Differences b/t 2D moving path and pan & zoom video filt

[bskousen]

In the past I have always used the 2d moving path to move around a still image and to zoom in and out. However, I also notice they have a similar video filter. What are the differences and which one provides better quality.

Also, I have observed some of the discussion around reducing flickering with still images. I notice there is a flicker reduction option available, but only for frame-based fields. Only the deinterlace option is available for lower/upper fields. Will checking this reduce flicker? My understanding has been that one should use either an upper or lower field for anything that will be viewed on anything other than a computer monitor. Thus, I have always used lower field first.

[sjj1805]

I have been creating a few slide shows recently to put this new software through it's paces. I use both the pan and zoom and also the 2D filters Which one I use depends upon the effect I am trying to produce.

The majority of my pictures have pan and zoom so that I can achieve the Ken Burns Effect. The 2D filters I use to create multi-screens and PIP effects. You can also use the 2D filters as an alternative to transitions by making pictures zoom in from nowhere - or zoom out. Also you can with a bit of tweaking make pictures twirl in, roll in, gambol etc.

When dealing with still photographs you should use "Frame based"
When dealing with moving pictures captured by an anologue source such as a TV card use Upper Field First.
When dealing with moving pictures captured by way of a Digital Source such as your camcorder connected with a i-link/Firewire/ieee1394 cable then use Lower Field First.

If you want to "mix and match" some still photo slideshows with moving footage from your camcorder I have found the following to be very successful:

1. Create your still image slideshow with all your transitions etc and render it as a frame based AVI File. Also use the antiflicker filter on all of the still images. Despite what others may say, I have found that it does make a difference, but you neednt take my word for it - render a few and see for yourself.

2. Having created your slideshow AVI, you can now insert it into your Moving footage work. This time render to either Lower field or Upper field dependant upon the source of your moving footage. I have done this several times and it works.

You can combine the 2D filters with the pan and zoom. I did this recently with a still image that had 3 points of interest. I used the 2D filters to create 4 screens. One had the original image, the other 3 contained close ups of the 3 points of interest which included a slight zooming in effect.

Finally both Terry Stetler and myself have created some extra moving PIP effects which you may wish to download.

Please view this post:
http://phpbb.ulead.com.tw/EN/viewtopic. ... oving+pips

Regards
Steve J

[bskousen]

The reason why this is confusing is because I can and have used a 2D moving path to create Ken Burns type effects. In fact it is very easy. But someone in the past told me that I would get better results by using the pan and zoom video filter for this effect. Thus, I want to know which is better. BTW, thanks for the clarification on using frame-based when working with still images.

[sjj1805]

Yes you can do Ken Burns with the 2D paths but...
There are 3 categories of effects that can be added to a clip.

One category is Transitions, another is moving paths and the third is video filters. You cannot place 2 moving paths onto one clip, if you try then the new one will replace the exisiting one. So if you place two screens side by side you couldn't also zoom the picture within the box.

Likewise you couldn't include two transitions onto one clip.

You can however include the pan and zoom (video filter) as it is from the other of the 3 categories. The only category that enables you to use more than one effect at once is video filters where you can make adjustments to brightness, contrast, colour correction etc.

The choice depends upon the individual image or video and what you are attempting to achieve. For a Ken Burns Effect the pan and zoom is the easiest way to achieve this result.

[Devil]

There is two major differences if you wish complex but smooth effects:

1. 2D MPs interpolate pans between key frames linearly: P&Z has a kinda sorta Bezier interpolation
2. 2D MPs are limited to a dozen or so keyframes; P&Z permits many more (the actual numbers escape me offhand)