This content has been marked as final. Show 15 replies
It may or may not be a bug. I haven't tried to duplicate the issue.
When you start messing with time, you must be very careful, especially near the in/out points of a clip.
You should try dissolving between the 2 clips at normal speed in one sequence, then nest that sequence in another one and apply TimeWarp to the nested sequence.
I'd be interested to find out if the results are any different. They should be.
Very interesting thought. I thought for a moment you might have had a fix with the nested comp. Even though this would only work if the time-warp speed was identical for all clips. I have different speeds chosen almost per clip, so this wouldn't really be a good workaround.. But in any case...
I tried just that out of curiosity. One nested comp. Only first 2 clips, no time warp applied and 100% speed. Standard dissolve. Comp2 plays fine. The dissolve works as expected.
Nest comp2 into Comp 1, replace the first two clips with Comp2. Apply time-warp to comp2. The dissolve fails to even display. The clip walks right over the dissolve never disolving, only carrying on clip A.
I might need to note that this is with 1080i HDV 29.97fps footage. Each clip is about 2 seconds in length.
Actually, let me correct that last post. I mis-interpreted what was going on. It didn't play the transition in Comp2 because the time-warp on the nested comp slows the clip down too much to reach the dissolve before the out point of comp2.
Extending the length of Comp2, then rolling it longer in Comp1, shows the transition with clip B playing forward as expected. Strangely, timing does seem different than the original timing on the clips when they were in Comp1, but that might be tolerable for adjacent clips with the same "warp-speed" so to speak.
What if you put your first clip in track two and your second clip in track one and applied a dissolve to the tail of the first clip so that it would fade out to your second clip in track one.
KMS, that seems to work!
It's not really my style in this project to do multitrack for this reason, but I'll take what I can get!
Thanks for the tip.
Glad I could help out.
Just thought I would try two clips with time warp applied next to each other on the same track with a cross dissolve applied, the second clip does play backwards for the length of the transition on my machine as well.
Do the clips that play backward during the transition have any/enough head frames for the transition?
What if the incoming clip has no head material and you overlap the tail of the outgoing clip by the length of the transition? Does the outgoing clip play backwards during the tx?
What if you dissolve between the clips first, then add TimeWarp to the clips? Does the order of application make a difference?
The clips have enough length to cover the time warp and disolve. There shouldn't be an issue with enough head material. Actually, the transition should take into effect that the clip is slowed and apply the dissolve on the slowed material, regardless if the clip was shorter than the transition at normal speed, wouldn't you think?
Adding dissolve first, then time warp does not seem to make a change. To me this is a clear bug. And an annoying one at that.
If you want to report a bug, report a bug to people who can do something about it.
If you want to get confirmation (you seem to have done that) and then discuss workarounds, then this is the right place.
Wonderful Post Steven. Thanks. Very useful and definitely not a waste of time..
I think your post #11 was being sarcastic, but you left a little wiggle room for it not to be. With the sarcastic interpretation, I must add my thoughts:
Here is the link to the Adobe bug report form . It is important that users who discover bugs with reproducible steps file them - otherwise they don't stand a chance of ever getting fixed. Steven Gotz's advice was sound in this regard.
As to the discussion of workarounds - since this is a User-to-User forum, the best that we as a community can do is help each other out with workarounds, since none of us here have the power to actually fix anything.
The important thing to glean from SG's post is the definite need to file a bug report.
You're absolutely right. Which is why in my first post I said that I was going to call support today to open a ticket on it, and why I went to this forum to discuss workarounds for it. Discussions are great and very helpful, but people should read before they post. His post didn't add anything new nor did it offer any additional info that wasn't already presented. So you interpreted right, I was absolutely sarcastic and since I had some time to waste too, I figured what the hey. :) Thanks for the bug link, though, I'll go both routes and hopefully this will get fixed soon.
You mistook my intention. You appeared to begin to rant instead of discussing the issue. The bug was verified by others which seemed to be a large part of the original point of the thread.
>To me this is a clear bug. And an annoying one at that.
That could have easily taken this down the wrong track. Many threads devolve into rants and it becomes unpleasant.
Your sarcastic remark to what I intended as a mild reminder indicates that you have very little experience on this forum or you would have understood the point.
It seems all the technical and procedural stuff that can be said has been said. So I guess this thread can be closed?