In MC7...
It has potential, but it's simply not working as well or as intuitively for stills. However, since Pan & Zoom is soooo weak, it wouldn't take much to get Frameflex to work at least as well, and the underlying engine seems to be a vast improvement. I love that it manipulates the AMA image directly and seems to be less resource intensive.
Frameflex also lacks the same major features that Pan & Zoom lacks: rotation and cropping. But Frameflex it seems more likely that these would be added to Frameflex than to Pan & Zoom.
Frankly, there is no particular reason why Frameflex should not become the primary manipulation engine, replacing 3D Warp, PIP, resize, Pan & Zoom, etc… Maybe that is the plan.
On Aug 21, 2014, at 7:32 PM, mikejshen@gmail.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
todhop, what do you see Frameflex still lacking as replacement for Pan&Zoom?
I tried a couple of moves out recently and got better results than with Pan&Zoom — none of the crazy "S-curve" behavior that has been discussed on this forum.I plan to encourage my students to use FrameFlex this year for animating their stills, but want to know about any potential pitfalls.Thanks
__._,_.___
Posted by: hoplist@hillmanncarr.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (8) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment