1 person found this helpful
Use the 'Motion > Rotation" Control in the FX Window
Will this invert the whole clip?
Will this invert the whole clip?
Yes. If parts of the Clip do not need this treatment, use the Razor Tool. If later parts DO need the treatment, just go back to the first Rotated Clips, Rt-click and choose Copy, then go to the later Clips in need, and Rt-click, choosing Paste Attributes - you can lasso or Select several later Clips to Apply Attributes.
That is perfect and it did the job. It is even better than applying
Transform>Vertical Flip, because I needed to apply a second effect to it,
the Horizontal Flip, since the vertical flip creates a mirror image. So your
method solved my problem.
If you are interested as to why I need to do this - I started experimenting
shooting 3D footage with a pair of point-and-shoot cameras, but in a rig
like this, one camera needs to be placed upside down so as to get the lenses
as close as possible. Ideally they should be about 2.5" or normal human eye
But I still have to cross many bridges before I can compete with James
Great news, and thanks for reporting!
I just figured that it was a camera mounting issue. At least you did not have to mount them sideways. That can be corrected too, but then one has to handle the aspect ratio being totally off, and that gets a tad sticky, as one usually ends up Scaling and Cropping, and quality will suffer.
BTW - how did the 3D experiment pan out?
This topic reminds me of a technique some use for filming green screen shots. The more pixels at the edge of a green screen matte the better,. This is why closeups often look better than wide shots. On a really wide shot you have many fewer pixels at the edge of the matte. So, some folk film standing shots with the camera mounted sideways (90 degrees) In todays widescreen format you can get significantly more pixels at the matte edge if you film a standing shot sideways as opposed to landscape. Makes the matte edge a little cleaner in the end; and its trivial to rotate it 90 degrees in post.
The 3D experiment is still an ongoing project, it will take probably the
rest of my life
I have been doing still stereo photography for many years and I am pretty
good at it, but doing 3D video involves quite a bit more hardware and
patience to say the least. Although Fuji is the first maker to have a "real"
3D camera, most of us use two side-by-side digital still cameras, which must
be synchronized, either internally or externally, so when you shoot moving
objects, you will end up with the same instance of the still picture. That
adds a significant amount of money to the rig, but it's doable. When it
comes to video, if you shoot with the same synchronized rig you end up with
two clips, and usually the left is upside down. If you shoot with two
camcorders, you end up with both clips in the correct orientation.
That is only one part of the challenge in 3D video, the other challenge is
editing. Unlike editing a single clip, for 3D video you must edit both clips
at the same time and apply the same editing corrections equally to both.
When using two camcorders, although if they are synchronized externally by a
device called a LANC controller, they may still be one frame off, it is
possible in Premiere to move one clip on one video track, so you can match
the clapboard sound spike. Most of this is theory for me as my experience
with video editing is very limited. I am thankful that Premiere CS4 finally
allows one to lock two clips for some of the editing procedure, but not for
everything, so that will make life easier.
I am retired and do all this for fun, so I must push myself as I don't have
any real deadlines or unlimited amount of self discipline...
Well, you asked...sorry for the long reply and thank you again. I hope you
get some credit points from Adobe for the correct answer, or do I have to do
something so that you do?
Interesting technique. I see where you (and they) are coming from on this. Would never have thought to do it this way.
I appreciate the reply.
Great luck on your Project and most of all - ENJOY!
You can nest those 2 clips together then cut them up like they are one clip.
Also make sure when you line up the clapboard you use the Audio timeline so that there is 48000 frames per second.
It makes getting the timing more close since at 30 fps it is sometimes off by fractions of a second.
Have fun: GLenn
Thank you Glenn.
I assume that when I am done and "unnest" the clips, they will separate as
two independent clips - correct?
inside the nested sequence they will stay separated.
but by nesting them you can treat them like one clip.
You can always go back inside the nest and make changes.
they wont merge
My question is: After I finish editing, can I separate these again into
they always stay as individual clips.
the ones you nest and edit are not the original videos.
premiere just references the original video.
no need to separate later since they always stay intact.
Is that what you mean ?
Here is what I mean, or need, rather:
I have two original clips that need exactly the same editing, so I will nest
them together and perform all the editing. At this point, I need to be able
to "un-nest" the clips somehow since I need to end up with two individual
So, my question is if this is possible?
If you are curious as to why I need this, here is the reason: I shoot
simultaneously with two camcorders that are synchronized, in order to create
a 3D movie. I end up with two almost identical clips. In order to show the
clips by projection, I need to feed each clip to each of two digital
projectors. So after editing, I must have two separate movies, one for the
left projector and one for the right. When these are projected on a screen
through the projectors, they are two ever-so-slightly different movies - one
for the left eye, one for the right eye. Special software on the computer
tell each projectors to show only "its" clip. Each projector has a
polarizing filter in front of the lens, and the audience wears polarizing
glasses to "separate" left and right pictures which are projected one of top
of the other.
This is pretty much the magic of 3D digital movies and it is almost the same
as the "big guys" do it in contemporary movie theaters these days. The only
difference is that I use two digital projectors and they use a single
projector with a special filter that separates left and right images. RealD
is the company that has the monopoly on this filter (shutter switch which
does it at 120 Hz).
The difference? About $100,000. So I can do it for about $2-3K and "they"
I have done this in the past, but so far my editing process has been painful
as each clip, albeit on its own track, needed to be edited separately and I
need to match visually as best as I can the process to be the same for both
So, in conclusion, I am trying to find a better mouse trap and in the
process create a better place to live in
Thank you for your patience with me. I appreciate your help a lot.
I see what your going for now.
I cant think of anything off hand but maybe someone else could think of a way.
Do you have any sort of illustration or something to explain what you just said about the green screen and shooting sideways with a widescreen format ? I'd appreciate it...
I recently worked on a shot that was done that way for part of the day....and I'd like to understand more WHY it was done...
I just don't quite get it pictured in my head yet but I think some kind of illustration would do the trick.
Thank you very much Glenn.