I'm working in FCP HD and am using LiveType to do my titles. I shot a feature on Panasonic DVX-100A 24p camera and am doing the post now. The titles I would like to look like film titles. Currently, once rendered, they look like they have that "computer video" appearance, which in my opinion gives a cheap-o look to the film. How do I get rid of that?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?

Create them in another application, such as After Effects.

What you see on your computer monitor may not be what your going to see on a regular ntsc monitor. I had the same problem. The titles looked really bad. But when I played it on a Tv Monitor it was fine.

I checked them on my Sony Trinitron consumer big screen TV and they looked like ass. Well, looked good, but looked like video. Why would After FX do a better job. Is it a higher quality program for titling? I thought LiveType was pro level?

AE is a high end compositing software package. It does a great job with titles. Livetype pales in comparison, for it only does one thing (titles). Livetype is a semi-pro to pro app, but it is designed for video, this the video look.

AE does a much better job with titles, and is used for feature films. But the titling you usually see on features is very high end with huge size image outputs (2K resolution).

Does After FX do 2k resolution? If not, what for mac does?

Make sure that your titles are frame based rather than field bases, and perhaps soften them a bit with a blur, or layer a blurred version of themselves on top of themselves with a blending mode like screen or overlay, and if they're over video, drop the transparency a bit.

Are you editing on a 29.97 fps or a 23.98fps timeline?/

Graeme

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Does After FX do 2k resolution? If not, what for mac does? -->>>

After Effect ABSOLUTELY does 2K resolution. It is used for feature work. I know the editor for THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES made temp transitions and effects on his laptop with AE...and the VFX guys just bumped teh resolution to 2K and adjusted the effects slightly.

Also, I'd do your titles in an uncompressed codec, or PhotoJPEG100% (no fields), especially if you're going to DVD as it will give better quality than DV.

BTW, what has 2k processing got to do with titles on a DV movie, unless it's going to film out, in which case going a 1920x1080 HD route would be much more cost effective than 2k anway.

Graeme

I'm was editing 29.97. But now I'm going to edit 23.98. I'm not sure how you'd dd our titles in an uncompressed codec and still put it into a 23.98 timeline? Advice?

Thanks.

Wow . . .

Just tried the same titles created by LiveType in a 23.98 timeline and this . . . really looks . . . bad.

Even worse than before. Looks jittery, very un-fluid movement. Do I have to do this in a true 24p to make it look good or what? (as opposed to 23.98?)

Responses please.

Thanks!

There seems to be a relationship between frame rate and scrolling speed that needs to be worked out. I don't know the formula, but there will be a speed that will match the frame-rate field for field or line by line (or multiples of) and then it will look much better. Then, as Graeme mentioned, if you blur it a bit it will look less video-ish. It will also help if you don't use 100% white.

Just checked it out at 23.98 on dvd burn on tv and thee quality of the lettering itself looks pretty good, but the titles are moving and that movement looks choppy, not smooth. That's probably due to the movement effects done in FCP, I'd imagine. I also assume this is like scrolling speed and I'll need to do some tests with different speeds.

Any ideas?

I have a favorite program for titling...
Photoshop!

I design the titles exactly as I want them to look, including colored gradient backgrounds etc. When I import the PSD file into FCP, each layer becomes a track, and everything can be animated with motion control using keyframes.

I don't know how "filmic" it looks, never having gone out to film with these projects, but it sure is much more appealing than the clunky look of doing it natively.

Good idea to use Photoshop, you will be taking advantage of the program's anti-aliased text rendering!

I used FCP native to animate at 23.98 and it looks choppy. Maybe I should try to do each letter separately in the name (these are big opening credits).

[QUOTE=Graeme Nattress]Make sure that your titles are frame based rather than field bases...


Could I ask a favour Graeme. I am interested in this discussion but am relatively new to this stuff. Could you explain what you mean by frame based vs. field based? Is field related to it being interlaced or progressive? If so aren't frames themselves field based?

[QUOTE=Graeme Nattress]Make sure that your titles are frame based rather than field bases...


Could I ask a favour Graeme. I am interested in this discussion but am relatively new to this stuff. Could you explain what you mean by frame based vs. field based? Is field related to it being interlaced or progressive? If so aren't frames themselves field based?

If I may...

Frames are like a frame of film. One full frame of film. A picture. A field is HALF a picture...only every even or odd scanline. Film is made of 24 full pictures or frames, while video is made of 60 fields of images, two fields per frame of video. Interlaces video frames are full pictures, they consist of one picture that makes up the even fields, and one picture that makes up the odd fields (with CRT technology it couldn't draw a full frame, but had to first scan the odd fields of an image, then redraw the even fields). Very often these fields are from a completely different different picture, so they look jagged. That is why video is so smooth, as it has basically 60 pictures that is strings together, not 24.

Maybe Graeme can get more technical. In fact, I know he can.

FCP's motion effects can render at the field rate or the frame rate, ie, 60 fields per second or 30 frames per second in an standard NTSC timeline. That's why you have to tell the timeline, wether it's upper, lower field, or none, to make sure they work right.

For more info on fields, just read my 24p article Ken Stone published.

Graeme

I always put a 2 pt gaussian blur on all my titles.