|
|
A scene editor that acts like a video editor???
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
A scene editor that acts like a video editor??? // Feature suggestions
Post by 2much4U // Dec 3, 2006, 8:57am
|
2much4U
Total Posts: 430
|
What if the scene editor, or another tool, had the ability to import animated .scn files, then edit them like video clips, and render it all as a single avi from TS?
Basicly, it would allow the user to create their videos, complete with music, sound fx, transitions, and compiled shots...then render it all straight from TS without having to go into a video editor.
An advantage to this is that the user wouldn't have to render each shot/composited layer, then import each one into a video editor, create the video, and render it again. Instead, they would just be editing the playback of each .scn file, while it acts like a clip.
Also, composites would be done differently, where the user would just select objects from different scenes, and have truespace render them together as single avi.
This would bring a whole new meaning to the projects directory, where instead of just being a folder full of scenes, it would be an entire video sequence made up of different shots, all of which won't yet be rendered. |
Post by Bobbins // Dec 3, 2006, 10:49am
|
Bobbins
Total Posts: 506
|
This was discussed quite recently. The disadvantage is that if you need to make even a very small correction to any part of the project - maybe pull a transition up a few frames, lengthen a shot by half a second or correct the sound levels - then the entire project has to be re-rendered.
That's unacceptable in a production environment so you are much better off rendering each sequence seperately and then combining them in post production in the traditional manner. |
Post by 2much4U // Dec 3, 2006, 11:48am
|
2much4U
Total Posts: 430
|
where was it discussed? |
Post by 2much4U // Dec 3, 2006, 12:29pm
|
2much4U
Total Posts: 430
|
This was discussed quite recently. The disadvantage is that if you need to make even a very small correction to any part of the project - maybe pull a transition up a few frames, lengthen a shot by half a second or correct the sound levels - then the entire project has to be re-rendered.
That's unacceptable in a production environment so you are much better off rendering each sequence seperately and then combining them in post production in the traditional manner.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my original post...this idea of mine is slightly complicated.
What I am saying is that Caligari could make this a feature within the scene editor, or maybe even a new tool, or...even...let's say, an entirely new app.
It would basicly have the same goal and look of a video editor, such as Windows Movie Maker, Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, etc. Also, it would be equipped just like them too, having the ability to set a frame rate, an aspect ratio, pixel resolution, kilobytes per second, etc...then display it within a preview window/box. It would also be able to cut a few frames out of a clip, apply fade effects, transitions, keying effects, and visual effects, even compile layers.
The main difference between this and a real video editor is that, instead of importing video clips, it imports animated .scn files. From there, the user would be able to select a camera within each scene, so that each clip is designated to that view. From within this tool, changes to the scene would not be possible. Instead, all it would do is display the animated scene as though it had already been rendered, when in truth, it would still be a .scn file. If the user were to edit these clips (change speed, cut, apply fades or transitions), they wouldn't be changing the file itself, only telling the program how to play back the animation, or which frame to stop at, or when to apply a fade from one scene to another. |
Post by Bobbins // Dec 3, 2006, 1:03pm
|
Bobbins
Total Posts: 506
|
I'm missing something then. Exactly how would this be substantially better than rendering a scene with a properly pre-set camera with an overlap of a couple of seconds for editing, then taking the rendered view into a genuine video editing program capable of doing the job properply? The vid editing program would be used for the exact timimg of the cuts, time warps, audio editing, title overlays etc. etc. and output to suitable format - except that the vid editing program as a dedicated application for this sort of thing would be doing it quickly, with a sensible workflow and with better results?
Put another way, say you spent a week setting up your finished production and rendering it only to find there was an error, so you correct it and spend another week re-rendering then submit it to a client to find they need a need a change, so you now need a third week to make the change and re-ender it again. I would spend a week rendering, a couple of hours editing it correctly, then if the client wanted a change I'd spend another couple of hours making the change then move on. By the time you had finished the same production, I would already have been paid by my client and completed the best part of two more productions. I know which I prefer. |
Post by jamesmc // Dec 3, 2006, 2:17pm
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
This is sort of like the reason I went to Animation Master as my main application. I still use tS66 to make props (anywhere from forks to architecture.) But, if you are like me, you want to see things that move. If I want still pictures I can go out with my camera.
Of course with that said, not even Animation Master gives you the ability to edit video in its application. Dedicated Video Editors like Adobe After Effects are simply better as stand alone applications.
What I do like about Animation Master is the ability to switch between modeling and Choreography (the stage) and Action (bones, particle effects, hair) by just clicking on a tab. If I need to tweak a model's look or artwork, I can do so easily. Same with actions or props on the stage (choreography tab.)
Video edtiting is an entire industry, just ask Hollywood. :) The problem with doing things as an individual is we forget how massively complicated a finished animated video project can be.
Doing video editing by itself can also be CPU intensive, which brings up a problem doing both 3D work and Video Editing in the same software and on the same machine. This is why people have a minimum of two computers (those that do this a lot) to build render farms for their 3D or Video rendering.
There are times that just slapping in a movie or a still needs to be in a scene, this can already be one. This helps gets the director's view done. However, if you need to do some heavy duty masking or chroma key editing or snip out a portion of a scene for whatever reason, the processes need to be separate.
Perhaps someday when computers and software become enormously powerful an all in one facility can become reality. I don't see that happening anytime soon though, at least not at an affordable price. |
Post by Bobbins // Dec 4, 2006, 12:09am
|
Bobbins
Total Posts: 506
|
Dedicated Video Editors like Adobe After Effects are simply better as stand alone applications.
Just in case anybody gets the wrong idea, there was a small slip there. After Effects isn't a dedicated video editor - it's Adobe's post process video effects and compositing package. Premiere is Adobe's dedicated video editing package. |
|
