Express with the Starter pack can do 3D text with the 3D extrusion effect and Set Matte but you don't have the same control over textures as in Boris. Also Boris has Bevels. Boris lets you select separate textures for front, back, bevel and side.
The Hitfilm textured text tutorial is applicable to Express 3 with the starter pack. In other words the technique shown for Ultimate 2, applies to Express 3 if you have 3D extrusion from the starter pack. The tutorial talks about Express 2 not being able to do certain things but it had a different reduced feature set than Express 3 and Express 2 did not have options for expansion packs. Express 2 did not have the Set Matte effect but did have 3D extrusion.
In Hitfilm 3D extrusion the front and back will have the one texture and the sides look how they look. I'm not sure what words to use to describe it but it is apparent in the tutorial.
I bought the Starter pack.
Do you know how he makes the text spin around as he does in that last video?
I put a key frame at 0 sec. on the text's Z axis to start behind the camera then moved forward about 1 sec and moved the text in front of the camera.I also keyframed the X, Y and Z positions randomly. The X key frame at 0 sec. starts at 220 then rotates to 6 at 12 sec. It holds there for a bit and then rotates to -270.
Hope that helps. Also experiment with the value graph to get a fluid movement.
GrayMotion answered it but, rotate the text on the X axis.
Here is a screenshot. It shows my plane layer using Set Matte and 3D Extrusion. For a texture you would have something other than a flat color plane as I have here. Set Matte references the text layer. The 3D extrusion effect attaches to a 3D point. I have the X axis rotation keyframed for a 360 degree rotation over a 1 second timeframe.
I read, and re-read and re-read your comments, yet I cannot figure it out.
If you ever wanted to make an instructional video showing how it's done, then please let me know.
@GrayMotion what is the advantage to doing it your way compared to just adding 3D Extrusion to the text layer then in the extrusion properties link it to a 3D point.... do we need the plane?
GrayMotion, thank you so much, I really loved that video. I am excited and looking forward to part 2
I loved your pace, the music in the background and has anyone ever told you you sound like Ben Stein and Steven Alexander Wright?
Thanks again, so excited about Part 2, any time frame when that will be uploaded?
@PaulHesh - From what I can tell about advantages/dis-advantegs depends on if the text is animated via a 3D point or not.The advantages of placing the Extrusion generator ( with environment map) directly onto the text appears to give you a lot more control over the finer details of the textures that are applied but works best if the text is not moving. While the text is moving I notice that texture flickers (so to speak) or displays deformed lines throughout the texture.On the other hand using a plane (or media) seems to works better if your animating the text via the 3D point. At least the texture appears to be locked on better except for the skewing along the sides of the text.But hey, I'm pretty new to this and could be wrong. I basically was mimicking NormanPCN's screen shots he posted above to help Yeremyah get a grasp visually.But... I might have gave him bad advice due to the fact he is using Express. The plane technique might not be the best, if at all, choice. He'll have to experiment with both procedures if possible and find what works best :-)
@PaulHesh Putting the extrusion on the plane or media layer allows you to have that plane, video media file, or whatever the layer contains, as a 'texture' for the text. This technique uses Set Matte to cut the text shape out of the other layer. You also use this Set Matte technique to do 2D text where you want a gradient, video or whatever for your text surface.
If you extrude the text directly then you are limited to a plain color for the text as that is all the text tool offers to color the text. Of course with this later method, you can use the environment map effect to have the text reflect that. Both techniques are shown in Axel's textured text tutorial.
GrayMotion, When will you do part2?
@GrayMotion Good job with the text tutorial! Very clear and easy to follow.
@Stargazer54 ; Thanks. I probably really shouldn't be doing tutorials for the software uses yet but thought I'd try and help out the total newbie that is too anxious to have it now instead of watching all of the other great tuts created for Hitfilm
Thanks guys for the info.
@GrayMotion Absolutely, you are doing the right thing! Good stuff.
Thank you GrayMotion, you are really helping us beginners out a lot Any more videos coming?
Continuing to refine motion for more realistic shots.
Great lighting! That's looking quite realistic, and the cockpit cam is a great angle.
Thanks! I worked like crazy to get the lights right. The jet textures seem to put off a lot of green which made it difficult. Practice practice.On another note - I was inspired my Simon's spaceship tutorial and @NormanPCN attempt with his great masterpiece that I thought I'd give it a whack myself.https://youtu.be/54M27mGpzoo
I took @Treim23 advice on NormanPCN's "My Take" thread and placed a bunch of 3D spheres inside the engines, raised the spec, ambient and diffuse all to 255,255,255,255 and added a pink and white glow. Didn't come out as anticipated due to the whites in the model... but not too bad... IMHO that is
Love the angle of the ships leaving the planet on attack.
GrayMotion - I thought I left a comment before on the last page about your Sunrise Over Earth vid which I really like......but I guess I was at work and forgot to hit 'Post Comment' so the entry got lost. Anyway, I really like the Sunrise Over Earth vid!
The Flat Side Jet vid is excellent. I like how you compare vids near the end. The only minor thing I would say about it is the exhaust could be a little faster. I showed the vid to one of the aircraft mechanics at work and he thought the same thing. He also thought the vid was real upon first glance (and said something about a flame out seeing the exhaust) until the comparison at the end which is real. Good job!
Do you mean the textures themselves have green in them or was there a green screen involved that reflected a green color?
Space Flight Mie looks really good too! How did you do the background and is it just me or is there some blue present? It looks pretty cool.
Ah thanks @StormyKnight for the comps! Yea...my jet exhaust does look a bit week eh? Russian mechanics hijacked the plane before flight ..heheThe "green" looked like it was coming from the texture themselves with that particular jet. Of course since I splice optical cables for a "living" I might have spliced too many green fibers that week. :-) I do have problems with matching accelration to a shot. Something I definitely need to work on.The background of Mie is atomic particles for the stars and then I added 2 sets of cloud preset on a plane and set color of the clouds to 31,123,139, used Duo tone to colorize the clouds. I set Color 1 to 31,40,45 9 (the color of space?), set Brightness used to Luminosity and added an environment map. Then I added keyframes to the clouds so they wouldn't appear to slide across the background as the camera panned and tilted.edit -forgot to mention the comparison shot at the end... gave me a chance to try out the new Split Screen generator. Came in handy for in this particular instance.
I'm very much enjoying the VFX for Guerrilla Filmmakers course so I thought I'd try and recreate a FCPX title that I used in an earlier demo and practice a simple 2 point tracking cut.https://youtu.be/COugX-neaYsI shot the footage on my Panasonic Lumix DMC G7. I had a few problems trying to clamp the green screen blur movement around my top hand at the end of the shot. After a few hours of fiddling I came to the conclusion that I probably shouldn't have used a green screen as a back drop until I figure out my camera settings a bit more.
@GrayMotion Your track looks good!
(Personal preference here): It looks like you've done a great job of brightening the hand a bit, due to the glowing orb. But there looks to be a pink shadow. Visually I would think that should be even brighter still? (understanding that you're dealing with multiple layers here that may be causing the additive effect of the pink shadow.)
Yeppers... The shadow is pink, I was trying to match the glow of the globe. As was pointed out in the Orb tutorials it is best to add some lighting in the stock footage. A nice blue light shining on my hand would have helped a bunch. I had a different sphere to begin with ( a clear glass globe attempt) and the shadow looked like it was suppose to be there BUT I fiddled to much, change to Simon's Orb and things went kablewie.Track was what I was after this round though.
edit - Looks like Youtube granulized the lighting layer. Bummer. The ProRes shot I have looks much cleaner
Youtube is always gonna crunch footage to hell. Your Pro-Res footage is probably at a bitrate over 100mbps. YouTube crammed it down to under 20.
Worse than that. Youtube is more like under 8Mbps for 1080 up to 30fps.
Odd that, since Youtube is asking for a 14 mbps upload, just to cram it down again... Why not just ask users to upload at the bitrate Youtube uses and avoid another compression pass? Oh, right. "Future Proofing," because one day YouTube will re-encode every uploaded video again to take advantage of more bandwidth.... (sarcasm)
Where have you seen the 14Mbps Youtube recommendation?
This is the link I have used for YT suggestion. 8Mbps for 1080 up to 30fps. The files YT transmits are typically below their recommended AVC upload specifications. At least the ones I have tested which is a tiny amount.
There is some reason to upload an AVC file at a slightly higher bitrate than what YT might suggest. Youtube is using a better quality encoder than what most of us use. Specifically x264. The AVC encoders in Hitfilm, Vegas, Premiere and so on are not as good at low bitrates as x264. The only way to compensate is to give the lesser encoder a slightly higher bitrate.
If using something like Handbrake, which also uses x264, then it probably is a moot point.
Youtube likely does not keep an AVC file we upload even if it is within their designated bitrate because AVC is a huge specification and there are many other particulars they want the files they transmit to conform to.
Thanks you two gents for the insight on YT's re-encoding and thanks for the link @NormanPCN. Good stuff to know.Of course @Triem23 your right on the ProRes bitrate over 100mbps. In the past I've used Quicktime Pro (old but good) to transcode the videos coming out of FCPX and Motion to H.264 with audio settings of—Format: AAC —Channels: Stereo —Rate: 48.000 kHz and render to an mp4 container. I usually got little to (no? - I doubt) re-encoding doing it this way and usually resulted in fairly pristine uploads.This time I just forgot really. It looks like I had the bitrate for the audio to high and the container was .mov