Skip to main content

Filter by idea status

10000+ Ideas

Fix the TRACK MATTE effect with a "Motion Settings Affect Matte" Checkbox!Open for Voting

The Track Matte effect in Premiere Pro almost never works the way we editors need it to, and it's high time this essential effect gets fixed!When creating a Track Matte, changing the Motion parameters of the clip the effect is applied to also changes the resulting matte. For example, if I zoom my clip to 120%, the clip zooms 120% but so does the matte. This makes it impossible to move a clip within a matte's 'window' without nesting. The current way to get around this is to nest the clip, apply the Track Matte effect to the nest rather than the clip itself, and then edit the clip's Motion settings/keyframes within the nest. Unfortunately this is a HORRIBLE workflow, since it forces editors to edit their clip's motion settings and keyframes out of context of the master sequence. It also involves the extra steps of nesting.After Effects handles masking the way it should work: making any changes to a clip doesn't affect the resulting matted effect. This is the way it should also work in Premiere Pro!!!!!!!!!!A simple way to fix this problem, that would serve the needs of everyone, would be to simply add a "Motion Settings Affect Matte" checkbox to the Track Matte effect, and leave it unchecked by default. This way, the 0.0001% of users who want track mattes to work the way they currently work in Premiere could continue with the current workflow, just by clicking the checkbox, and the 99.9999% of users who want PP's matting to work the way it does in AE could finally have AE's far superior matting workflow inside Premiere!The AE team gets it. Why can't the PP team understand how track matting should work???Adobe, Track Matte is one of those effects that pro editors use all of the time! We would really, truly, greatly appreciate it if you could finally make time in your busy schedule to fix this essential tool before resuming attention to other features that are used by far fewer people.Thank you!!!!!

Global object, expression or class for After Effects expressionsOpen for Voting

Hey all, I'm building MOGRTs more and more, and I often use a ton of expressions as I find it can really help speed up the animation workflow. I'd like to ask for some kind of global object to use in expressions.  This would make expressions many times more efficient and lightweight to run.  It could be a global function or class, but I think an object would be preferable. An example from a recent project is where there are many moving elements that are adjustable via the EGP (essential graphics panel).  Depending on the user inputs in EGP, the layers move differently or at different times.  Due to the way AFX expressions work, I had to write a script and then copy and modify it for every single layer, and in that script there was a lot of duplication in the script.  When there was an amendment to the script, I had to edit every instance of that script and account for any unique properties of that layer. Imagine then, I have a global object that is iniated at begining of project and is accessible to every layer: const global = {};Using this, I can create a single layer that runs a streamlined, lightweight version of the expressions and outputs it to global like this: t = thisComp.layer("controls").effect("type")("Menu"); s = thisComp.layer("controls").effect("size")("Slider"); d = thisComp.layer("controls").effect("duration")("Slider"); // Calculate how the inputs affect the properties if (f == 1) { output1 = linear(time, 0, d, 0, s); output2 = linear(time, d, 0, s, 0); } else if (f == 2) { output1 = linear(time, 0, d, 50, s); output2 = linear(time, d, 0, s, 50); } else { output1 = linear(time, 0, (d*2), 0, s); output2 = linear(time, d, 0, (s*2), 0); } s = thisComp.layer("style").text.sourceText.style; s = s.setText(val) global = { "layer1" : { "position" : [0,output1], "opacity" : linear(time, 0, d, 0, output1), }, "layer2" : { "position" : [0,output1], "opacity" : linear(time, 0, d, 0, output1-output2), }, "layer3" : { "position" : [0,output1], "opacity" : linear(time, 0, d, 0, output1+output2), } } Consider the above script, I can do a round of calculations and assign those to the global variable, and then in layer1 I can simply call global["layer1"].position in an expression in the position property.  This saves recalculating everything for every layer, which is what I currently have to do. I did try to find a workaround: I created a text layer, set it up like so, and set the text output to:  "JSON.encode(global)".  I then read the text layer with other layers and used JSON.parse() to read it in.  It worked a bit but it was buggy and clearly didn't like it. I'd find a global object that could be used in expressions very useful and valuable in AFX please!  

P: Renaming Search and ReplaceOpen for Voting

I'm sure most photographers who shoot thousands of images rename their files.  I typically have more than one camera and multiple lenses for each of my project, and before I start shooting, I synchronize all my cameras to the same local time.  When I bring up the raw images in LR, I sort them in the order they were shot, and I rename the images using the following convention:   YY-MMDD Event-#### (Camera, Lens) <other qualifiers>   For example: 23-0913 Istanbul-0563 (LEICA SL2,APO-SUMMICRON-SL 1-2-90 ASPH.) 23-0913 Istanbul-0564 (Fujifilm GFX100 II, GF35-70mmF4.5-5.6 WR)   There are very good reasons for me to be able to rename these files further with a "Search" and "Replace".  The camera and lens names (obtained from the EXIF data) are typically unweildy and create long file names.  I would like to be able to do a search and replace text strings, so I can streamline the names, e.g., into something like: 23-0913 Istanbul-0563 (SL2, SL90APO) 23-0913 Istanbul-0564 (GFX100 II, GF35-70)   At other times, I may have misspelled a name, e.g., "Taznaina" instead of "Tanzania".  I would like to search and replace the word for all my files.  It would not be practical to simply rename them all, since I might have culled and deleted some images, output and shared some others, etc., so to rename all files would also renumber many files, and that would cause a lot of confusion.   So I hope LR will provide the ability to batch rename images.  This is a feature Capture One provides, and I have found it extremely valuable.   Also, while at it, I highly recommend providing a "Rename" by right-clicking any image, either in Develop or Library mode.  Such a renaming feature would be extremely handy.   Hope others find these inputs useful.    

P: Shift Key to zoom and pan both images simultaneouslyOpen for Voting

Hi, I have three suggestions for the Reference View UI that Capture One provides, and I hope LR will also.   First, I should be able to use the Shift key to drill down into both images, and also, pan within both images, as long as I am holding down the Shift key.  This lets me quickly compare two images for sharpness, micro contrast, color, etc. at different parts of an image.   Second, I should be able to click to select either image in situ and be able to edit it.  I might be comparing two images from two different cameras, and I might like the way the greens were rendered in one and the magentas were rendered in the other, and neither image might have been perfect.  So I ought to be able to tweak either image to bring it closer to the other.  If the Reference image is a "gold standard" that should not be disturbed, then it is easy to provide an edit lock for that image.  Currently, the only way I can edit the reference image on the left is by also making it the working image on the right, which is very cumbersome.Third, as a follow up to the above, currently if I try to crop the Reference image, I get kicked out of the dual-image mode altogether.  Frequently, I am trying to crop two images to the same size, by having the same margins around a subject in the center.  I should be able to adjust the cropping on an image with a reference image on the left.   Hope this is useful feedback others will also find useful, and they can be implemented.

P: There needs to be a perpetual license option for enthusiast photographersOpen for Voting

In my opinion, Adobe have given up the amateur enthusiast photographer customer segment. The amount of marketing doublespeak required to "justify" Adobe's decisions points to its major flaws: Adobe promised (https://blogs.adobe.com/.../lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud....) to keep offering a perpetual license in future versions, thereby influencing buyer decision for Lightroom 6. Then they made it very hard to actually buy the perpetual license version of LR 6, and now they argue that buyers were deliberately choosing the CC version. I believe a significant number of LR users are in the same segment as me: Amateur enthusiast photographers who need a photo management and RAW developer tool, but do not use it on more than one or two devices. For those users, the choice of the perpetual license made the most sense. I am unwilling to pay a monthly amount which will add up the normal upgrade price in under a year, unless it provides me with significant advantages. So, about those advantages... Adobe argued that the 2015 CC version would regularly get new features, which would have been an incentive to choose it over the standalone LR 6 version. Looking at the list of features that have been added to LR 2015 CC, I must say that it's neither long nor that impressive. It certainly does not point to continuous development of the CC version. It would certainly haven't justified the higher cost for LR 2015 CC for me. Nevertheless, Adobe might argue that the new Classic CC version is the right choice for me, as it offers new features and performance improvements. Let's see... The Classic CC version offers some badly needed performance improvements - finally, one might say. However, those are limited to a few specific functions. If Adobe were really serious about LR's performance, they should have really worked on that in LR 5 and 6. Adobe also promise that they will continue to support and develop LR Classic CC. Just as they promised to offer a perpetual version? Honestly: As the development effort seems to have gone mostly towards the new cloud version, visible in the fact that the new LR Classic CC does not really offer that many new or improved features, how likely is it that LR Classic CC is a good choice for the next few years? Well, Adobe might say, if you want the latest and greatest, get the new CC version! Apart from the very unfortunate and confusing choice of product name, the cloud version is not even feature-complete when compared to the classic version, as I understand it. It offers cloud support, though - but I really don't need that as an amateur. Even some professionals seem to balk at the cloud-centric design. So why would I choose a less powerful, but more expensive version? To summarize: Adobe's past behaviour indicates that they can neither be trusted to support the classic CC version long enough nor that choosing the new, much more expensive cloud version will offer true benefits for amateur enthusiast photographers. The most rational choice for me seems to keep using LR 6 with the perpetual license for as long as it is viable, while researching other options for my next toolset.