Best way to set trans for multi still in Vegas

watson wrote on 6/16/2003, 11:47 AM

I want to create a template for stills on a time line with transitions each still time 55 seconds long.

I want to be able to batch process my stills at 200 dpi so I can pan/zoom with good quality and once I have this laid out be able to quickly replace all stills with another batch as easily as possible.

Does anyone have the best procedure for this so it can be done quickly using the 'law of least effort' I need quick turn around on these projects.

Thank you for any suggestions including batch processing software suggestions.

Cheers,
W

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/16/2003, 12:31 PM

Keep all the pictures the same size, then after you finish off one batch just exit vegas, move all the pictures to another folder, then re-open your vegas project. Choose a different picture when it asks you where it should look for the origionals. not to hard, just tedious (hint: if you have the sets of pictures named the same [ie sets of 50 called pic01-50], then when you replace them, you'll just need to choose the first pic. then vegas will ask if it shoud use this folder to find the rest).

rmack350 wrote on 6/16/2003, 3:50 PM

THFriar is right on, I'll expand a bit though.

DPI is a relative thing. The first thing to do is to make sure all your images are a standard dimension in pixels. Forget about DPI-once you've scanned DPI will never enter the equation again.

Yes, it's going to be easiest if your picture sets have standardized sequential names. Keep each set in a new folder, named the same way, and it'' be fairly easy to swap one set for the next. All you havre to do is rename the old folder and then vegas will ask for the location of the media and you'll point it at the folder you want.

As far as image duration goes, there are settings in prefs for image length and (I believe) for overlap.

The type of transition might need a little fidling but once you've got the basic project file down you'll be able to swap media as above.

Rob Mack

watson wrote on 6/16/2003, 9:33 PM

Thanks guys,
W