Hi Kdenlivers,
I seem to remember some discussion about organizing transitions in a better
way. While I don't have a presentable solution to this enigma I would like to
get feedback on some early thoughts.
I always stumbled with the sheer amount of transitions and thought about some
way to give this pile of transitions some order. For the benefit of better
documentation and helping users get around this sheer vast of transitions.
May be a way to group Kdenlive transitions could be like this:
1. "static blending" transitions: these have no keyframable parmeters. Examples
are multiply, dodge, burn, ...
2. "cross fading" transitions; again, no keyframable parameters. Examples would
be dissolve, slide, wipe.
3. "dynamic compositing" transitions; these have keyframable parameters.
Examples would be affine and composite.
The neat side effect is that for type 1 and 3 transitions you always need two
tracks. But type 2 transitions could be done inline, that is, within a track
... something users have asked for from time to time already.
What do you think about such a first, intentionally coarse classification? Will
static blending transitions in the future have their parameters keyframable
too? Would this be possible after all?
Best regards, Harald
_______________________________________________
kdenlive mailing list
kdenlive@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kdenlive
