From: Reinhard A. <pr...@we...> - 2003-05-19 10:44:59
|
kde...@li... schrieb am 19.05.03 11:48:47: > > There is a third solution which I am thinking of, sort of a cross between > > the above two ideas, in which a transition would be 'drawn' across multiple > > tracks (I envisage it as a translucent blue rectangle spanning multuiple > > clips). This would have the advantage of allowing the transition to touch > > multiple tracks, but might be complicated to use, I am not sure yet. Maybe this could be done by a "Transition tool"? > I like this idea _very_ much. I think it would be pretty easy to use, and even > more intuitive than the usual "effect-track". Just make sure, that the tracks > and the shaded 'transition-overlay-rectangle' have nice mouse handles to > select/drag/resize them. > Okay, I like the idea too, but here comes just another idea. What you guys thinking about a "build-in transparency curve" for every clip? e.g.: starting with 2 clips in 2 separate tracks, slightly overlapping. Now select the two clips (or maybe _all_ clips you want to incorporate into this transition action), move the upper corner of the first clip to left - the upper corner of the other clip(s) should follow automatically - to create the transition. [advantage] It doesn't matter if the clips are located in ajacent tracks; just select them first. It's similar to the "fading audio clips into another" action. [DISADVANTAGE] Maybe it's hard to recognice which clips are involved within this transition. I'm not sure how to add a new clip to an existing transition. greetings Reinhard |
From: Jason W. <jw...@cl...> - 2003-05-19 13:03:03
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Reinhard Amersberger [mailto:pr...@we...] > kde...@li... schrieb am 19.05.03 11:48:47: > > > There is a third solution which I am thinking of, sort of > a cross between > > > the above two ideas, in which a transition would be > 'drawn' across multiple > > > tracks (I envisage it as a translucent blue rectangle > spanning multuiple > > > clips). This would have the advantage of allowing the > transition to touch > > > multiple tracks, but might be complicated to use, I am > not sure yet. > > Maybe this could be done by a "Transition tool"? Perhaps, although I dislike the idea of having a seperate tool in this instance - I think that transitions are almost as important as adding clips themselves to the timeline, and think a solution that allows both to be constructed with the same tool would be better. Another possibility would be dragging an item from a transition dialog onto the timeline, although from using premier, I find doing that a cumbersome method of editing. I am tempted by the idea that when one clip overlaps another, a transition would be automatically generated. For this to work, I would envisage that there would be an option on every track that said "auto-transition". Drag a clip to one track, a clip to a second track, and if they overlap, a default transition (probably crossfade, although it would be useful to let the user specify the transition that they want) would be added. One problem with this is that it would be quite easy to 'lose' a transition by accidentally dragging clips away from each other again. Of course, it would make it very easy to move clips around and try out different things :-) In this case, I wouldn't mind a transition tool, as it would be for those special cases where you don't want to auto-generate transitions, the most obvious examples being picture-in-picture and scrolling text. > > I like this idea _very_ much. I think it would be pretty > easy to use, and even > > more intuitive than the usual "effect-track". Just make > sure, that the tracks > > and the shaded 'transition-overlay-rectangle' have nice > mouse handles to > > select/drag/resize them. > > > > Okay, I like the idea too, but here comes just another idea. > > What you guys thinking about a "build-in transparency curve" > for every clip? > > e.g.: > starting with 2 clips in 2 separate tracks, slightly overlapping. > Now select the two clips (or maybe _all_ clips you want to > incorporate into this transition action), move the upper > corner of the first clip to left - the upper corner of the > other clip(s) should follow automatically - to create the transition. I am not sure that I understand what you mean - are to talking about the same sort of automatic transition creation I am talking about above? > > [advantage] > It doesn't matter if the clips are located in ajacent tracks; > just select them first. > It's similar to the "fading audio clips into another" action. > > > [DISADVANTAGE] > Maybe it's hard to recognice which clips are involved within > this transition. > I'm not sure how to add a new clip to an existing transition. Cheers, Jason |
From: <r....@t-...> - 2003-05-19 20:57:40
|
Am Montag, 19. Mai 2003 15:01 schrieb Jason Wood: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Reinhard Amersberger [mailto:pr...@we...] > > > > kde...@li... schrieb am 19.05.03 11:48:47: > > > > There is a third solution which I am thinking of, sort of > > > > a cross between > > > > > > the above two ideas, in which a transition would be > > > > 'drawn' across multiple > > > > > > tracks (I envisage it as a translucent blue rectangle > > > > spanning multuiple > > > > > > clips). This would have the advantage of allowing the > > > > transition to touch > > > > > > multiple tracks, but might be complicated to use, I am > > > > not sure yet. > > > > Maybe this could be done by a "Transition tool"? > > Perhaps, although I dislike the idea of having a seperate tool in this > instance - I think that transitions are almost as important as adding clips > themselves to the timeline, and think a solution that allows both to be > constructed with the same tool would be better. > > Another possibility would be dragging an item from a transition dialog onto > the timeline, although from using premier, I find doing that a cumbersome > method of editing. This is my opinion too, therefore I suggested having a transition tool. This was intended just to avoid dragging a transition item from somewhere to somewhere else. > I am tempted by the idea that when one clip overlaps another, a transition > would be automatically generated. For this to work, I would envisage that > there would be an option on every track that said "auto-transition". Drag a > clip to one track, a clip to a second track, and if they overlap, a default > transition (probably crossfade, although it would be useful to let the user > specify the transition that they want) would be added. One problem with > this is that it would be quite easy to 'lose' a transition by accidentally > dragging clips away from each other again. Of course, it would make it very > easy to move clips around and try out different things :-) > > In this case, I wouldn't mind a transition tool, as it would be for those > special cases where you don't want to auto-generate transitions, the most > obvious examples being picture-in-picture and scrolling text. > > > > I like this idea _very_ much. I think it would be pretty > > > > easy to use, and even > > > > > more intuitive than the usual "effect-track". Just make > > > > sure, that the tracks > > > > > and the shaded 'transition-overlay-rectangle' have nice > > > > mouse handles to > > > > > select/drag/resize them. > > > > Okay, I like the idea too, but here comes just another idea. > > > > What you guys thinking about a "build-in transparency curve" > > for every clip? > > > > e.g.: > > starting with 2 clips in 2 separate tracks, slightly overlapping. > > Now select the two clips (or maybe _all_ clips you want to > > incorporate into this transition action), move the upper > > corner of the first clip to left - the upper corner of the > > other clip(s) should follow automatically - to create the transition. > > I am not sure that I understand what you mean - are to talking about the > same sort of automatic transition creation I am talking about above? > Yes, I think we are talking about pretty much the same thing. But your auto-transition idea is a very good enhancement and much easier and faster as my suggestion, because everything is done automatically! :-) greetings Reinhard |
From: Reinhard A. <pr...@we...> - 2003-05-20 09:00:39
|
kde...@li... schrieb am 19.05.03 23:49:23: > > On Monday 19 May 2003 2:25 pm, Rolf Dubitzky wrote: > > > Video/Audio (like we currently do) to simplify the timeline. However in > > > this case, I would assume that the transition of sound and video would be > > > linked together? > > > > linked yes, but they will still be different things. for any transition > > between tracks you will have to specify a video and an audio transition. Of > > course tere can be some 'default' audio transition connected to any given > > video transition, but still there will be two objects connected to a > > transition, one audio, one video. > > Ok, I see what you mean. I am wondering though, if this is more a case of > prioritising having separate video/audio tracks? At the point where you want > to perform different transitions on video and audio, I wonder if it is less > confusing to treat them separately. > > Either way, I think the two transitions would be "merged" into one for the > timeline, and treated as a super video-audio transition in which you can > change the two transitions in the same way that you can change video/audio > codecs separately. Hhhmmm .... tell me if I'm wrong guys, but I think think it get's more and more confusing, because there are more and more sort of transitions like Video transition, audio transition, super transition, ...... I'm not sure if I was able to make it clear enough what I wanted when I was talking about "having a build-in transition for every clip"? .... probably not ;-)) My idea was to enhance the clip edges functionallity. Right now the clip edges performimg a simple "cut", when two clips snap together. And user can easily change the cut point by moving the clip edges. So why not simply moving the upper corners of a clip inside to create a slope edge. If Kdenlive detect an overlapping clip, then it could automatically create a linear transition. Isn't that pretty easy? > > Anoter thing is, even if you treat audio separet from video, the two tracks > > should still be locked (at least per default) so that if you move the audio > > part, the video gets moved synchronously. > > Of course :-) though there should also be the option to unlock them so that > you can use them asynchronously ;-) Sure. So, just to continue the upper example, when video and audio are unlocked and user moved the upper corner of the audio clip only, Kdenlive will create just a transition of both rollover audio clips. > > > I think that one addition that should be made to the transition picture > > > is that there should not necessarily be only a single variable that > > > changes within a transition - if we assume an audio/visual track for the > > > moment, and a crossfade transition, video could have it's own crossfade > > > 'red line', and audio could have it's own crossfade line. > > > > sure. in the separate dialog you can handle as many variables as you want, > > and there will be probably not only variables of type "double", which can > > be visualized as a "red line", but also of type "Color", "Point", "Box", > > etc.... > > You know, I'm itching to write the colour keyframe widget/track, but there's > so much other stuff that needs to be done first :-) Again, the edge is still there; can you use it to store the parameters? So later on it could be pictured as a curve when user don't want a linear transition, or he can change it to have a wipe effect or something alse. Furthermore ... incorporating a third track into a transition could be easy too, because user just have to put a clip on top of the timeline, move the upper left corner to the right side to create a slope edge. In this case it would be helpful to set the transparency of this clip by simply moving the top side of that clip down? I also still thinking about to handle such stuff without using the mouse: So if there would be a way to select a border of a clip, or of some clips, then it would be pretty easy to do some edit operations by using the arrows. Just some examples: [moving cut point between two snapped clips] Select the edges that snapped together and press the left arrow to move the cut one frame to left. [creating a fade] Select edge(s) user want to have a fade in/out , hold a key down so that Kdenlive is informed to create a fade action (maybe the 'ALT' key ?), and press the appropriate arrow in addition to create a fade of one frame. [creating a transition between two clips (maybe on different tracks)] Select the edges that should be involved into this transition and perform the 'transition-action' to create a transition between this clips. Please guys, tell me if I'm telling senseless stuff here, do I will stop my thoughts on that! greretings Reinhard |
From: Rolf D. <R.Dubitzky@Physik.Tu-Dresden.de> - 2003-05-20 09:08:32
|
On Tuesday 20 May 2003 11:00, Reinhard Amersberger wrote: > kde...@li... schrieb am 19.05.03 23:49:23: > Hhhmmm .... tell me if I'm wrong guys, but I think think it get's more and > more confusing, because there are more and more sort of transitions like > Video transition, audio transition, super transition, ...... I'm not sure > if I was able to make it clear enough what I wanted when I was talking > about "having a build-in transition for every clip"? .... probably not ;-)) Well, it's hard to 'talk' about GUI desgin. Could you maybe make a nice sketch which demonstrates what you mean? Maybe then I'll understand more clearly. Cheers, Rolf *************************************************************** Rolf Dubitzky http://hep.phy.tu-dresden.de/~dubitzky e-mail: Rolf.Dubitzky at Physik dot TU-Dresden dot de *************************************************************** |
From: Reinhard A. <pr...@we...> - 2003-05-20 09:37:29
|
kde...@li... schrieb am 20.05.03 11:09:18: > > On Tuesday 20 May 2003 11:00, Reinhard Amersberger wrote: > > kde...@li... schrieb am 19.05.03 23:49:23: > > > Hhhmmm .... tell me if I'm wrong guys, but I think think it get's more and > > more confusing, because there are more and more sort of transitions like > > Video transition, audio transition, super transition, ...... I'm not sure > > if I was able to make it clear enough what I wanted when I was talking > > about "having a build-in transition for every clip"? .... probably not ;-)) > > Well, it's hard to 'talk' about GUI desgin. Could you maybe make a nice sketch > which demonstrates what you mean? Maybe then I'll understand more clearly. > > Cheers, > Rolf Well, yesterday evening I made an attempt by using the gimp, but I failed since I'm not familiar with paint or graphic tools :-( Maybe it's a good idea to make a hand drawing, first ;-) But just for general ... my ideas are just a mix of different operation philosophys used by such applications like Vegas, Avid, Edit*, Sonar, Samplitude, ... Maybe you can check out some demo versions of this programs too? greetings Reinhard |
From: Jason W. <jw...@cl...> - 2003-05-20 09:40:42
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Reinhard Amersberger > Well, yesterday evening I made an attempt by using the gimp, > but I failed since I'm not familiar with paint or graphic tools :-( > > > Maybe it's a good idea to make a hand drawing, first ;-) If you have a scanner and squash the image down to 30-40K in size before you send it then it's worth it :-) Cheers, Jason |
From: Reinhard A. <pr...@we...> - 2003-05-20 14:15:46
|
kde...@li... schrieb am 20.05.03 13:33:20: > > On Tuesday 20 May 2003 13:15, Reinhard Amersberger wrote: > > Hi, > > > > it's not hand drawn, but here comes what I have done so far ;-) > > > > It shows an fade-in at the begin of the show, > > Fade in from what? In this case it should fade from black, since there is no other clip to fade from. > > followed by a simple cut with > > selected edges that could be moved using the arrows, > > ok. > > > then comes a picture > > in picture transition and finally a normal transition from one clip into > > another. > > This looks pretty much like the picture I have draw (which was in principle > what Jason suggested and had draw a while ago) only that I find it pretty > hard to see where the transition really starts/stops. also it will be > difficult to see which tracks are involved as soon as there is anoter track > in your example. What is the benefit your suggestion has over mine? All I can > tell is that I have an additional blue shaded box and mouse handles. Am I > missing something? You are right, the graphical presentation is not very good and could be done like in your picture, but the benefit is (IMHO) that there is no need do drag some kind of transition items to the timeline .... just move one of the upper corners of one of the involved clips to create a transition. greetings Reinhard |
From: Rolf D. <R.Dubitzky@Physik.Tu-Dresden.de> - 2003-05-20 14:39:28
|
On Tuesday 20 May 2003 16:15, Reinhard Amersberger wrote: > kde...@li... schrieb am 20.05.03 13:33:20: > You are right, the graphical presentation is not very good and could be > done like in your picture, but the benefit is (IMHO) that there is no need > do drag some kind of transition items to the timeline .... just move one of > the upper corners of one of the involved clips to create a transition. Ok, I understand. So basicly what you and Jason are suggesting is, that whereever two clips in (adjacent?) tracks are overlapping in time, a default transition is automatically created. The transition type can be changed afterwards in the transition dialog. Right? Sounds pretty good. (If I got it right) > > > greetings > Reinhard > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore. > If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a > relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. > Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge > _______________________________________________ > Kdenlive-devel mailing list > Kde...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kdenlive-devel -- Cheers, Rolf *************************************************************** Rolf Dubitzky http://hep.phy.tu-dresden.de/~dubitzky e-mail: Rolf.Dubitzky at Physik dot TU-Dresden dot de *************************************************************** |
From: Reinhard A. <pr...@we...> - 2003-05-21 21:01:18
|
kde...@li... schrieb am 20.05.03 16:40:20: > > On Tuesday 20 May 2003 16:15, Reinhard Amersberger wrote: > > kde...@li... schrieb am 20.05.03 13:33:20: > > You are right, the graphical presentation is not very good and could be > > done like in your picture, but the benefit is (IMHO) that there is no need > > do drag some kind of transition items to the timeline .... just move one of > > the upper corners of one of the involved clips to create a transition. > > Ok, I understand. So basicly what you and Jason are suggesting is, that > whereever two clips in (adjacent?) Not necessarily. But it's very important to point out which clips are involved in this transition, when clips are not placed in adjacent tracks (Maybe by a (dotted) line?). > tracks are overlapping in time, a default > transition is automatically created. Right. > The transition type can be changed > afterwards in the transition dialog. Right? Yes. > Sounds pretty good. I agree with that ;-) greetings Reinhard |
From: Rolf D. <R.Dubitzky@Physik.Tu-Dresden.de> - 2003-05-19 11:42:43
Attachments:
transition.png
|
What I think of looks something like the attached pic. Whatever it will look like in the end. There are some important features we should not miss: - easy to see at which frame the effect starts/stops - easy to see which tracks are actually involved in the effect. - if the effect is a transition, it must be clearly visible if the direction is the right one (A->B or B->A) - easy to select the transition object. if the effects is selected, the should be a dialog embedded somewhere to change the transition parameters. - easy to move/resize the transition, i.e. there need to be mouse handles and/or the mouse cursor must indicate that the tarnsition will be modified with the following mouse action. - if possible, show which kind of effect (name) In the example I gave in the attached pic you can even modify the effect if you drag the red handles of the effect line. This is possible with audio in MovieDVPro and I like the feature pretty much, but it would be sufficient to present such a line in a separate dialog in case the effect is selected. And before we thnk about three track effects, there is something much more important and maybe difficult. We need to think about how to visualize the audi part of the track. We need to visualize a transition there too. This is seperate to the video transition. Also the cut might be at a different place. A veary simple and common kind of cut is, to show video A and fade in sound from track B for a while. After a few seconds, switch the video from A to B to. That is a simple and powerfull way to soften rough cuts and I think it would be nice to have this possibility in kdenlive. Cheers, Rolf *************************************************************** Rolf Dubitzky http://hep.phy.tu-dresden.de/~dubitzky e-mail: Rolf.Dubitzky at Physik dot TU-Dresden dot de *************************************************************** |