@johnebaker Hi 👍

To be honest I don't think I've ever created a custom transition in either software, I've more than enough to play with & my videos only get a simple 12fr crossfade.

I've had this Boris Sapphire option or a few yrs, S_Transition, drop it on as reg transition then you can open it & add pretty much any & as many of the Sapphire fxs from the drop-down list on the left, But I never use it 🤦‍♂️😁

These are the fxs in Sapphire & I think pretty much all will be in that drop-down list, anything with S_ at the beginning & the window that opens.

Hi Gid

Thanks for the info on Boris.

I try to avoid using 3rd party plugins with the exception of NeatVideo, as you never know when they get to a point that you cannot revisit old projects, which I occassionally do, due to significant changes in the plug-in or the license ends.

John EB

Hi all,

Back to VPX16.

Here are the new screens for recording - when you click on the red record button:

Select the microphone:

You can click on the mic to start recording, but with which parameters and filepath/filename?

Click on the button circled in the above image to get the parameters screen:

and Advanced:

No changes here. I have to assume that the record button in the second image uses the parameters. The problem is that in a new project, you may want to change something so you have to remember to go to the parameters. I think that new users will have a difficult time with this as they won't see the parameters screen or know about it or think about clicking on the circled button, even just to select the source for recording.

What should be added is just the word "Parameters" beside the row of icons.

John CB

@browj2

Please see my two screen shots below. The first is the current Top-down approach and the second is the proposed option. I don't like to refer to it as Bottom-up because the term gives the wrong impression. Note the difference in my example compared to the one you posted above. There is no change to the UI; Track 1 starts at the top as per usual. Your example has the objects starting from the bottom. This isn't necessary since the user can add additional overlay tracks if required. The audio track sits below the main track. Audio could lie above the main track but that wouldn't be conventional. Typically the main audio track, music track  and sound effects sit below the main video track. This gives a clean looking project following the convention; Video above/ Audio below. Video overlay tracks could have their audio above the main video track; we don't have to be too ridged in our approach.  In terms of actually changing the programming code to make this work, leave that to the development team to work out the relationship logic. They should be able to replicate what is proposed.

@Can-Dive

Hi.

What you propose would make adding an additional track make the tracks already laid down change their numbered track. Try it on an existing project. Add a track above track 1 by pressing the track header's + button and see what happens to the current rack one.

Ray.

@Can-Dive  I don't know if you've moved on from the Centre-out option, the proposals & terms used seem to change a bit with every comment & pic, but I'd like to say in any software that approach is c*ap & one of the big reasons I don't use Resolve (pic below). I like my audio on adjacent tracks to my video so i can cut & move them both easily, (or put the audio wherever I want on any track) . If Magix MS/VPX implemented this Centre-out approach that would be the end for me,

@Can-Dive

Hi.

What you propose would make adding an additional track make the tracks already laid down change their numbered track. Try it on an existing project. Add a track above track 1 by pressing the track header's + button and see what happens to the current rack one.

Ray.

@CubeAce

Yes. I import my main video to Track 1. The video populates Track 1 and its audio Track 2. I label it "Main Track" (for personal reference). I add a tack above it. The Video shifts to Track 2 and its audio to Track 3. The video is still labeled; Main Track. What is the problem?

@Can-Dive

The problem for me is I would be working right to left in the mixer channels.

Ray.

@Can-Dive

The problem for me is I would be working right to left in the mixer channels.

Ray.

Hi @CubeAce

I must be missing something. Using the current Top-down approach and inserting an empty track above the main track, how does that make you work right to left in the mixer channel if you only have one audio track?

@Gid welcome back! 🙂

I'm familiar with Resolve and my proposal is not trying to turn this product into Davinci Resolve although Resolve and Vegas follow the conventional overlay logic. I referred to my proposal as "Centre-out" because "Bottom-up" resulted in in the wrong impression with members on this forum. Perhaps Centre-out isn't the right term either. Regardless, throughout this entire thread my proposal has never changed. The reason why my proposal is simple to implement is because MMS and VPX are unique compared to other editors in that the Tracks can be video, audio or a combination of both. This doesn't change. Also, Track 1 starts at the top and counts down. That doesn't change. The UI doesn't change at all. Its exactly the same if one edits Top-down or the proposed option. 

The only change is the overlay/title hierarchy logic. Any video/photo/title that is visually over or on top of another track is displayed in the preview monitor rather than the track lying under it. That is the only change. And its a program setting option for those who want to edit in this manner. The Top-down approach remains.

Currently, The Top-down approach dictates that any overlay or Title visually under another track is displayed in the preview monitor rather than the track over it. 

Audio isn't impacted because audio doesn't follow the hierarchy rule. Audio is mixed together and the dominant audio is the one with the highest volume or the one unmuted. Its horizontal placement in the project does not mute other audio tracks - they mix together.

Let me know if I'm still sound confusing.😕

Perhaps a simple workflow example will clarify the process because I may be making the wrong assumptions on how you edit Top-down

1. You have a short video of an interview with two people talking for a about 3 minutes
2. There is an introductory title to the video
3. There is a photo that will be overlaid on the right hand upper corner of the video. It appears around minute 1:00 and lasts 20 seconds.
4. There is a music track that will quietly play in the background throughout the entire video.
5. Assume that in program settings "Video/Audio on one track" is unticked.

Using the current Top-down approach explain what the project would look like? What specific tracks would the main video, title, photo and music occupy. Once I understand how you structure this simple project I can then explain what the alternative would look like.

​​​​​​​

@Can-Dive

Using the current Top-down approach explain what the project would look like? 

You've got the program, surely you can set it up that way? This is pretty basic Magix stuff.

FWIW, I think your terminology should be swapped; Magix is "Bottom up" because you look from the bottom of the timeline to the top. The others are "Top Down" because that's the way you look though the objects on the timeline.

@Can-Dive

 Track down, Track up, Track centre out.. do the Hockey Cokey, this thread can be confusing,

I've mentioned my preference, I'm with the Vegas approach, that is now the program I open & despite having MS for 20yrs I hardly open it anymore for more reasons than just the track order, In this thread I've argued about some analogies & the term overlaying but MS/VPX is different & I do accept that that is the way it is here. Remember you're asking something of software that can't export a png with an alpha channel & can't anymore group tracks together so they move in unison....

@Can-Dive

Hi.

how does that make you work right to left in the mixer channel if you only have one audio track?

For me, a lot of my videos consist of more than one audio track or even Pips. Background sounds, voice overs, music, sound from individual Pips fading in or out.

Ray.

@browj2

Hi All,

Sorry about not getting back sooner, but right after I posted last (ok, as I was posting my wife was telling me to get going) I had to run off to a funeral (not mine) and then we had another series of house guests for the weekend. Didn't get much sleep for 3 nights.

Ok, there is too much to unravel and we got all over the place in trying to compare various issues and methods. @Reyfox, you took several things that I said out of context and I'm not going to go through them point by point.

If I have taken anything out of context, I am sorry. We read and filter text through our experiences and feelings. It's one reason why I don't do much texting on a cellphone. Please explain what has been taken out of context.

The proposal by @Can-Dive was to have a switch to invert the track layout interface so that it would be bottom up. This would give users the choice of which way to work.

Keep in mind that Magix would have limited resources for this. The idea is to keep it is as simple as possible, minimize programming changes thus cost, and not affect the way that the program works for current users.

If software minimizes programming changes keeps the software simple, why have you commented about what you think should change in other Magix software? It is the same thing. A suggestion based on our personal preferences and to possibly bring in "new blood". All that has been suggested is an addition to the software. Not change it from the way it works with current users. Choice is nice. And unless you are involved in the inner workings of Magix programming and financial accounting, none of us know what it would cost. It's pure speculation on your part.

Remember, the program exists and it uses tracks with numbers (as does Vegas, at least by the programmers) - just like a spread sheet - rows (tracks) and columns (time in frames). In order to not have any change to the storage of what is on the rows and columns, track numbers and their associated objects have to remain the same. In the saved project file (if you could read an MVP file) you would see the track number along with the objects along with the location on that track, duration, effects, etc. Thus Track 1, Object 1 (path/filename, start point within the file, display duration, start point (on track 1) or something like that.

Video editing software is not a spreadsheet. It's video editing software that works on a database of where things are and what has been done to them. This analogy of yours is not a viable one.

To get a bottom up interface, nothing would change for the rows and columns details in the MVP file. If I used the current interface, Top down, and put Object 1 on Track 1, and then flipped the switch to get bottom up, Track 1 would be at the bottom of the screen and Object 1 would be on that track. Thus, nothing changes in the MVP file except a switch indicating which mode was last saved. As far as I can tell, no programming needs to be done to make this work, other than an interface flip. The user would now work bottom up.

Here is the current interface - top down:

Here is the way I see the user interface for bottom up:

Nope, that is not how it works. You have Vegas Pro, yes? Have you tried editing with it? You have a blank canvas. And the foundation (the main video) is what things are added on top of it. Like a painting or any photo editing software. Want to add text? It is layered on top of the photo/video. Want to color correct? It's done on top of the asset. You seem to constantly ignore this.

@Reyfox My comment about the Mixer in Vegas was that the track number is used in the Mixer . If there was no track number, then one would not be able tell which strip corresponded to which track. Naming is optional, programming cannot depend on users naming tracks. The other point was that the audio for the bottom track, usually corresponding to the background, ends up at the right of the mixer. I think that most users would expect it to be at the left. If Vegas had numbered the tracks from bottom to top, then the first track in the Mixer would be 1. That is all. No big deal.

And if you label that track in the editor in Vegas, that label shows up in the Mixing Console. Easy. Don't you label your tracks? Also, notice the colors of the tracks in the Mixing Console? I guess if someone is color blind it would be difficult. So labeling your tracks is good "house keeping". Mixing audio is different than mixing video. You are convoluting the process to fit a narrative that you are presenting. No one can speak for "most users", only themselves. As you said, it's no big deal. Audio mixing does not rely on a track structure like video editing. So this is something that should not even be a part of the "conversation".

Look at the image above. This is the default layout. Seven tracks are showing. But, I have 32 available. If I adjust my windows downwards, then less tracks would be showing, but I still have 32 tracks available and I can quickly access them using the vertical scroll bar. Having 32 tracks is not using up screen space unless I want it to.

In Vegas and other software, you add tracks as you need them. Then scroll if necessary up or down to view what you want. What is the point to this? It's the same in any editor that I have used that allows zillions of tracks.

@Can-Dive has shown an alternative layout of the windows. I don't use the default layout for VPX. Window placements can be saved and quickly accessed - F9 to F12. For VPX, I, and probably most users who have 2 screens available, use 2 screens.

Vegas allows you to have several different layouts. Up to 10 of them. But you know this already.

Last point:

@Reyfox You mentioned:

I'd love to see how an Adjustment Clip (Davinci Resolve) or Adjustment event (Vegas Pro) would work in the Magix editing environment..

I watched a tutorial on this and was wondering why I would need an Adjustment event when I could do the same thing on a clip and then just copy one or more of the effects to other clips. I presume that a copied Adjustment Event is actually the original event and changing the effects in one of the Adjustment events changes the effects of the copies and that copies could be different durations. Now that would be a really good feature!

You would use an Adjustment Event/Track in Vegas and an Adjustment Clip in Resolve to avoid all that copy/paste you are referring to, which would be a waste of time. One "clip". Now, it might not be a feature you would use, but that is personal. I am sure you have seen this tutorial. As for your assumption on changing things in an Adjustment Event, have you ever copy/pasted effects in Vegas Pro before? Same process. And you can have as many adjustment events on a timeline as you want, each affecting the clips below it. You can even put video/images/titles on the same track. I'm sure you've seen this tutorial already.

The reason I mentioned the Adjustment Event is that there seems to be some things from Vegas Pro making it over to Magix slowly. Change for the most part is good. Otherwise, the software will be left behind and disappear without new users coming in. To ignore the potential is walking around with blinders on. No one is looking to change the way things work now in VPX/MMS, but to add something that "we" think will bring value and hopefully new customers.

@Reyfox

Out of context. I'll get back to you on that, maybe. I just spent too much time writing up how a database works and scrapped it for this. In case your were wondering, I do know how a database works.

why have you commented about what you think should change in other Magix software?

I presume that you are referring to my list in this post?

The list is in 2 parts. Here is what I said: "My suggestions include things that Magix already has or close to it. Given their financial problems, why not raid the cupboard and use what they already have or do simple things?" Then, I give examples - read them again. This is just like getting AI whatever from Vegas, is it not?

Then I said "More complicated" and list a few things that would be nice, like VST3 capability, not redesigning the program.

The only thing program that I referred to was Photo Manager. How expensive would it be to change the name? Other things that I mentioned about this are mostly problems with the current version. It uses Travel Route Animation that has been replaced by Travel Maps. How expensive would it be to replace the application and link to the app in the program?

Here is what I wrote about Photo Manager: "update to 64 bit, missing some codecs, fragile database, messed up field names, update to TRA to Travel Maps." Not really a lot is it. Updating the program to 64 bits would probably be the most expensive. Fixing messed up field names? This is a bug - someone messed up - and it should be easy to fix. In case you don't know what I mean, in the display of files, the filename column heading says File size. The File Size column says Type....the My rating column says Creation date, etc.

The fragile db, perhaps updating to 64 bits would fix this. Add codecs? Magix did this when they updated to the current old version, just add some. No overhaul of the program is required.

Video editing software is not a spreadsheet. It's video editing software that works on a database of where things are and what has been done to them. 

Yes and no. The mvp file is a relational database. It contains tables with fields that are related. It does not keep track of what was done in the form of instructions, it keeps everything in tables. Saying it does simplifies the explanation for those who have no clue what a database is. The file does not remember that you moved an object from one place to another, it just maintains the current location in the table. It maintains tables of Movies, tracks, contents of tracks, etc. - including Track numbers.

The timeline display is a spreadsheet of data that is in the database. People can usually visualize spreadsheets or tables more easily than databases about which they know little or nothing. A spreadsheet is just data in a database shown a particular way, with or without the possibility to input and change the data. It can be simple or extensive. Graphical info, like thumbnails and waveforms, are not maintained in the db, but in separate files or are generated from the db. For VPX/MMS, the db has the filename, which track, which position, etc. as to where to put the display.

To see a simple representation of some information in VPX, look at the Project/Movie Settings, Movie information tab and you'll see the files in the Movie, not the project if there is more than one Movie. You can put the same file on the timeline more than once in the same movie, but it only shows up once in the table.

Or look at the Project Temp Folder in VPX that contains objects, not necessarily on the timeline, and shows Media start, end, etc. It's a spreadsheet representation of data in a database table. You can access some of the fields, but most are locked. What you see as the Name is a duplicate of the Filename field which is not shown, nor is the unique id field shown. You can change the Name without affecting the Filename as they are separate fields in the table.

Nope, that is not how it works. You have Vegas Pro, yes? 

Yes, that is how it works. This is VPX, not Vegas. The first image is straight from VPX. The second image is what the display would look like if the same data from the database table were to be displayed with track 1 at the bottom. I am not trying to replicate Vegas, just trying to find a simple way to display the same data and work from the bottom up. I did not say that this was the way Vegas works and I was not trying to make it work like Vegas, just make it work from the bottom upwards.

I said that for it to be simple, the data structure has to work with the display top-down or bottom up. Anything else would require a major overhaul of the data structure and the way the interface works, and that is to be avoided.

John CB

@browj2 wrote:

@Reyfox

Out of context. I'll get back to you on that, maybe. I just spent too much time writing up how a database works and scrapped it for this. In case your were wondering, I do know how a database works.

why have you commented about what you think should change in other Magix software?

I presume that you are referring to my list in this post?

The list is in 2 parts. Here is what I said: "My suggestions include things that Magix already has or close to it. Given their financial problems, why not raid the cupboard and use what they already have or do simple things?" Then, I give examples - read them again. This is just like getting AI whatever from Vegas, is it not?

Being "close" still means it isn't there. It might be cost efficient to pursue "close" but we don't know that cost of that. Getting the AI from Vegas, it still has to be programmed to be used by VPX. That comes at a cost, but possibly one made up with having "AI" in the ad copy.

Then I said "More complicated" and list a few things that would be nice, like VST3 capability, not redesigning the program.

How is what has been suggested "redesigning" the program? Does adding Vegas AI and Vegas stabilizer redesign the program? It would be an option of use. To use or not to use. Not a redesign of the program.

The only thing program that I referred to was Photo Manager. How expensive would it be to change the name? Other things that I mentioned about this are mostly problems with the current version. It uses Travel Route Animation that has been replaced by Travel Maps. How expensive would it be to replace the application and link to the app in the program?

Wish I had an answer for you. I too would think renaming the software wouldn't be too difficult or costly. But Travel Maps might be more complex if Magix Travel Maps has changed much internally compared to Travel Route Animation.

Here is what I wrote about Photo Manager: "update to 64 bit, missing some codecs, fragile database, messed up field names, update to TRA to Travel Maps." Not really a lot is it. Updating the program to 64 bits would probably be the most expensive. Fixing messed up field names? This is a bug - someone messed up - and it should be easy to fix. In case you don't know what I mean, in the display of files, the filename column heading says File size. The File Size column says Type....the My rating column says Creation date, etc.

I don't know or have ever used and when it was installed on my computer, I uninstalled Photo Editor. I'll leave it up to your expertise on bugs, etc.. But have you ever done any programming? There are compilers that will compile a 32bit program for 64bit operation. But it's best to program from the ground up in 64bit.

The fragile db, perhaps updating to 64 bits would fix this. Add codecs? Magix did this when they updated to the current old version, just add some. No overhaul of the program is required.

Curious as to which particular codecs should be added? As with codecs and file formats, beta testing video editing software, it isn't as simple as you present it. I know first hand on this.

Video editing software is not a spreadsheet. It's video editing software that works on a database of where things are and what has been done to them. 

Yes and no. The mvp file is a relational database. It contains tables with fields that are related. It does not keep track of what was done in the form of instructions, it keeps everything in tables. Saying it does simplifies the explanation for those who have no clue what a database is. The file does not remember that you moved an object from one place to another, it just maintains the current location in the table. It maintains tables of Movies, tracks, contents of tracks, etc. - including Track numbers.

I know what a database is and what it does. That's why I said it isn't a spreadsheet as you have presented the workings of video software. A database doesn't care of the layout.

The timeline display is a spreadsheet of data that is in the database. People can usually visualize spreadsheets or tables more easily than databases about which they know little or nothing. A spreadsheet is just data in a database shown a particular way, with or without the possibility to input and change the data. It can be simple or extensive. Graphical info, like thumbnails and waveforms, are not maintained in the db, but in separate files or are generated from the db. For VPX/MMS, the db has the filename, which track, which position, etc. as to where to put the display.

I don't know many people that can visualize spreadsheets. I know few that actually know how to use one. What they can understand is placing one video after another. And if you want something to appear on top of the video, such as a title, they would think it would go on top of the video. Again, being a l o n g time beta tester for video editing software (3 from 3 different companies), I am keenly aware of the functions of it. And since all this information about audio, video, etc., are in this database, then it is no problem for the software to work with overlays being just that. The database doesn't care if it is upside down or right side up. It just holds the information.

To see a simple representation of some information in VPX, look at the Project/Movie Settings, Movie information tab and you'll see the files in the Movie, not the project if there is more than one Movie. You can put the same file on the timeline more than once in the same movie, but it only shows up once in the table.

Or look at the Project Temp Folder in VPX that contains objects, not necessarily on the timeline, and shows Media start, end, etc. It's a spreadsheet representation of data in a database table. You can access some of the fields, but most are locked. What you see as the Name is a duplicate of the Filename field which is not shown, nor is the unique id field shown. You can change the Name without affecting the Filename as they are separate fields in the table.

How a particular software handles information is up to the programmers. If it's an impossible task, they will not move forward with it. If it isn't cost effective, it will be a no-go. But unless you are privy to information we aren't, on the programming side of things, then this is still speculation on whether it can be done or not.

Nope, that is not how it works. You have Vegas Pro, yes? 

Yes, that is how it works. This is VPX, not Vegas. The first image is straight from VPX. The second image is what the display would look like if the same data from the database table were to be displayed with track 1 at the bottom. I am not trying to replicate Vegas, just trying to find a simple way to display the same data and work from the bottom up. I did not say that this was the way Vegas works and I was not trying to make it work like Vegas, just make it work from the bottom upwards.

I agree, Vegas and VPX are different software. No one is trying to replicate Vegas with VPX. Not at all. Nor did anyone say they wanted to. Why do it, when you can get Vegas. If you want to understand what we have been suggesting, open Vegas and see for yourself. Drag a title template over a video. Put another video on top of the video and use Event Pan/crop to resize and reposition that video. This is all we are talking about. Using the VPX tools in editing, except right side up. The same tools. The same everything, except the timeline placement is reversed. We would never put the main track at the bottom like in your image.

I said that for it to be simple, the data structure has to work with the display top-down or bottom up. Anything else would require a major overhaul of the data structure and the way the interface works, and that is to be avoided.

I don't mind working in the "complex". Yes, the database would have to work which ever way the track importance is. I don't see this as a major overhaul though, and don't see how that would affect anyone using the software as they do now. It wouldn't. You would never know it is there unless you choose to edit that way. It just adds another dimension to editing. One that might attract others.... or not.

@Can-Dive

Using the current Top-down approach explain what the project would look like? 

You've got the program, surely you can set it up that way? This is pretty basic Magix stuff.

FWIW, I think your terminology should be swapped; Magix is "Bottom up" because you look from the bottom of the timeline to the top. The others are "Top Down" because that's the way you look though the objects on the timeline.

@AAProds

The first reason I asked anyone to describe how they would edit my simple project using the current VPX method is because I didn't want to misinterpret anyone's editing process. @AAProds you even admit the basic terminology of Top-down, Bottom-up can be misinterpreted because its based on personal perspective. If your perspective is from a workflow or from the position of the main track then the VPX orientation is Top-down. If your perspective is from the lowest track visually or numerically (starting at Track 1 and working up) then you may say its Bottom-up. So to avoid any misinterpretation I asked if someone would explain how they would edit the project. Then I would explain how I would edit it using the optional method. And perhaps that interaction would address any misunderstanding.

 Because the terms Top-down, Bottom-up, Centre-out is still confusing, I'll refer to the two editing methods as the "VPX method" and the "Optional method".

The second reason I asked anyone to describe how they would edit my simple project is because I did provide a simple example and it was misinterpreted. Please refer to @Reyfox comments to @browj2 above referring to the simple example I provided.

Using my own suggested project example, I will again attempt highlight the subtle differences between the two methods.

This is the current VPX method. (let me know if you would have done it differently)

This is the Optional method.

Hopefully this clarifies how the Optional method would look like on the timeline. The concept is very simple.

In terms of how it would be accomplished is for Magix's Development team to discuss and resolve. That discussion is outside the scope of this group because we do not have intimate knowledge of the software code unless one of you is an actual Magix programmer who is currently working on VPX. If one of you is a Magix employee, please send me a private message to further discuss the Optional method.

Otherwise any discussion regarding the program's coding, its database, its structure, limitations and abilities is pure idle speculation and not applicable here because we don't know what the software can and can not do. Lets leave that problem for the Magix Development team to address. 
 

@browj2 

This is how MS feels to me, it has always has & it's bugged me from day one, It's a long time ago but I faintly remember when initially playing with masks it wasn't easy when the camera is pointing up the tracks as apposed to looking down on them, In this pic (MS track order) the clips/events, PinP & any overlays would have to be flipped over for the camera that's pointing up the tracks to see them (like looking at the back of a photo rather than the pretty picture on the face), surely you can understand where those that prefer the other way up feel?

The Vegas way baby ✌

@Can-Dive

Hi

Personally either of your 'workflows' are fine, the one thing I do extra is if there is a music track or audio effects added, they go on the next highest empty track number(s) after effects such as PiP and Collages are applied, I never mix them with any other type of object on the same track.

John EB

The Vegas way baby ✌

Thanks @Gid, That's an excellent graphical representation of the Option I am proposing. I personally would refrain from calling it "The Vegas way" since its the conventional method used by every other editor. My rational is have this option available for new users who edit "The Vegas way." This will also help those users who mistakenly upgrade from Vegas Movie Studio to Magix Movie Studio or VPX because it will still allow them to edit "the Vegas way." It just makes the product more appealing to a wider user base. The software has great potential!