Text motion

Chienworks wrote on 12/6/2005, 3:44 AM

Rather than track motion, it's probably a lot simpler to use text placement. In the text media generator window click on the Placement tab. Move the text to the desired starting position, which can be outside the frame if you wish. At the bottom of that window is a miniature timeline. Move the cursor to the frame where you want the motion to end and click the diamond shaped button with the + sign in it to create a new keyframe. Now drag the text to the ending position. By adding more keyframes you can have the text move in different directions and to different places from moment to moment.

It isn't necessary to create a new track for each text event. I'm guessing the problem you are having is that track motion affects the entire track. If you do use track motion then it's easy enough to set a new keyframe to move the track to the next text event's starting position while no text is visible. However, if you use the text placement method then even this isn't necessary at all since placement is local to each individual event rather than applying to the whole track.

Harty wrote on 12/6/2005, 4:03 AM

Thanks very much, that's spot on!

johnmeyer wrote on 12/6/2005, 8:18 AM

And remember that track motion works on the media that has already been created. What this means is that if you zoom into the media, you will end up with less than your project resolution, because the "generated media" is generated at project resolution. If, instead, you zoom and do your moves within the media generator (in this case the text generator), the text will be generated at full project resolution, regardless of the zoom, angle, move, etc. This is not a subtle difference: It is quite fundamental.

When working with video that is already at the project resolution, there is absolutely no difference, and you can use track motion without worrying about this. However, when using high res video (HD) that will be down-sampled; or high-res still photos; or generated media; you need to be careful when using track motion to zoom, and avoid it if possible.

Spot|DSE wrote on 12/6/2005, 8:27 AM

John brings up important points, but doesn't mention using pan/crop to do this with.
For what it's worth, I virtually always create my text at 1440 x 960, partially for this reason. It also gives a crisper text with some situations.

backlit wrote on 12/6/2005, 1:23 PM

Harty,

You can also use Pan & Crop to easily move generated text around the frame. Once you click on the P&C icon located at the end of media clip you will see a control screen very similar to that of generated media. Once there, you can size and place the text where you want and set the desired movement keyframes. I personally find this method a little more flexible and it gets around a bug in the text placement where sometimes you can't get it completely out of the frame. It also affects only the clip rather than the track.

There, you can choose from a few different ways.

David

Oops, I see DSE has already mentioned this...

Chienworks wrote on 12/6/2005, 1:31 PM

David, i've never seen that bug with text placement. Can you describe what happens?

backlit wrote on 12/7/2005, 9:26 AM

Sure.

I've run into it a couple of times and haven't really kept track of the all the circumstances but as I remember it...

1) I would start the text generator and type out some text
2) Move the text off the frame on the left side
3) Move CTI to 1/3 and move text to center of frame (setting keyframe)
4) Move CTI to 2/3 and set keyframe
5) Move CTI to end and move text off the right side of frame

When previewing the clip, text would not completely leave the frame.

I admit this was long ago, perhaps the 6.0a version and also perhaps I could have had some confusion with my keyframes. It would not be the first time I've developed strange behavior from moving and editing keyframes.

I suppose with that said, it is not fair to characterize this as a bug. Has anyone else run into this with the text media generator?

David

Grazie wrote on 12/7/2005, 9:46 AM

If you want text to totally vanish you have to force this by entering "numbers" in the X:Y coords. PLUS you can use "-ve" numbers too. This gives me massive control over the text placement and eventual text flow. My last biggie was 100 authors being streamed right to left. Use k/fs for each end - need text to vanish . . then force with BIG numbers in the X:Y ... also, as I say use a negative too.

Grazie

rs170a wrote on 12/7/2005, 10:51 AM

If you want to see a really good example of what you can do with text, check out (Sony) Matthew Chaboud's site, specifically the 3D titles example towards the bottom of the page.

Mike

TorS wrote on 12/7/2005, 3:18 PM

Text movement is by default set to smooth (or something to that effect). Sometimes the "smoothing" function causes the text to move a little different from what we wanted it to do. You can overcome this by exaggerating the movement or by setting the type of movement to sharp or fast or whatever it's called. I can't remember, and I can't be bothered to open Vegas to find out. See for yourselves.
Tor

tbush wrote on 1/11/2006, 11:54 AM

Hi...I have been trying to get text with scrolling motion across the screen. I have been following the directions given by Chienworks for the text media generator. I am using Vegas 6. When I am at the placement tab...there is no small timeline to create keyframes. When I go to Pan/crop I can't get any of the text that I put outside of the placement screen. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Tara

tbush wrote on 1/11/2006, 12:17 PM

O.K. this is kind of weird....my timeline is missing in the text generator. I got out my Vegas DVD set and it shows the timeline there, but I don't have it on my screen?

rs170a wrote on 1/11/2006, 12:24 PM

my timeline is missing in the text generator.

It's definitely there. Try dragging the window to make it larger.

Mike

jetdv wrote on 1/11/2006, 1:20 PM

Move your mouse slowly to the bottom of that window. As soon as it turns into an up/down arrow, click and drag up.

The timeline can be resized until you can't see it anymore. It's just a matter of resizing it back.

tbush wrote on 1/11/2006, 2:00 PM

Thank you so much. I resized it. I am so stupid sometimes. Tara

fldave wrote on 1/11/2006, 2:02 PM

I think I used it that way for 4 months!

Chienworks wrote on 1/11/2006, 2:12 PM

Tara, you're most definately not stupid. You are learning, and that's a good thing. :)

jetdv wrote on 1/11/2006, 2:24 PM

I agree, definitely not stupid. That exact same problem has caught many people over the years. There are many things like that.

Grazie wrote on 1/11/2006, 11:58 PM

"There are many things like that." - and not necessarily video related either! LOL!

My favourites are:

* Editing and NOT seeing the results . . . then I remember I have 2 instances of Vegas open and I'm looking at the WRONG "preview" instance

* Not having the Fx button actioned on Preview window

* Not having the correct Fx selected

* Me forgetting that Vegas "forgets" where I've put files.

* Me forgetting a track IS a child to another one above

* Me not renaming Tapes - anybody done that one! !?? Yeah, of course you have!

Back to the missing K/F t/l, how about a double click on the separation bars for a default open to SHOW the T/L tracks . . huh?

Grazie

jeff_12_7 wrote on 1/12/2006, 1:56 PM

Or forgetting you have the "Ripple edit" turned ON. Ripple edit is a great function, but when you start moving things around and you realize you left it on...oh boy, deadly. (How many times can I hit CTRL-Z to figure out where I was?)

Maverick wrote on 1/12/2006, 4:32 PM

Does this theory (johnmeyer above) work the same for video events and photos (P&C) zoom gives better quality results than track motion?

If this is so I will need to redo my current project. But, first, som photos do not fill the entire frame so I require TM first to zoom anyway - yes?

Cheers

rs170a wrote on 1/12/2006, 5:29 PM

Maverick, the only time I use Track Motion is when I'm doing a PIP or I want to make a video clip smaller. If you use TM or P/C to zoom into a (standard def) video clip, it'll start pixellating fairly quickly.

As far as your photos filling the frame, if you're referring to images that almost fill the frame, go into the P/C window, right click and choose "match output aspect".
If you're referring to images that were shot vertically, you can still do this but you'll have to then decide which portion of the image to use. HTH.

Mike

Maverick wrote on 1/12/2006, 5:42 PM

Hi Mike

I, too, have used track motion very effectively for PIP and, it seems that, as the origianl video or photo is reduced then quality is not affected so much.

I have always used track motion for zooming into a photo never being aware that there could be a better option.

There is a bonus to using Tracking Motion in that you don't have to make the settings for each event within that track.

The thing against using 'Match aspect Ratio' is the fact that people begin to look a little fatter so, for now, I have been zooming and losing a little quality:(

rs170a wrote on 1/12/2006, 9:29 PM

I have always used track motion for zooming into a photo never being aware that there could be a better option.

That should read "much better" option. Try doing a pan & scan with TM :-)

There is a bonus to using Tracking Motion in that you don't have to make the settings for each event within that track.

When you're doing a 200+ photo montage, you don't want everything to look the same.

The thing against using 'Match aspect Ratio' is the fact that people begin to look a little fatter ...

Are you watching the end result on a TV set or your computer monitor? I don't get any "why do I look fat" complaints.

Mike