Fundamental Design Issue with Transitions

Hello,

ISSUE
Transitions applied to a cut point do not work, where both A (left of cut) and B (right of cut) are from the same source clip (in the media pool) WHERE no Other edits are made.

SCENARIO 1 :: STEPS :: Transition does not work.
1. Put Clip "001" on the timeline. The clip is 1 minute in length (for this example, but the length does not really matter)
2. Go to 30 seconds into the clip and click CTRL+B (Windows) to slice/split the clip into two.
3. Left of the cutpoint is Clip A and Right of the cutpoint is Clip B.
4. Place a Transition over the cutpoint (Cross Dissolve for example) Set to 1 second.
5. Move the play head to before the transition and hit play.
6. Notice the Transition is not applied. Does not work.

SCENARIO 2 :: STEPS :: Transition works as expected.
1. Put Clip "001" on the timeline (1 minute long)
1.a. Put Clip "002" in the timeline so it's startpoint is bumped against the end point of "Clip 001".
2. Go to the 1 minute point where the two clips bump up against each other and place a transition there.
5. Move the play head to before the transition and hit play.
6. Notice the Transition works just fine.

SCENARIO 3 :: STEPS :: Transition works as expected.
1. Put Clip "001" on the timeline. The clip is 1 minute in length (for this example)
2. Go to 30 seconds into the clip and click CTRL+B (Windows) to slice/split the clip into two.
2.a. Go to 45 seconds into the clip and click CTRL+B to split the clip.
2.b. Now the whole clips is split into 3 pieces.
2.c. Delete the Middle clip and make sure that the clip which was at 45 seconds on Step 2.a. is now at 30 seconds and bumped up against the first clip.
4. Place a Transition over the cutpoint (Cross Dissolve for example) Set to 1 second.
5. Move the play head to before the transition and hit play.
6. Notice the Transition works as expected.

SUMMARY
Scenario 1 should work the exact same way as Scenario 3. Once I have split a 'Master Clip' into two sections, each of those sections should behave the exact same as in Scenario 2. It should not matter that they are from the same clip originally.

In fact you can force Scenario 1 to work with a slight modification: CTRL+SHIFT and Drag Clip B over Clip A, then add the transition. But this method is painfully slow and makes for inaccuracies in the timing of the edit etc. The reason I mention this, is because you can have both A/B which were previously connected, show a transition but only throught this method.

The only issue here is your understanding of transitions. If you add an edit to a clip and then just add a dissolve at that point without moving anything, then you are dissolving a clip into itself, and the amount that the outgoing part of the clip is fading out by will be the EXACT SAME AMOUNT that the incoming clip is dissolving IN by. And since each frame of the outgoing clip will be *identical* to the incoming clip at any given timecode, as you haven't even moved anything, there will be no difference in the output.

This is for a standard cross dissolve, other transitions will operate differently.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your reply. I get what you are saying. But once you split a single clip, that should now be two completely discrete clips in my view and when adding a transition to that cut point, I should see the same thing that I would see when bumping two different clips together and adding a transition. Once I am editing the timecode inside the clip should become subservient to the timeline.

Let's take the "Smooth Cut" Transition:

1. I have a single clip of a guy talking.
2. At 1:00 I make a cut because the guy hiccups.
3. At 1:02 I cut again because I want to use that for the pick up.
4. I remove the 2 seconds from 1:00 to 1:02 and bump the clips together.
5. I add Smooth Cut.
6. It won't work.

Isn't that defeating the whole purpose of Smooth Cut?

Adobe Premiere does this too. But why? Why does an NLE care what the two clips are? I am putting two clips together and creating a transition. Show me the Transition!

if you are removing footage before adding the transition, then you should see a transition of some kind. You should post a video of your smooth cut results, bear in mind that it works best when very short, no more than 4 frames in most cases.

Hi Tom,

Yes, removing footage from the middle of a clip, then joining the two remaing clips and adding a transition works, the transition is seen. But I still assert that I should be able to cut a clip and do nothing but put a transition ontop of that cut and be able to see that transition play.

For Example:
1. I film a tree for 30 seconds. Turn off my camera.
2. Turn on my camera and capture a chair inside.
3. Import that footage at as a single clip.
4. Cut that footage at the point where it changes from tree to chair.
5. Add a transition at that cut point.
6. The transition will not show.

The point about the interview footage and smooth cut is the same, and the whole thing about 4 frames is only to provide the "best look". I have done smooth cut with a 1 or 2 second transition and the algorythm just makes the footage look weird because it is interpolating both (morphing) both together. The real issue is that the transition does not show up in my previous example of smooth cut on an interview subject. To me that is an issue. My main point is that once I choose to CUT a clip, the resulting two clips should be treated in exactly the same way as the NLE would treat two completely different clips in the media pool.

My two cents

if you subclip your TREECHAIR footage
into TREE & CHAIR subclips

then when you transition you will get an error/warning

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 6.25.51 PM.png (373.93 KiB) Viewed 3934 times

if on the other hand you Blade the TREECHAIR clip into two parts on the timeline
the system thinks of the two parts as duplicates (with the same source clip)

if you transition across the Bladed point you are doing the same a "re-join clips"
(except with the added computation of a dissolve)

this is a good reason to make subclips

WH

For Example:
1. I film a tree for 30 seconds. Turn off my camera.
2. Turn on my camera and capture a chair inside.
3. Import that footage at as a single clip.
4. Cut that footage at the point where it changes from tree to chair.
5. Add a transition at that cut point.
6. The transition will not show.

The transition IS showing, it's just that as I said in my first post, you are dissolving the exact same footage into itself. There is NO footage of the chair before that cut, so it cannot show any footage of the chair in the first half of the transition. Likewise there is no footage of the tree after the cut, because it wasn't recorded, so it cannot show any footage of the tree after the cut. Trust me, transitions are working EXACTLY as they should, it's just that your understanding of them is flawed, so I suggest you do some research on editing basics.

Just to be clear, take your single clip of the tree/chair, duplicate it onto a second video track, add a cut at the point where the tree footage ends and the chair begins. On track 2, delete the clip of the chair, on track 1 delete the clip of the tree. What you are wanting to happen is that without moving or cutting any footage at all, the tree dissolves into the chair. A cross dissolve between 2 clips on 1 track is exactly identical to a fade out of 1 clip on a track above a second clip, so now add a standard cross dissolve on the clip on track 2. it will fade to black, because that is what is underneath on track 1. You don't want that, you want it fading into the chair, so now grab the edit on track 2 with the dissolve you've added and drag it to the right until the end of the transition overlaps the clip on track 1. If you play this, you'll see the behaviour you've already observed. Why is this? Because if you now delete the transition, and park your playhead on any point where the transition was, you have the clip of the chair. Disable the clip on track 2, and what you will see is the exact same frame on track 1. As I said before, you are dissolving a frame into itself. If you want the dissolve to make any difference, you MUST remove footage from each side, that's what handles are. Then you can slide the footage of the chair underneath the footage of the tree in this example, so that the fade occurs only on footage of the tree, with only footage of the chair underneath.

I have done smooth cut with a 1 or 2 second transition and the algorythm just makes the footage look weird because it is interpolating both (morphing) both together.

That's expected behaviour.

The real issue is that the transition does not show up in my previous example of smooth cut on an interview subject. To me that is an issue.

You should upload a video of this to clarify.

My main point is that once I choose to CUT a clip, the resulting two clips should be treated in exactly the same way as the NLE would treat two completely different clips in the media pool.

It really shouldn't, because that would effectively destroy any handles you would have had.

You should read manuals/watch videos on editing basics before you think anything isn't working, and even then you should ask because it's likely just something you are doing wrong.

Tom,

Here is the link to a video where I describe the failed case and the two cases that work:

Also, please stop stating that I don't know what I am doing and that I don't understand things, it's not helpful to the conversation. I have been cutting video for 30 years and I have worked as a software test engineer, developer and product manager during that time as well. I understand both the media and technology side.

While it may be true that this failed case has been in DaVinci and other NLEs for a long time, that does not mean that it should stay that way. Innovation comes from solving problems and this failed case is a problem. I don't care about "handles" or lack thereof. If Case 2 and Case 3 work to show transitions, there is absolutely no reason that Case 1 should not work.

Thank You.

Hi Wolfgang,

Appreciate the info on subclips. I will look into that.

Thanks!

Hi Dex,

if you replace the dissolve transition with a blur transition and it works as expected, then Tom is correct and you don't see the dissolve transition because the incoming frames are identical to the outgoing frames and the dissolve is just varying the 2 clips opacity. If you have 30 years experience I would expect this to be very obvious to you. The video you posted in this thread shows me that everything is working as expected.

Hi Peter,

Appreciate your reply. In all 3 cases (1 failed, 2 working) the only difference is that the failed case adds the transition at the cutpoint on a source clip where the OUT of the new resulting Clip-A is one frame before the IN of the new Clip-B. In this case both clips come from the same source material. So What?

Why shouldn't the NLE treat this Clip-A and Clip-B from the same source material, exactly the same as a Clip-A and Clip-B that are each from different source material?

In the following, let's say ALL Clips are 1 minute long (both A and B) and All Transitions are 1 second, so that the playing field is even:

Case 1: [Clip-A Source 1] + [Transition] + [Clip-B Source 1] = FAIL
Case 2: [Clip-A Source 1] + [Transition] + [Clip-B Source 2]= SUCCESS

WHY? We have the same length clips, we have the same length transitions. Case 1 should behave exactly the same as Case 2.

I am sure that if in Case 1, I were to:
1. Render Clip-B out as a BRAND NEW CLIP - Let's Call it Clip-C
2. Replace Clip-B with Clip-C
3. The transition would play perfectly.

Again... WHY? Why should anyone have to go to all that trouble?

I do have 30 years experience, but all of it with Vegas. In Vegas, using Case 1 as an example:
1. You make a Cut.
2. Drag Clip-B to the left over the top of Clip-A by however many seconds you want the transition.
3. Add the transition and it works perfectly.

Therefore I have never experienced this issue. And please don't say things like, well Vegas isn't a real editor or something crazy like that. The point is, just because you have lived with this Case 1 limitation all your editing life, doesn't mean that it makes any sense. If someone has lived with Rose Colored Glasses on all their life, they might insist that the sky is pink, which it would be for them, but that doesn't mean a blue sky isn't a reality either.

It will take engineering time to solve Case 1, but it should be solved because laying a transition over two clips, no matter the source, should work the same way every time. This business of "Handles" and all that crap is probably some old legacy thing, some hard problem no one wanted to solve. Again, this is a Software Design Issue that is non-optimal.

One more metaphor for you: There was a time when wheels were wooden and we traveled around in wagons. That was probably fantastic in the 1800's.

The only issue here is your understanding of transitions. If you add an edit to a clip and then just add a dissolve at that point without moving anything, then you are dissolving a clip into itself, and the amount that the outgoing part of the clip is fading out by will be the EXACT SAME AMOUNT that the incoming clip is dissolving IN by. And since each frame of the outgoing clip will be *identical* to the incoming clip at any given timecode, as you haven't even moved anything, there will be no difference in the output.

This is for a standard cross dissolve, other transitions will operate differently.

^ Correct answer.

Also, this discussion really belongs on the main Resolve forum because the issue is not specific to the BETA. It's related to how Resolve has worked since at least version 8 (which is when I started using it). And Tom's answer is exactly correct, so it's not a "bug" that can be fixed in Version 16.

2. Drag Clip-B to the left over the top of Clip-A by however many seconds you want the transition.

...and in doing so, you are removing (overlapping) footage. THAT is why you were seeing something in Vegas but not in Resolve. MYSTERY SOLVED!

You can do this in Resolve too by the way (shift-alt-drag). But the default method is not a limitation, not something that needs 'solving', and as for the rest of your post, the least said the better.

Lets look at this a different way. Cut your clip and add your dissolve, or my fav a venetian blind wipe you don't see anything. Now go to the color page and make a drastic move, really red for example, now go back to the edit page and you'll notice the transition. For more fun park your playhead on the center of the transition and turn the grade on and off, the transition is there but you can see it because the clip your trying to transition with is itself.

When you make a transition of 24 frames Side A borrows 12 frames from Side B and Side B 12 from A. To simulate cut your clip, and place a marker at that point in timeline to visualize cut, drag first half to track 2, extend the top track 12 frames past cut point and the bottom track 12 frames before cut point. This is a visual for the 24 frame transition. Turn track 2 on and off, beneath it is exactly the same. Lower the opacity of clip on track 2, you won't see anything happen, because beneath it is exactly the same. Put a cross dissolve on end of clip on track 2 and turn track 1 off, you'll see it fade to black, but now turn track 1 on, nothing seems to happen. One last test, go back to your example with a spiral wipe and turn border up, its there but you're not seeing a change because underneath is the same.

I wonder what OP thinks a cross-dissolve to itself should look like if none of the source parts have been shifted? If you dissolve one frame into itself, it will not magically turn into some other random frame as explained in quite a few different ways already.

Tom,

Here is the link to a video where I describe the failed case and the two cases that work:

Also, please stop stating that I don't know what I am doing and that I don't understand things, it's not helpful to the conversation. I have been cutting video for 30 years and I have worked as a software test engineer, developer and product manager during that time as well. I understand both the media and technology side.

While it may be true that this failed case has been in DaVinci and other NLEs for a long time, that does not mean that it should stay that way. Innovation comes from solving problems and this failed case is a problem. I don't care about "handles" or lack thereof. If Case 2 and Case 3 work to show transitions, there is absolutely no reason that Case 1 should not work.

Thank You.

My mind is blown by this.

I'm sorry if I offend you, Dex, but an editor who has been working in video for 30 years should know what is happening here. It IS dissolving between your 2 newly created clips, but because the footage is exactly the same you can't see it.

Let's take a dissolve over, for simplicities sake, 100 frames, or 4 PAL-land seconds.

On frame 1 of a basic video dissolve, it a superimposition of 99% Shot A, 1% Shot B. On frame 2, it's 98% Shot A, 2% Shot B, and so on for another 98 frames. But what your video clearly shows is that you have not trimmed the footage at all so the incoming and outgoing frames are identical so you won't see the effect of the dissolve.

Change the Style of your effect to Additive in the Inspector with your transition selected and NOW you'll see the effect.

You've mentioned doing it to cut out pauses in interviews. Something that happens in every interview edit ever. When you chop out that (x) number of frames and put a dissolve onto it, you will see a difference because the outgoing frame of Shot A is not adjacent (in the original uncut source clip) to the incoming frame of Shot B. Even if you only chop one frame out, you'll see a ghosting effect over the course of the dissolve.

I honestly don't understand why this is an issue. Any transition on clips that have only had a blade tool applied, and doesn't move pixels will be invisible.

Hi Peter,

It will take engineering time to solve Case 1, but it should be solved because laying a transition over two clips, no matter the source, should work the same way every time. This business of "Handles" and all that crap is probably some old legacy thing, some hard problem no one wanted to solve. Again, this is a Software Design Issue that is non-optimal.

*phew*

OK, here I am, trying not to offend you again. Dex: There is nothing wrong with the software. Your understanding of what is happening is at fault. Your description of what happens in Sony Vegas is not what you are doing in your Resolve video. Go back to Vegas, do exactly the same thing - add a cut in the middle of a single video and put a dissolve on it and you will see the same behaviour.

Talking about how handles ("and all that crap") are "probably some old legacy thing" suggests that, even with 30 years video and software test engineering experience, there are some fundemental gaps in your knowledge.

Hell, I've gone ahead and made a video that became more about smooth cuts than your initial concern, but I've made it now, so....you're welcome!

I still assert that I should be able to cut a clip and do nothing but put a transition ontop of that cut and be able to see that transition play.

That's just not how transitions work. Never has been.