Danno wrote: Thanks Tom. So there are instances throughout the multicam clip that require a specific effect. Would you suggest re-cutting those segments in the angle editor and applying the effect to only it to prevent it from showing up each time that angle is selected? Just seems like a lot to have to do.
If you require this effect just in a particular place, use the blade tool inside the Angle Editor and apply the effect there.
If you need it in several places, there is an easier alternative: create a duplicate of the angle, and apply the effect.
Then you just switch to the appropriate angle (the one WITH or the one WITHOUT).
Note: you can do this in the Angle Editor even after the multicam has been cut in your timeline, no problem.
Click the little downpointing arrow, choose "Add Angle", then hold down the shift (to prevent losing sync) and option (to duplicate) keys and drag the contents of the existing angle to the new one.
Karsten Schlüter wrote: … needed a while to understand what are you doing, but indeed:
in the Project, I scale (while the 4k track is selected) to 50% = all happy
in the Project, I checkON the BW-effect = … frame shrunk
Karsten, as I tried to explain, the "all happy" behavior is, in fact, a bug
That is because you are NOT scaling the 4K clip; you are scaling the 1080p angle.
A scaled down 1080 clip should not fill a 1080 frame, but leave black around it...
as it does when the Black and White effect is applied.
Danno wrote: Remember, spatial conform has been set to "none" on the 4K clip prior to creating the multicam clip which is why we can scale. Leaving it on fit will have the affect that you described.
Karsten, so your upscale of the 1080 to 4k is lossless? I saw you posted this in another thread.
Spatial Conform affects how the contents of the 4K clip scale in the 1080 frame of the multicam angle.
(Basically it affects the scale factor: "None" and scale to 50% equals "Fit" and scale to 100%, since the 4K is exactly twice as wide and twice as tall as 1080p)
It does not change the fact that whatever material is outside the frame will be (should be!) invisible.
Danno wrote: … Karsten, so your upscale of the 1080 to 4k is lossless? I saw you posted this in another thread.
May I remind, that MCs are just 'virtual clips'? Just some 'entanglement' of participating clips.
I do NOT upscale, when putting my 1080 into a 4k MC, which finally is used in a 1080 project…
create a 4k MC, add a track#1 1080 and a track#2 4k clip.
put it into a 1080 Project
when you switch to Angle#1 - no scaling, just a 1080 in a 1080 timeline
when you switch to Angle#2 - scaling: 4k fit into a 1080 timeline. BUT the Inspector says 100% - which is true for the MC, not true what you see: you can zoom-in 200% = no quality loss, just pixel-per-pixel …
and applying the b/w filter to that 4kMC has no effect on scaling, framing, whatsoever.
But… when I scale that MC to 200% AND select Angle#1 - then, indeed, I upscale and lose quality, because I zoom-into a 1080 clip by 200%…
No, I'm stubborn - prefer my AllMax-settings method on MCs, compared to Master Jordans recommendation.
When you activate the Transform tool, you see the usual rectangle with the blue dots. This shows you the extent of the clip. What is visible in the viewer is by definition the intersection of this rectangle with the project frame. This is routine stuff, but to make it clearer I add a little picture.
This is just a clip on a project timeline, scaled and moved in the frame.
No one would argue that there should be any visible content *outside* the white rectangle with the blue dots, right?
Now look at the first image I posted in this thread and you see that there are visible pixels *outside* the limits of the clip.
This is WRONG. These pixels belong to the original 4K clip, of course; but they are *outside* the bounds of the multicam clip, as the image distinctly shows.
lichinho wrote: I stand by my claim that it's a bug.
… These pixels belong to the original 4K clip, of course; but they are *outside* the bounds of the multicam clip, as the image distinctly shows.
(I LOVE those discussions!! )
… but I'm afraid, it's intentional - have a look at my 'beloved' compounds (a MC is a compound… basically)
I stapled 4 stills into a project, all with material 'outside' the Projects boundaries…
Then -you wouldn't believe it! -I make this a Compound.
Now shrink that … scale, 50% - tadahh! - extra beef appears ALTHOUGH the blue-dots are 'within' the frame!
Now apply to THAT a b/w filter:
sooo, the corner-dots show the size of a compound (aka MC).
NOT the boundaries of content within that compound.
Theoretically, you can put content completely outside the visible area of the clip! … what we frequently do - in Motion, when objects fly into scene… or, even in FCPX when keyframing clips outside the visible area…
Just imagine for a second: if the compound/MC-clips boundaries would show its innards arrangements, _I_ would get lost in the hierarchy: I couldn't grab the clip at its corners… there are dots flying around, and I wouldn't know to which content they belong.
… some 'Show Full View Area' would be nice in FCPX, as it exists in Motion…
Tried it; looks like you're right. Guess I'm the stubborn one; There's no way I look forward to starting this project over to get all my cuts. May have to go with the previous post about making those cuts in the angle editor to add the effects and remember this flow for the next project.
What other benefits have you experienced creating your multicams this way vs. the LJ approach?
Also I want to confirm, you did this with spatial conform left at "fit" on the clip before creating your multicam correct? Rather than scaling the multicam up to 200% I changed "fit" to "none" on the multicam clip after it was on the timeline. looks like it has the same affect.
Danno wrote: … What other benefits have you experienced creating your multicams this way vs. the LJ approach?….
… strengthening my self-awareness ("I know better than Larry")??
My 'AllMax'-method (™ pending…) keeps the resolution and frame-rates. Allowing lossless reframing and retiming.
I'm doing/did weekly football-reports for my son, involving all sorts of cameras =me hobbyist, shoestring budget, mixing all sorts of formats, 720 to 4k, 25 to 60fps, and my workflow is: bundle all recordings from all angles/cams in one MC; edit the games highlights (calling that TVtruck-editing: while playing the clip hit 1,2,3,4,5,6 to switch angles); then create 'effects' such as reframing (=only one cam manned) e.g. 'pans' to follow the ball, zoom into the action; and retiming (slowmo) …
ok, I have to 'know' which angle has a res beyond 1080 or offers 50, 60fps … a) I do, b) you notice instantly: pic gets blurred or my custom keyboard-short-cut ctrl-shift-G (Geschwindigkeit=speed) for 'Automatic Speed' has no effect.
Never cared for fit/fill/none … I need all sources 'full screen', zoom-in al gusto…
I guess, that should be stressed:
This is ONE option to handle mixed formats. I don't claim it is the 'best'. Found out while experimenting to streamline my workflow… Fits my needs best.
Reading through this thread I think I'm having the same problem or, at least, a related problem. And part of it definitely seems to be a bug.
My footage is 25p 3840x2160.
The final project will be exported at 25p 1080p.
• I made multicam clips and I've put them in my 1080p project timeline.
• I select the multicam clip (in the timeline) and change it's spacial conform to "none."
• I then reduce the size of the clip to 50%
• When I want to "punch in" I'll blade the clip I want to be zoomed in and change the zoom to something between 50% and 100%.
The problem is that the angle viewer goes a bit nuts when I do this. It either shows a cropped version of the angle OR (and this must be a bug) a distorted Spike Jonze HomePod advert version of the clip (see pictures)
EDIT: nothing I do seems to be able to get these images to show so here are the links:
The only thing I've found that may be the problem is that I found an article where Larry Jordan tells me you must set spacial conform to "none" on the clips before you multicam them. I don't know whether this would have made a difference though.
I've gone into the multicam clip and selected each clip separately and set them to spacial-conform: none individually but it hasn't made a difference.
Regardless, this might be a good time to ask whether I'm tackling the 4k in a 1080p timeline right? Is this the "correct" way to punch in?
ps this is proxy footage I'm working with. All in 4k though.