Anotehr Vegas 8 request.. Lock lens flare to point

DJPadre wrote on 6/5/2007, 6:52 AM
ok, lens flares are very pretty, but they look ratehr bad when they dotn track with the actual frame in motion..
aside from tedious KF'ing, how bout an easy way out by locking the Lens flare point to a pixel grid on the frame.. then as those colours/pixels within those frames move, that lock point tracks along with that series (or range) of colours..

this would be the easiest way to make this work without teh need for adaptive or predictive algorythms.. all it needs to do is lock onto those pixels and it automatically moves as those pixels move...

Another one. is the Auto Correction (mike crash adaptation of VDub filter) It works a treat, BUT it does not have a locking switch, in turn it fluctuates at every change of luminance or colour which is not good

im trying to think of afew more but im tired now

Comments

GlennChan wrote on 6/5/2007, 3:33 PM
Er... you mean like motion tracking in After Effects and similar programs?

2- Why not just use AE (Pro)?
MUTTLEY wrote on 6/5/2007, 4:25 PM


lol, I've been asking and hoping for motion tracking for years. If you haven't used it, ya just don't know how valuable this would be to Vegas.

- Ray
DJPadre wrote on 6/5/2007, 10:46 PM
Ahh u see glenn, but this is the beauty of what im asking..

its THAT simple to keyframe a point to point marker, problem we have is that our KF tools dont have the resolution to zoom into the pixel for us to manualy lock onto that point.
That big square block in our filter tweakign box just doesnt cut it , unless we can zoom in to the pixel level, which we cant... BUT the filter works on the pixel level, considering its virtually generated media.. i might be wrong, but it behaves like a composite either way, with a central point for the generated media to establish itself

the issue of AE is exactly that.. the issue of AE..
being that its not wise to let sony expose their clients to a competitors tool which can do this efficiently, why not just come up with their own??

The system/engine could itself be utilitsed to create other filters, such as stabilisation.. ie lock pixel range to actual frame XY output location.. then, we can use pan and crop to zoom in to those areas and cover up the edging/rotation..

its a simple concept
Grazie wrote on 6/6/2007, 12:22 AM
problem we have is that our KF tools dont have the resolution to zoom into the pixel for us to manualy lock onto that point.

Eh? I don't get this? Even with this resolution, how, in at that's "Isaac Newton", have Vegas "lock" to a moving point in space/time? Without doing this manually, how can I do it? Manually, maybe, but not an updating auto option? Surely not?

All the rest you say I do understand.

Have I lost the plot already today? It's not even 9:00am, and I'm already struggling.

Grazie
DJPadre wrote on 6/6/2007, 12:40 AM
"problem we have is that our KF tools dont have the resolution to zoom into the pixel for us to manualy lock onto that point.

Eh? I don't get this? Even with this resolution, how, in at that's "Isaac Newton", have Vegas "lock" to a moving point in space/time? Without doing this manually, how can I do it? Manually, maybe, but not an updating auto option? Surely not?"

U kno whtat little XY control pad we use to move things around in radial blurs and lens falre etc, THAT isnt very accurate..
I meant to saythat THAT panel doesnt have teh resolution to lock onto a range of pixels.. ie, we cant even zoom in to do it manullay, we need to use numbers..

How would vegas lock onto a moving point?
Simple, consider a grid the size of 8x8 pixels across.. in those 64 pixels you would have a range of colour. now if you were to lock onto that range, within the source material, then to lock onto where those pixels SHOULD be on the output frame, youd have your "stabiliser"

Its how most of tracking SW does it.. but im refering to pixels, NOT points in the frame.. its different.. im considering a range of pixels which use a variance in colour/contrast/luminance to lock that point, as opposed to using a point in "space time" (which is how current keyframing works.. ie, at this point, i want this there.. at that point, i want it to be over there..
see where im gettin at?


Grazie wrote on 6/6/2007, 12:55 AM
Yes, DJ, I do understand 99% of what you say, but it is this, which the 1%, which in actual fact IS the most important I don't see how VEGAS woiuld do it: Simple, consider a grid the size of 8x8 pixels across.. in those 64 pixels you would have a range of colour. now if you were to lock onto that range, within the source material, then to lock onto where those pixels SHOULD be on the output frame, youd have your "stabiliser"

Where's Vegas' present "lockability"? Are you saying Vegas SHOULD have a kinda VD that locks to it? Is that what you are saying? No? Yes?

But I think you are saying something further. And that is that WHATEVER we may try and achieve with lockability, if VEGAS can't produce the resolution required to do it, the lockability is grounded from the start? Is this what you are saying too?

Sorry, matey! I'm being rather dense this morning - that friggin' 2012 Logo STILL has me pissed - still!!

Grazie
DJPadre wrote on 6/6/2007, 2:09 AM
Where's Vegas' present "lockability"? Are you saying Vegas SHOULD have a kinda VD that locks to it? Is that what you are saying? No? Yes?

((EXACTLY!!!.. Vegas DOESNT lock onto any points unless u specify through KFing.. IF however we could lock on, that that actual algorythm of pixel tracking (through contrast/luminance could be used for other functions, such as stabilisation,lens flares or overlay tracking etc etc.. ))

But I think you are saying something further. And that is that WHATEVER we may try and achieve with lockability, if VEGAS can't produce the resolution required to do it, the lockability is grounded from the start? Is this what you are saying too?

((Precisely.. being that if we WERE able to zoom into the pixels within the filter chain, we could, in theory, manually track that range of pixels (as an example) and KF the "lock" manually as required .. It would be long and tedious, but at least it would work..