER A0:" when asked for a source clip, then only typed
the name of the clip in the requestor. Same for destination clip,only typing
"SloMoTest" in the requestor. Then 00:00,04:00, /2 and PRESTO!
It was however a shakey,faded,ugly clip. Not what I wanted and haven't tried it
since.
If you figure out how to get rid of the shakey,faded,ugly part let me know.
Regards, Charles
<<If you figure out how to get rid of the shakey,faded,ugly part let me know.>>
Actually when I have gotten SlowMo and Reverse to work, they have looked
wonderful. Probably depends on the nature of the original clip.
As I think about it, with /2-SloMo you are visually dropping from the
equivalent of 60 fields/sec to 30 fields/sec (15 frames/sec) since there is no
interpolation of the doubled fields. It's going to get jerkier the faster the
motion in the image.
I'd guess that few non-linear editors interpolate new frames when creating
SloMo. I'd like to know what other people have found in that area.
Seems like that the simplest way to deal with the jerkiness (Chuck-you out
there?) is to do a pseudo interpolation by combining two fields into one.
Frame by frame that would give every other frame a double-image/blurred look,
but on playback it would smooth out the jerk by providing a transitional image.
I recall something like this is used in TV cartoons.
I haven't noticed the clips looking faded, but I'll pay atention more closely
next time.
Tonight I'll try the macro out again per your comments. I may have just missed
that combination somehow during my own bazillion attempts.
thanks,
dean
I've founf that -all- the processed clips are not as sharp a the original. I
tried a backwards clip, same speed, and played it next to the original — no
contest. Is this inherent in the system or can it be improved?
I don't have a way to do side by side comparisons so I'll accept your
observations RE sharpness. (Too bad.)
Since it's all internal processing I very much doubt there's anything that
would improve it.
I suppose the field is being decompressed as it is read from disk and
recompressed as it's written back. Maybe in the future they'll implement a way
to copy the field directly rather than decompress/compress.
We've been told that recompressing a clip degrades it–fault of compression
technology, not the Flyer.
regards,
dean
Dean,
>"I don't have a way of doing side-by-side comparisons"
Why not make a project with a regular clip with processed clips? I haven't
tried this, but a clip processed with just a 1X command would give an identical
comparison…
<<side-by-side comparisons>>
I'll put that on my list.
-dean
Actually Dean, I ran a reverse and stuck it as a cut to clip after the original
clip and you couldn't tell that there was any change when the clips were run
forward followed by reverse. There was a match frame edit between the two that
was very clean.
Hank
Videology, Inc Where you always get P.O.M.P. and
Service under all circumstances
Hank,
I did the same test and the reverse clip was not as sharp and kind of "jerky"
looking. (?)
<<I ran a reverse and stuck it as a cut to clip after the original clip and you
couldn't tell that there was any change>>
Apples 'n oranges. To review what I said:
"when I have gotten SlowMo … to work, they have looked wonderful…. with
SloMo…It's going to get jerkier the faster the motion in the image."
And I might add, the slower the SloMo you invoke (/3, /4, etc) the jerkier it
will get.
regards,
dean
Charles,
I succeeded clicking where ever possible, and entering only the output clip
name and the operator.
I used -x1 for reverse and /2 for slo.mo.
It only seemed to work when I started with 00:00:00.
Hank
Videology, Inc Where you always get P.O.M.P. and
Service under all circumstances
Charles,
I have had far more luck running the FlyerProc from the shell. It works every
time.
Regards,
Gary