From: Wayne <sha...@uk...> - 2007-11-17 08:05:47
|
Is there a way to create a slideshow clip using only crossfade but without Luma? Whenever I create a slide show clip by checking the crossfade box, the resulting effect always includes one of the Luma transitions. When I edit the slide show, to check, sure enough the Luma box is checked. Is this by design? Is the crossfade effect one of the Luma transitions? Why do they have 2 separate checkboxes? Just wondering. Thanks, Wayne Maeda Kdenlive 0.5 Mandriva 2008 |
From: <lis...@fr...> - 2007-11-17 15:11:42
|
I made for myself a 2008.0 rpm : http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Kdenlive/Getting_and_installing#Mandriva Hope it helps José |
From: Jose J. <lis...@fr...> - 2007-11-17 08:12:30
|
Wayne a écrit : > Is there a way to create a slideshow clip using only crossfade but > without Luma? Whenever I create a slide show clip by checking the > crossfade box, the resulting effect always includes one of the Luma > transitions. When I edit the slide show, to check, sure enough the Luma > box is checked. Is this by design? Is the crossfade effect one of the > Luma transitions? Why do they have 2 separate checkboxes? > Just wondering. > > Thanks, > > Wayne Maeda > Kdenlive 0.5 > Mandriva 2008 > This bug was fixed some months ago in SVN, you can look in the history of this ML. |
From: Wayne M. <sha...@uk...> - 2007-11-17 08:57:06
|
On 11/16/07, Jose Jorge <lis...@fr...> wrote: > > Wayne a =E9crit : > > Is there a way to create a slideshow clip using only crossfade but > > without Luma? Whenever I create a slide show clip by checking the > > crossfade box, the resulting effect always includes one of the Luma > > transitions. When I edit the slide show, to check, sure enough the Lum= a > > box is checked. Is this by design? Is the crossfade effect one of the > > Luma transitions? Why do they have 2 separate checkboxes? > > Just wondering. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Wayne Maeda > > Kdenlive 0.5 > > Mandriva 2008 > > > This bug was fixed some months ago in SVN, you can look in the history > of this ML. > > Thanks, Wayne |