This content has been marked as final. Show 10 replies
It is possible, but a bit of a pain in the neck. To do this, you might want to create the track matte out of multiple titles in a new sequence. That way it is easier to animate it.
You can have the footage you want matted out in the new sequence and when you get the matting done, poke out the eyeball of the footage track. Then use the new sequence in the original sequence as a track matte.
It is easier to use After Effects to create the track mattes with masks if you have it.
There is no eye poking needed in CS3. CS3 is smart enough to make the associated matte invisible without "poking the eye" and making the whole track invisible.
It depends how complex your matting requirments are. If its just coving a mic that moves due to camera movement, it should be quite simple. If its covering a moving organic object like a person, thats a bit tougher
The "multiple Titles" idea is a good one. I'd have built a "doorway" Matte, and then spent the afternoon doing Scale and Motion and cursing a bit. Thanks for that simple tip. One could do it with Crop and only do the Top, and Sides, but a lot of resizing, Keyframing the Crop. I like your idea better, than any that I had.
I meant that if you copy the original footage into a new sequence to use to help you set up the track matte, you either need to delete it to use the track matte or poke out the eyeball. Then you are left with a sequence that is merely a track matte. If you have multiple titles you need to combine them all in a new sequence or you can't use them as a matte.
That lets you use motion without a hassle to create an animated track matte.
I think you are operating under ppro 2 conditions. Track matte can easily be done all in one sequence applying animation to the matte right where it belongs. You can appply the matte then animate it, or animate it then apply the matter. No eye poking needed.
If you are using multiple titles to more easily animate parts of the matte? You then actually have multiple mattes, which on a nested sequence now look like one.
I am apparently not getting my point across very well. I find it easier to animate multiple titles rather than multiple graphics on one title.
Multiple mattes; yes I see. I did hear you mention that but i dint thnk about that being needed to matte out a mic boom that this user requested.
However; even with multiple mattes, you can stack as many as you want in CS3 in one sequence and animate them all individually. Just apply track matte to the clip for each matte.
There are many ways to skin a cat; just pointing out some options.
I saw boom and lights and thought that it might be handy to use a separate sequence. I know that it is possible to use multiple track mattes, but I guess I have gotten used to using nested sequences to keep my main sequence neat.
As you say, the cat can be skinned in multiple ways. But why do we always pick on a poor defenseless cat? Are we all dog lovers? ;)
Thanx for inputs guys
In my case multiples would have been needed. Lights each side and mic from the top.
Track matte is obviously not the ideal way of achieving what the garbage matte should be doing (so simply if it werent busted)
I can easily pull great keys and mattes in AEFX but it severely affects the timeline editing flexibilty in these particular projects. ie. making edit decsisons in AEFX at less than realtime with a client at my side and I have a lot of scenes to do with a short deadline before broadcast.
Send the client out for a load of bagels and coffee, and finish up while he/she is gone... You could even fail to buzz them back in for a bit, or until you're done. "Oh sorry, I had the headset on and didn't hear you at the door."