Haha you beat me to this after the last Q&A with Hitfilm reminding me it was in bro i wanted to give it a try.
woot woot, bring on some old-school puppeteering. Thunderbirds, anyone?
5.....4....3....2...1.....Hitfilm is go!!!!
@Andy001z That gives me an idea...
...I will be busy this evening.
Well, that video was really confusing... Why on earth do you track something nowhere near what you intend to remove and then set the removal Effect to use that position? Going to have to download your video and have a play now... Edit: OK, had a play and the Effect as it currently works is completely bonkers. That can't possibly be how it is supposed to work. Track anywhere , including at the end of a line, and no matter what you do when you Use Layer, it moves the area that will have the line removed away from the end markers. Ridiculous. The only way to use it and stay sane is as follows:1) Track anything you like. Apply the tracking data to a New Point (#1).2) Drop on the Wire Removal Effect and put the two end markers on both ends of the line you want removed. It gets removed. Yay! Adjust Width, Gradient, Reflection until perfect. 3) Create another New Point (#2) and Parent that to New Point (#1).4) Select Use Layer: New Point (#2) for the Start and the End of the Line. 5) Everything still works. Nothing jumps, no need to adjust things or pull out hair.It now follows the line without you having to set the points in the middle of nowhere and try and guess where they'll intersect the line you originally set them on. Then repeat for the other piece of string. You can use the same points, no need to create more unless the line wiggles about differently.
@Palacono I missed a step where I position the tracker anchor on the spot where the string begins before applying it to the Point.
The logic is still there, though: tracking part of your object (how is less than an inch down "nowhere near" the beginning of the string? It's still on the same plane.) so that you don't have to constantly keyframe the start and end points of the Wire Removal.
Thought that was missing positioning the start & end points then link to track point all corrdinates x,y are relative to that track position.
@Andy001z , except they're not relative to the Use Layer Point. It jumps by that offset. So Markers are in one place, erased line is somewhere else. Try it. I think the Effect is written to work very weirdly indeed. If it's not actually broken, it acts like it might as well be.There is no way reset values to zero, to remove the offset it adds when you Use Layer for a Tracker that is at a non-central position, such as you would when you wanted something to exactly follow something it was parented to. If you do zero the Start and End positions, they're useless.The only way is to use the Second Point, left at 0,0, to cancel out the offset that it adds to the end markers. Which is a bonkers workaround. An alternative would be to use a single Point and Track the centre of the screen, when the movements would remain relative to that, if there was something there that you could track (not likely in all cases). Currently it is completely non-intuitive and downright awkward to use. Quad Warp does something similar, but at least you can set the shape and parent the entire plane to a point, which keeps all the relative coordinate systems somewhere easy to understand. But you can't do that with the Wire Removal because it's on the clip itself. This is the easy way to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPMP0qiwvq8Actually, this only works for a straight line that can use a single tracked point for both ends. If the ends of a line were moving independently, just apply a tracking Point to each one Use Layer on it directly, with no offsets
@Palacono Try moving the anchor point of the track to the start of the string before applying it to the Point. Then the Wire Removal begins at the correct spot.
No, you try it. It doesn't work like that. And if you can produce a video showing that it does, I'll PayPal you $10. BTW, it only works that way if you track the dead centre of the screen, so movement of the Tracking point is relative to 0,0, as I said in my post above. I also replied to Andy saying the same thing as you. Nope.
@Palacono My PayPal email address is [redacted].
"5.....4....3....2...1.....Hitfilm is go!!!!"
Impressive that you managed to come up with that idea and 8 hours later have it up. I'd still be floundering around some time next week with all tracking and linking point layers. That's footage from the original series and not the new version, correct?
@tddavis I like to work fast truth is, I get bored easily and if I can't finish things quickly I often don't finish them at all...
yes, that is the first part of the opening titles sequence from the original series. I considered doing the rest of the sequence using clips from the HitFilm YouTube channel, but decided against it (mostly because I got bored)
Good track and nice use of the logos @jmcallister
Seriously though, I love your tutorials.
@Palacono You can try to get out of a bet by changing the terms of the agreement but in the end you still lose. You aren't doing what @inScapeDigital said to do welcher!
@Aladdin4d on second reading, I mistook Anchor Point for End Point.
So now you have to blindly mess about with Anchor coordinates directly because Hitfilm has no easy way to move the Anchor Point using the Mouse? (Ctrl+mouse would be handy) Gets more and more fiddly with every 'correction'. I'll pass.
Of course, tracking the end of the string, Use Layer, then adding a vertical offset to the other end would have actually worked. It was tracking away from the end that caused all the weird offset stuff in the first place. And the terms were that he produced a video showing how 'easy' it would be to counteract that.
"And the terms were that he produced a video showing how 'easy' it would be to counteract that. "
He did that too. It's called taking advantage of the ability to set .....drum roll...... a Feature Offset in the tracker thus immediately "canceling" the offset you found so offensive in the first place.
Agree to disagree. The video just does things bass-ackwards. Even reading the docs explains how it works better (and how often can you say that?) Track one end, use layer. Done. Two points on same plane and relative motion? Add offset to one of them. Double done. Ends move independently? Track other end on new point, use layer. Done. Use offset if point you tracked goes offscreen at any time to compensate for being unable track end throughout.
Ok, the video is *A* way to do things, but not the easiest and it doesn't explain why it is 'better' than just tracking the two ends. What you learn from it is literally not transferable to any other method of wire removal.
@Palacono your confirmation bias has you locked in cognitive dissonance forcing you to present alternative facts to get out of a simple bet. Only politicians and Hollywood celebrities get to do that.
@inScapeDigital never said to mess around with the anchor point coordinates of a layer. He said "tracker anchor" and "anchor point of the track". Doing what he told you to do, twice even, takes care of every offset related complaint you had and works exactly as he described. In a state of cognitive dissonance you issued the following challenge:
"No, you try it. It doesn't work like that. And if you can produce a video showing that it does, I'll PayPal you $10. "
@inScapeDigital accepted the challenge and produced a video clearly showing him moving the anchor point of the track to one end of the string to establish the feature offset. He even pauses at that point and goes over it a few times to emphasize what he's doing and everything works exactly as he said it would. If you missed his link to the video here it is again:
Moving track anchor to establish feature offset
As a moderator I have to declare him the winner because he met every condition of the challenge obliterating every "offset" related complaint and argument you had prior to issuing the challenge.
Realistically at this point your only option is to be a gracious loser and PayPal the man the money if you want to keep your dignity in tact.
@Aladdin4d Wait a second, where the heck did that video come from? And my main objection is offset+offset-offset = confusing result where the line being removed is nowhere near the marker points for the Effect. So, the video is still confusing, and now it's incomplete. Even if this information was added to it, people would ask: Why the heck are you doing it that way at all?
@Palaconco The video link came from this post
@Palacono ;My PayPal email address is j******r@g*******m.
The @Palacono is a user tag and link of course but "My PayPal email address is j******r@g*******m" is another link to the video he created in response to you saying "No, you try it". He was nice and put it on Google drive instead of uploading it to YouTube with "Palacono gets schooled and loses a bet" for the title and changing the title of this thread to match.
As for the rest.....
Yes he made a mistake and left a step out of the original video but as soon as you raised the issue he admitted it and told you exactly what to do to fix it. Unfortunately you either didn't understand what he was saying or ignored it.
"And my main objection is offset+offset-offset = confusing result where the line being removed is nowhere near the marker points for the Effect."
"people would ask: Why the heck are you doing it that way at all?"
You're right, people would probably ask but there's an excellent reason why and again, this has no relevance to the terms you posted for the challenge.
"Track one (or both) end(s) of the line and be done with it. It's a) easier and b) how the effect is designed to be used."
And now for the excellent reason mentioned above - This approach won't always work and in fact, probably won't work the majority of the time. By it's very nature wire work is notoriously difficult to track. The methods and techniques for wire work used in the real world are geared towards being as unobtrusive as possible.so there's less to remove giving you a much cleaner final product. That's great but the less obtrusive it is, the more difficult it is to get a solid track. Your options are:
Obviously option 3 was used. He even says:
"This is standard motion tracking procedure, I'm not doing anything unique for this shot. There are numerous tutorials out there for motion tracking so I'm just going to kind of brush over it."
He did brush over it and unfortunately missed a step but using a feature offset is a standard tracking procedure. In a later comment after your initial objection to the tutorial he gave the step that was missed and some extra Tracking 101 commentary.
"The logic is still there, though: tracking part of your object (how is less than an inch down "nowhere near" the beginning of the string? It's still on the same plane.) so that you don't have to constantly keyframe the start and end points of the Wire Removal."
How you get a solid track doesn't change how the effect is used. If you can track the end(s) of the wire(s) then great. If not track something else and move the track anchor manually to the end(s) of the wire(s) to set a feature offset. Once done the effect won't know the difference in tracking techniques.
Last but not least, nothing you've said today has any relevance to the terms of the bet. Sorry but you lost this one in a spectacular fashion but you aren't Trump and this isn't Twitter. Pay up sucka!
P.S. I have to say I'm probably enjoying this one too much
@Aladdin4d Everything I've said relates to the awkwardness of the method in the first video, so don't get your knickers in a twist about the terms of the bet, because the way the Effect itself works is still confusing, and after watching the video it's more confusing, because Andy001z suggested what I thought Javert had suggested as well, so presumably he wasn't entirely clear about it? I'd suggest it's equally confusing hiding a link to a video behind a Paypal Address. Do you think it's helpful having the marker points wander away from the thing you want them to be attached to (which is Hitfilm's fault, not Javert's)? From your comments, I don't think you've actually tried to use the effect, or you wouldn't be defending either it or the video so strongly, other than as a means to complain about the bet. If you do, then no need to watch this video, which does the opposite of what Javert did, but uses the tracker offset to keep the markers where they make sense: where you put them; at least for the start of the tracked section. It's still quicker to use a second point, but maybe a little tidier?But, full credit to Javert for knowing what he should/could have done in the video, because it gave me the idea for the method below and I've learnt something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC5r6QsE7A4Incidentally, people with Express can use either the 2 Point Lightsword Effect (if they have that Add on), which is basically what the Wire Removal Effect is based on, but with the funky 'gravity' effect on the pixels around the line to stretch the outer pixels over the inner ones. Or if no Addon pack, then the Lightning Effect as a line. Both allow you to create a Matte, cut a hole in the video where the line is, and put a second copy of the video behind the hole to replace where the line was (which is fairly similar to the BCC 8.0 Wire Removal Effect). You can use a variety of methods behind the foreground video: a cleanplate attached to a tracked point, some blurring, offsetting the lower track slightly or some magnify, bulge or other distortion (displacement doesn't quite work) or a combination of several of them. I've sent Javert the money, but IMO the video could benefit from a redo, but if you disagree, maybe the video's comment section could direct people to this thread?
"Do you think it's helpful having the marker points wander away from the thing you want them to be attached to?"
No I don't but I also realize if I intend on using using another layer for position data, such as a point layer transformed by a good track, then the effect markers become a secondary modifier best used as such if at all.
"From your comments, I don't think you've actually tried to use the effect, or you wouldn't be defending either it or the video so strongly, other than as a means to complain about the bet. "
Don't be ridiculous! Of course I didn't try it. I couldn't even be bothered to install HitFilm much less try to use it so I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about. Sheesh!
There's nothing intrinsically wrong or illogical with the effect or what @inScapeDigital did you just don't like how he did it. What he did isn't going to be the best way in all cases but then again no single way is always going to be the best in all cases. You went overboard, made much ado about nothing and lost a bet in the process. Cheers!
@Aladdin4d oh, the sarcastic non-denial denial? You haven't tried it...
@Palacono I've already used it to remove rigging cables from a few promo shots for lighting/decor packages so if you were expecting me to suddenly say "oh my that's crazy stupid" that's not going to happen. Do I use it like @inScapeDigital did? Not exactly but I didn't take any seriously over complicated steps like you either because that just isn't worth the trouble. I picked two things in shot the whole time for a two point track and used two point layers per cable. I set a feature offset for the first tracking point on one end of the cable just as described and shown above, tracked my points and applied the data to the first point layer. Depending on the shot I did one of two things. I either moved the tracking anchor point to the other end of the cable, tracked again and applied the new offset data to the second point or if it was more like the shot here where the other end remained off screen I moved the tracking anchor off screen as well inline with the cable and scrubbed through to make sure it stayed off screen and reasonably close. Typically I'd have to move it 3-6 times per shot. Once done scrubbing I applied the data to the second point layer.
@Aladdin4d sounds like your use would be easier to understand. The points being off where you need to track will always be a problem for me though.
"Seriously overcomplicated steps"? I literally copied two coords to the track (feature) offset and negated them. That could be applied to any and all tracking data you use. I'd suggest that small amount of time and effort would easily offset the hunting around you do trying to guide the points to the ends of the wire by handles nowhere near them.
Also, consider the circumstances when the line ends aren't near the centre of the screen: the handles could be pushed off the edge entirelay by the current offset. Great fun hunting for them and moving the screen around. My way keeps them on it screen.
I think the tutorial was great, because it not only showed you how to use the wire removal effect, but also that you don't have to track the actual point with the wire. You can easily be in a situation where the background confuses the tracker, so that you're unable to track on the actual ends of the wire. This technique, where you track in a different place, and then move the anchor is extremely useful.
You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter.
You can unsubscribe from newsletters at any time.
© 2018 FXhome Limited. All rights reserved. "FXhome", "PhotoKey", "Imerge" and "HitFilm" are trademarks of FXhome Limited.