I want you to go here and look at this scene:
At 0:54 every single image on the screen moves to the left as 1. How do you merge all the screens so that you can make them move as 1?
It's much easier to do such sort of animation in a compositing application, e.g. in After Effects.
However, you can achieve that sort of sync move in PrPro as well:
- Create custom sequence, which is a bit wider than your master sequence.
- Place all your video tracks into that custom sequence.
- Place custom sequence into a master one.
- Animate Position property within Motion effect for the custom sequence.
I'm reading your post and trying hard to understand but there are too many things I don't fully comprehend in order to understand propperly.
What is the difference between a custom sequence and a master sequence and what do you mean it's wider? and how do I create them?
The term 'master' refers to 'nesting'. You can place a sequence into another sequence. A sequence, which you place into another one, is a 'nested' sequence. The latter is a 'master' sequence.
The term 'custom' refers to creating a sequence with a user defined settings - customising a sequence settings as an opposition to choosing out of a range of presets.
In the movie, which you refer to, all 'camera angles' on the right side of the screen are naturally expanding, while the whole picture is sliding to the left. That means, the content is wider than your screen - it's like a landscape you are looking at through the window in a train compartment. Therefore, the width of your nested sequence should exceed the width of your master sequence.
Like fuzzy mentioned you can do this inside Premiere, however it will end up requiring much more work than if you decided to use After Effects. In after effects you could do this by simply using a camera layer, this way when you want to move EVERYTHING you simply move the camera layer then everything else moves equally. If you use Premiere for this you end up having to perform a bunch of extra small steps inside Premiere to achieve the exact same result.
I have an additional question but don't want to make another post.
Let's say I crop the screen into 4 small screens. Now 1 of those screens is only 1 fourth of the image. Let's say immediately after cropping into 4 screens I want the 4 screens to minimize without anyone noticing so that all 4 screens are actually 4 full images. That way I can fit more in each individual image. How do I do this? I Just tried it and it didn't work out at all.
I'm not sure I fully understand the question. I follow what you're saying at first but then you lost me. I understand what you're saying about wanting to quickly shrink the 4 small screens without anyone noticing, I'm assuming you mean without anyone noticing that they are actually full images? Sorry I'm just having trouble understanding since I don't actually see it. So I guess what I'm wondering is are you trying to fit more stuff (meaning another screen or...) Do you mean simply fitting more stuff in the shot instead of using a smaller full shot screen. By using a cropped screen so the shot looks fuller?
What I meant was that if my image consists of 4 separate split screens then basically what I'll have is the equalent of 4 very very very long lenses all moving on a steadycam. A recipe for headache and disaster. Look at the link in the first post.
I want to unnoticably shrink the split screens so that instead of 4 fourths of a screen I'll have 4 screens. This is obviously how it was done in the video of my first post, it just looks terrible the other way. plus the resolution is 1 fourth of 1920 which makes it look really awful.
If you're wanting to make it look exactly like the video there. You can do so by doing exactly what fuzzy describes. Although it does require you to shoot all your shots before hand in a very specifc way. Otherwise it won't flow correctly. The catch really appears to be that you have to move the videos apart right at the moment the person needs to seperate in direction. After the first part is over it would just simply be a matter of nesting everything together and moving it together after that point. You'd have to make the sequeneces though bigger than your main sequence size. This isn't really something that's easily explained by typing. You also have to shot your footage correctly for the part that is at the begging. Otherwise it won't look good no matter what you do. Because you need to pull them apart at the exact moment the subject pulls apart from the other subject. Otherwise everything won't look correct.
Although a compositing job is better done in a compositing application, in this particular case you can achieve what you want with in-built tools inside PrPro.
Once you understand you need to cook a layer-cake out of carefully planned multicam shot, you're good to go.
Here is the concept of your further compositing work for two camera angles with a 'convergence point', after which they play their own stories on the screen:
- drop both camera angles in the Timeline one above the other and synchronise them upon their 'convergence point';
- cut upper angle at this point and apply Four-Point Garbage Matte so that you can see just half of the 'picture';
- create your 'strip scissor', drop it in this frame in the Timeline and animate in reverse way, i.e. start with your lower camera angle splitted into two parts by the 'scissor' and set the keyframes for Position properties here, then step back towards the beginning of the Timeline and create the keyframes for 'open scissor'.
Hope, you got the clue.
Thank you fuzzy. Unfortunately I don't quite understand your latest post but I was able to figure out how to pull it off. Then I hit another problem.
I made a visual aid so that you can understand it better. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYJcGMGbTM8&feature=g-upl
I deactivated the two lower clips so that I could focus more. The problem, as you can see, is that I need the left clip to be underneath the right clip and vice verca. I was able to avoid this problem for a while but when I had finished it wound up looking like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZuLPlBKQo&feature=youtu.be
I'm at a loss. How do I fix this?
I feel pretty stupid now cos I just did what you described and it was waaay easier than the way I was doing it
Continuing the trend of feeling stupid I must reiterate my previous question: How do I seamlessly make the 4 fourths of the screen into 4 full screens?
As far as I can gather from your previous posts you tried explaining it here:
"- create your 'strip scissor', drop it in this frame in the Timeline and animate in reverse way, i.e. start with your lower camera angle splitted into two parts by the 'scissor' and set the keyframes for Position properties here, then step back towards the beginning of the Timeline and create the keyframes for 'open scissor'."
But I don't understand. Could I ask you to please elaborate? Maybe some screenshots as visual aids?
The problem is although the four-point garbage matte method was easier it still doesn't fix the problem of the shots overlapping.
I've been experimenting and trying my best to figure it out for the past 2 hours but this is as close as I've gotten.
Example video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEhuyjqLc_8&feature=youtu.be
There is SOMETHING i'm not doing right. I did this by keyframing scale, position and the 4 point garbage matte.
OK, I feel the need to make a comment here about a subject that has not been addressed sufficiently IMHO.
It is very easy to take a single clip and separate it out into four parts. In fact, if you shoot 1920X1080 and your sequence is 720X480, you can really get creative.
However, that is not how the video in the original post was done. In that movie trailer, they used multiple cameras. I don't know how they avoided the parallax problem, but it seems that they did. I have a feeling that the shots we were supposed to think were one camera might actually have been two cameras (or more) and they were just carefully fit together to look like one.
So, when Daniel asks how to make four full screens, and I assume he means four different images. If so, then it means he should be shooting with four cameras. Not the same image cropped on different tracks, but four different clips altogether.
Did I get that right Daniel?
As I think about how I, a hobbyist, would do this, I would probably shoot the man in the shot separate from the women in the shot and stitch them together later. Now, my problem would be getting the camera into the exact same starting position. I certainly can't afford the computer driven rigs that might be used, and I doubt I could get my moderately priced tripod to sit that still after taking the camera off and putting it back on again. So I would build a jig that help my camera firmly on a solidly build shelf or stand of some kind. Unless someone knows how to deal with even the slight parallax of two identical cameras sitting next to each other. Then I could use two cameras.
The center of the lens would still be too far apart to merge the two images into one without that trick. Of course, if I planned the background to have a place where a blank, solid color wall would be showing where I wanted the image to split, perhaps I could make it work.
Also, while the four point garbage matte will obviously work, it is a lot easier to keyframe a simple crop. As long as the images are rectangular, you might as well.
I see that Daniel's garbage mattes are being slowly adjusted. My question is, why not crop them all in the duration of one frame? Go from one image to four. Boom! This merely requires the use of Hold keyframes. It is easy enough. Lasso all of the beginning keyframes and make them all Hold at one time. Do this four times, one for each track.
In fact, if you took the clip and put it on the timeline on four tracks, one right on top of the other, you could crop them at 50% for left, top, right and bottom in such a way as they would seem like a single clip on the timeline. That would make it easier to get the next step ready. One of the four would use 50% top and left, another 50% in top and right, another in bottom and left, and the last uses 50% in bottom and right.
Having said that, some of the experts around here might realize that Premiere Pro will leave the tiniest little border lines, so while I explained it as 50% because I wanted to get my point across, you will want to use 49.9% to get rid of the lines.
The next step? Ah, now you have to animate the crop and the scale at the same time. You want each image to get smaller so that more of it fits into 1/4 of the frame. And at the same time, since the image is scaling down, it needs to be cropped less and less until there is no crop at all. Hold keyframes again. Or, you could scale it down slower if you wish.
In summary, four parts of the same clip? Easy. Four different videos? That's another story altogether.
Here is a video using the steps I explained. First with the crop and the scale all at once, and then with the scale a bit slower.
Edit: I just noticed I got some of the timing wrong on the crops, but you get the idea. I also left out the lines since Daniel seems to have that handled.
Thank you for replying Steven.
There are no rigs or anything neccesary in order to make that scene from the green hornet. all you do is plan where you do the cuts and then shoot the same thing again (with the same camera, not 2 next to eachother). if there are any irregularities you just scale the image untill it looks good. The black borders take care of the rest to make it look more seamless. That's not a problem, I've got it covered as you can see from my example videos.
The problem is, as you said, this:
"The next step? Ah, now you have to animate the crop and the scale at the same time. You want each image to get smaller so that more of it fits into 1/4 of the frame. And at the same time, since the image is scaling down, it needs to be cropped less and less until there is no crop at all. Hold keyframes again. Or, you could scale it down slower if you wish."
As you all saw from my example video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEhuyjqLc_8&feature=youtu.be The big issue is that when i animate to remove the crop and scale the image down at the same time they overlap each other. I'm pretty close in the example video but not quite there. And the frustrating thing is that i KNOW it's probably some stupid little thing I'm overlooking.
Dear God, how? Can you please explain it step by step?
Not sure I follow you... Anyway...
First of all, when it comes to a compositing (and I suppose to any sort of a creative work), there are usually more than just one way of doing a job. As well as there are no 'right' or 'wrong' tool for doing a job, if you finally achieve what you want. Once you realised how to optimise your current workflow, you stepped to another level towards Mastering.
Second, when it comes to a compositing, you often need to duplicate your video tracks so as to accomplish some sort of animation or whatever.
Third, as Steven mentioned, if a subject on the screen is positioned somehow in one frame, that doesn't mean it should be at the same position right in the next frame. Therefore, don't hesitate using keyframes in a different ways so as to achieve what you want.
Have a look at this:
I added subtitles to the screen capture so that you can grasp what is going on in the Timeline a bit easier.
There doesn't have to be two cameras if you can get the camera in the exact same position after moving it. Not something I know how to do without a LOT of effert. Fuzzy is actually using the same clip in different ways to simulate a second camera. Pretty cool actually.
Your main problem is that your garbage mattes are out of control. You need to get them to 1/4 of the screen a LOT faster. If you did that, it would look fine, I think. Or you can get fancy like Fuzzy. But the way it is now is not workimg because your video is not the same size as the lines indicate they should be.
Another way to do it would be to use four track mattes. The more I think about it, the more I think it would be easier. The only problem is that as soon as you want to scale the video it means you have to use nested sequences.
Basically, you create a sequence for your motion and put it into a main sequence where you have the track mattes.
You set your motion parameters using your matte on the sequence with your video that you are scaling. Make the matte 25% opacity (don't apply the track matte effect - just put it on top and work with your video that way for now). Then delete the matte off of the sequence when you have the motion right. Take that sequence into the main sequence and apply the track matte you practiced with. Do this a total of four times. Simple enough.
It is possible of course, to animate the matte itself in the main sequence. I didn't do that, but I could have, I suppose. The problem is it was getting late last night and I lost my Internet connection so I went to bed.
Anyway, I created my mattes in the titler. I made one matte with a white background and a black rectangle in one corner. Since I was using HDV, the measurements of the rectangle are 960X540. I know I should use a black background and a white rectangle, but I didn't feel like it - so of course I hade to check the "reverse" checkbox on the Track Matte effect. Then I just made copies of the title and moved the rectangle to cover each corner.
Here is an example using track mattes. This solved my previous timing issue as well.
The image shows my titles that I used as mattes and what the main timeline looks like.
Thank you both for replyng, I'm gonna try to do some of the stuff you've said tonight steven, though I don't fully understand more than half of it.
And fuzzy, I don't know how much clearer I can make my problem than this:
""The next step? Ah, now you have to animate the crop and the scale at the same time. You want each image to get smaller so that more of it fits into 1/4 of the frame. And at the same time, since the image is scaling down, it needs to be cropped less and less until there is no crop at all. Hold keyframes again. Or, you could scale it down slower if you wish."
As you all saw from my example video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEhuyjqLc_8&feature=youtu.be The big issue is that when i animate to remove the crop and scale the image down at the same time they overlap each other. I'm pretty close in the example video but not quite there. And the frustrating thing is that i KNOW it's probably some stupid little thing I'm overlooking."
The main problem with track mattes is that they do not allow the video to change position. So you have to do this a different way. Once example that might help you is an old one I did a few years back.
It also explains how to jump from one size or position to another in one leap.
Glad you edited your previous response...
The stupid thing you're overlooking is there is NO any footage scaling in the movie you're trying to replicate, and I never said a single word about scaling footages so as to do this job.
The only problem is that as soon as you want to scale the video it means you have to use nested sequences.
Basically, you create a sequence for your motion and put it into a main sequence where you have the track mattes.
You set your motion parameters using your matte on the sequence with your video that you are scaling. Make the matte 25% opacity (don't apply the track matte effect - just put it on top and work with your video that way for now). Then delete the matte off of the sequence when you have the motion right. Take that sequence into the main sequence and apply the track matte you practiced with. Do this a total of four times. Simple enough."
Could you please elaborate on this a little? It might sound simple enough to you but I don't even know what a track matte is. Let alone nested sequences. I'm starting to get discouraged.
Watch this space. I will put together a comprehensive tutorial on track mattes for use in split screen projects. There are lots of track matte tutorials online, but I can't find one that does exactly what I want it to do.
Tonight. After work. I should have it posted here by 11PM Pacific Time, otherwise known as 6AM Zulu (Greenwich Mean Time). So, regardless of where you live, unless you live in Hawaii, you will have something you can use tomorrow after the sun rises. Hawaiians will have it this evening, of course.
I will even export the mattes to files you can import into your own projects so that you do not have to reinvent the wheel.
While I am at work, you have the unique opportunity to ask for mattes in your particular frame size. I will create the following without being asked. If you need something else I have not though of, let me know by posting your request here.
HD frame sizes
1440h 1080v (1.3333)
1280h 720v (1.0000)
720h 480v (0.9091) (4:3)
720h 480v (1.2121) (16:9)
720h 576v (1.0940) (4:3)
720h 576v (1.4587) (16:9)
I might do some for 2K and 4K footage, but to be completely honest with you, if you can afford a RED camera, you can afford the $25 to go to Lynda.com and spend a month learning everything you ever needed to know about Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop and any number of other programs! I have to warn you that I might get bored and decide that teaching you how I did the first one might be good enough instead of making them all. But since I know that math is not generally a specialty of artistic people. I probably ought to have these files available on my web site. And I do use math a bit to make mattes.
So, the plan is to create a tutorial that shows you exactly how I did what I showed you in post #21. Although now that I think about it, I should have changed the scale for each of the four corners at a different pace. I will try to remember to do that tonight. I will probably start with a simple split screen, then go to the four corners. If I have time, I will animate the mattes themselves to create a more interesting effect.
What I will not do is try to duplicate the video in the original post.
How does that sound to you Daniel? And to others? Anything in particular you want me to concentrate on? I may decide that I need to digress now and then so I make have to produce a few tutorials to get everything in.
And if any of you experts out there have any suggestions, please speak up. If I do this, you won't have to later. Now is your chance to take advantage of this situation.
Well, although you are addressing Steven now, I have to return you the favour, 'Did you read my comment?' Nesting is the little thing from which we started...
Now about why you are experiencing difficulties with scaling and cropping simultaneously. That is because of the stacking order, i.e. in which order PrPro calculates effects. In this case PrPro calculates new scale first and after that calculates new crop (Four-Point Garbage Matte or any other effect, including Track Matte Key effect) relative to a new scale.
So as to fix the issue you can:
1. Set several additional keyframes to your cropping effect as well as convert linear keyframes into Bezier ones and play with their tangents (being honest, doing that in PrPro is super inconvenient).
2. Nest your camera angle, with which scale you are going to play, and animate scale within the nested sequence. This way PrPro will calculate all the things inside your nested sequence first and only after that - the effects applied onto this nested sequence on a video track within your master sequence.
I modified a bit my previous example, and here is what I get:
Here is the PrPro project file (without footages). Both fixing options are included.
P.S. Hope you know that all transformations of scale, position and rotation happen around Anchor Point.
PrPro processes Motion effect, as well as other fixed effects, AFTER rendering standard effects.
Therefore, the third way of fixing the issue as a small bonus: instead of manipulating Anchor Point and Scale properties within Motion effect apply Transform effect before applying any cropping effect of your choice and manipulate its Anchor Point and Scale properties.
I didn't put in the lines since everyone seems to be able to do that.
I didn't cover moving the track matte itself, but that can be done.
My voice is a little raspy tonight, but I think you should get the point. Let me know if there is anything else about using a track matte for this application.
I highly recommend that you start watching some of the over 70 tutorials on the Creative Cow web site for Premiere Pro CS6. Then, if you still have questions, come on back and we will work them out.
As I said earlier, there is no 'wrong' or 'right' tool.
It's much better to get several tools in the arsenal, than the 'only super good' one.
That was my point and, I guess, Steven's.
Therefore, I don't see any added value in your comments within this thread.
You are correct. They are not needed. Except sometimes when they are. The crop tool, as pointed out, does not do non rectangular shapes. The garbage matte does irregular shapes, but is not quite as easy to scale up and down.
While this particular effect is done more attractively with Fuzzy's example, Daniel was having some trouble, and I offered an alternate way to do the job that might be easier for him.
Please explain how you would do what I did in the example below with the cropping tool - without using more than a few (3) layers. Not that I would do this with these photos, but I might with others. In fact, while this might be done with garbage mattes, I think it might drive someone crazy to attempt it on a regular basis. And just think.... I didn't use any circles!
Track mattes are more useful at times then cropping but for the Green Hornet opening they are not needed. Reread my comments because you obviously miss read them. I am the one who stated track mattes are good for non square/rectangular shapes. We seem to agree on that so I am confused as to why you made your post in a response to me. You used simple squares and rectangles to make your irregular shaped matte but the shape as a whole is irregular (non square/rectangular). My neighbors kid built a Lego house using simple squares and rectangles but the shape of the house as a whole is not a simple square or rectangle it is an irregular shape. I think you would have to agree with me on this but thanks for trying to prove me wrong : )
You said "track mattes are not needed at all".
That is what I was responding to. You made a simple statement. You didn't say they were not needed in this case. Just that they were not needed.
I don't know how it is possible to not read that correctly.
I just went back and read your other posts and I can see where you clarified your remarks. I most likely just read the first one and responded.