Strange. It worked for me in a test I ran before posting the idea. Here's a more detailed breakdown of my steps if it'll help:
That's it. The effects will only sit behind the plane, and will follow the plane as it transforms.
Ok thank you @jsbarrett
I was browsing youtube and reminiscing, have a look how cool this looks, posted 1 year ago:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWR4HHCCVMM
1 year ago? That's from 2012.
Oops, 5 years ago:)
Sorry I had missed this (sometimes I just get too many notifications). From the tests I had done I couldn't isolate the case where HF5 was slower than HF4. What you are trying to create is going to be computer intensive so it may well be normal that it takes a long time to render.
Now if you can have a HF4 project that plays fine in 4 but when opened in HF2017 is really slow then definitely send it our way.
As mentioned a few weeks ago, I do not have the 4 version anymore as I saved it under 2017. In hindsight if I had have known, I would have made a backup of it before saving in 2017.Thank you @CedricBonnier
The Eagle in the middle of the photo, the inner part is very clear, yet the other parts has some opacity.
Can someone give me some insight please how to do that in Hitfilm Express as I only seem to be able to apply opacity to the whole eagle, not just the other edges like in the photo.Thank you:)https://www.dropbox.com/s/7gt4vavov66ezda/christian-art-poster-eagles-wings.jpg?dl=0
Mask around the areas you want to keep, increase feathering on the mask.
Masking tools are covered at about 15:30.
@Triem23 I was playing around with the masking tool as I was confident that was the right tool to use for this objective, however it made the other parts in the photo disappear so I got confused.Thank you, I will watch your tutorial to see where I went wrong:)
In general, the first mask drawn on a layer (for an eagle) should be the part you want to keep. Mask the part you want to be opaque, then feather OUT to bring in translucent areas.
If the feathering brings in parts of the image you don't want, add a second mask around what you want to eliminate, set its blend to SUBTRACT.
ADD means "see me." SUBTRACT means "don't see me."
@Triem23 I followed your instructions, and I change feather to OUT and changed feather strength to 133pixels and this is the result, what you think?Thank you soooooo much for your helping with this objective as I want to use this technique for many future projects:)Here is original:https://www.dropbox.com/s/am0rfzja5blskp1/Eagle1.png?dl=0And here is result:https://www.dropbox.com/s/ggwph2m3m5xxkg6/Eagle2.png?dl=0
Looks good to me.
This looks great.
My objective is to create a moving light source on a floor similar to this following video, but as you can see the light is not a 3D light as I want it, instead it shows as a 2D light inside a plane:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxiDXrgG3TsAny guidance on what I am doing wrong would be appreciated. Thank you:)
@Triem23 Do you know if and how it's possible to move a light source around a stage, see my video above, in pure free 3D movement on its own as a 3D light source?Cheers.
Because HitFilm light flares are always applied to planes, you'll have to fake it.
Take the plane with your light flare and move it on the Z axis so that it completely fills the frame, and is sitting closer to the camera than anything else in your comp. Adjust the HotSpot Position property on the flare effect to 0, 0, and change Use Layer to your actual light (which you've probably already done). This will at least make basic animation a little less cumbersome, as you still want the real light to affect your other scene elements. You'll also need to change the material properties of your flare-holding plane to un-check the "Illuminated" box. Otherwise the real light will make the flare layer invisible.
By animating the scale property on the Light Flares effect as you move the actual light through 3D space, you can create the impression that the flare is shrinking as it moves farther from camera, and growing closer to camera. Just match the keyframe timing of your actual light source.
lol, good timing, I was just about to message you too @jsbarrett to get your valued input:)Thank you for your reply.
My latest video, rendered at 4.1GB as mp4 format and I then uploaded it to youtube.
Once upload was finished, it plays looking exact same resolution.
So I download my own video from my own youtube channel and the downloaded youtube mp4 file is only 500MB in size.
Hitfilm uses some form of compression when rendering to mp4, but why does youtube successfully make it 500MB? Any way to use an external rendering in Hitfilm to get smaller size rendered mp4?Thanks:)
Lower the bitrate on your Hitfilm renders to the same as that in your downloaded version. Use MediaInfo to see what that is.
One thing about YouTube is its going to recompress your video once uploaded.
Mp4 is a LOSSY compression scheme, meaning it degrades your footage during compression. The smaller you pack the file the more degraded it becomes.
Now, to get a file size the same as YouTube you could drop the bitrate of your export by a lot, but I suspect you'd see reduced quality in the YouTube version after upload. I think creating a larger file to upload is proper procedure.
For the record, YouTube plays back a 1080p video at about 3-5Mbps, but YouTube recommends uploading a 1080p file at 10-12mbps (or 2-4 times the size of the YouTube stream), specifically to help prevent degredation from re-encoding.
So YouTube's official documentation is telling you your source upload should be much larger than the YouTube output.
I actually render everything at 35mbps. Why? 35mbps is a typical data rate for a DSLR/MFT or video camera to capture mp4 video.
TL/DR this is normal and should be expected. Don't change what you're doing.
Thanks for the replies
Sign in to comment
You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter.
You can unsubscribe from newsletters at any time.
© 2018 FXhome Limited. All rights reserved. "FXhome", "PhotoKey" and "HitFilm" are trademarks of FXhome Limited.