My opinion?

First off I have reproed the "effect" you are reporting, using a letter "O", and yes at around KF2 there is this markedly abrupt change of direction.

Secondly, Vegas is doing exactly what it should be doing. And that is, in a "linear" way make a change in the direction without any smoothness. However, what I am seeing is that the initial first section of movement has 2 elements going for it:

i) TOWARDS the viewer

and

ii) GROWTH of the item

You have imparted 2 parameters to what is a Linear KF, and as such this is fine.

Then on the 2nd part of the PATH you have a further adjustment to these 2 parameters

iii) BIGGER towards the viewer

and

iv) RISING upwards

Now, in assisting Vegas to do what I want to do I have had to try positioning KF2 further towards KF3. This DOES have the effect of "flattening-out" the abruptness, which I think is being created by the clash of the 2 parameters of growth and direction. There just HAS to be a point that is making this markedly rate of change becoming visible for us. PLUS as there is NO Smoothness I've raised this to 1.000. The OTHER way would be to gradually test for a rate of change in direction - coming forwardness - and lift. Also the 1st section is being achieved "faster" than the 2nd section. My moving KF2 towards KF3 is diluting the strength of the 2 parameter disparity.

As I say, I've had much better results in manipulating KF2's position and altering the smoothness to 1.000 . Try each of these for the "sweet-spot".

What you have may appear as simple, and yes in essence it should appear that way to the viewer too, but it is not as simple in its manipulation.

Interesting,

Grazie

Thanks, Bob. It's late here in L.A. so brain fading out, and definitely dead to editing. I'll take another look at the book's site and consider it.

Taking in consideration said neurons fade, let me ask you this:

-- You mentioned cameras in plural. Would one be able to make this work better if stacked two of the effects .PNG on their own tracks, cutting each corresponding to the two movements, i.e. Star 1 would be keyframe 1 to 2, then Star 2 keyframe 2 to 3?

So that there would be two "camera" shots of the same effect object and perhaps more adjustable in that I could do some kind of crossover around keyframe 2 to simulate a more so called "graceful" change of motion..

Or maybe this is just not a solution. As I said, time to go to bed, but figured I'd ask.

As to rotoscoping or doing this frame by frame, that's out of the question:

--- I'd turn 90 years old before I'd get this project done due to amount of effects I'm developing. That short star effect alone had 250 frames :)

____________________

Last but not least, something I have been meaning to ask here at this board related to keyframes types, smoothness, etc. which is also relevant to this Q:

--- Is there some online and/or other Vegas guide or tutorial that helps one know when to use what kind (i.e. Linear, Smooth, Slow, etc.) and for what.
So far, I just experiment and choose what looks best, but there must be some science/logic or system to each.

And to all a good night for now :)

Thanks, Grazie, you posted your reply as I posted my reply to Bob. I read your post but I"m too tired to handle it without mental frame drops, so will have to come back after some sleep :)

I really doubt you can do this in Vegas using just event pan/crop.

Real world:

Pan camera L to R while zooming in, reverse the actions.
Ease the zoom but not the pan.

In event pan/crop you only need three key frames. Start, mid, end.

Now for the pan the interpolation should be linear i.e. no smoothing.
For the zoom you want the smoothing, we eased the zoom in and out.
Problem is there's only one track for both size and position. Adding more keyframes doesn't help, makes matters worse because they'll have the exact same problem, they affect the interpolation between both size and position.

Your best shot is to use event pan/crop for the size and track motion for the position. This way you can apply different interpolation. Just tried this approach and it works a treat.

Bob.

Y'know what Bob?

I did try TM without P/C. It worked, it was good too.

And I have used a combo of TM with P/C but got meself confused as to what was where and with what and by who?!?? But in the cold light of day, applying your totally fundamental approach to the 2 parameters of ZOOM and PAN and thence using this understanding for the TM + P/C combo is magic!! Great stuff!

Too obvious that I don't see it . . <Bow-Down> <Bow-Down>

Now, how about a kinda 5.1 surround-video manipulation that provides this smooooth result?

Grazie

Thanks for additional replies.

Also got one from johnmeyer via email which I am asking his permission to post. It has some useful tips,including how to use/not use Track motion due to how it actually works.

I vill be bak :)