I would like to have either a dedicated paint section where it would be possible to design a much wider variety of backgrounds for lower thirds etc. To be able to eassily replicate the current trend for shaded 3D effects and bevels for example.

A seperate section which then could save a background for import into the classic titler for the addition of text, graphics etc would enable the programme to be more versatile and produce more professional results.

You do know that you can import PNG files produced by any painting or photoshop type program into either title editor?

Hi jjn

 

I was not specifically aware that they had to be png and have tried some other backgrounds and lower thirds which would not import successfully. The only thing about third party programmes is the inconvenience of having to design and save and then import rather than be able to achieve everything in the one programme. Any time saved has to be an advantage.

 

Incidentally, I am still in awe of the real time clock which you pointed me towards and will be eternally grateful to you for that.

If you want to keep transparency, then I find .png the most convenient now . You can also use .tif.

Without meaning to decry your suggestion, I would personally rather see effort first put into improving the main functions of the program (some of which don't work properly!) rather that provide features that can be handled far better by external programs, some of which (GIMP for example) are free. Windows is a multi-tasking environment so you can have both programs open, and you can also drag and drop graphics from a windows explorer window onto the timeline of Studio.

This is my personal opinion. Feature requests of this sort often draw responses for both ends of the spectrum - some people want the moon on a stick for $100, other shout "Fix the bugs first" 

However, for marketing purposes, your suggestion fits in with the way computing is going. People expect "turnkey" programs or suites that do everything. I have two programs from Serif which I find are both excellent. Page Plus (for desktop publishing) is powerful, easy to learn and stable. It also includes a mode for Web publishing. However, the web publishing features aren't quite powerful enough for my aspirations, so I've ended up buying Web Plus as well. Both have simple image editing tools, but the programs integrate with all the others from Serif and both can link with Photo Plus for full blown image editing. The main advantage of this approach, (apart from more sales for Serif) is that the user doesn't have to get involved with the operating system. The way I've learnt to use computers (i.e. before Windows), the miracle of Multi-tasking is enough, and I'm not inclined to replace my ancient edition of Photoshop with Serif's offering.

The other advantage of this approach is that if I were a Serif customer coming to Video editing for the first time, I'd almost certainly buy Serif's offering.

I'm only the messenger about the plug-ins. The developer Harold Linke is still around on this forum

 

 

I too use WebPlus and that may be one reason why I prefer to have everything in one programme.

 

Since I don't possess a paint programme at the moment, I will probably have to go for one of the free ones. Paint.NET seems to have quite a few features. Do you have any experience of it?

Bob keen:

Since I don't possess a paint programme at the moment, I will probably have to go for one of the free ones. Paint.NET seems to have quite a few features. Do you have any experience of it?

I use GIMP with the paint plug-in (there are several, if you include the addition brushes plugins). there all free. If you what a easy to learn paint program my son likes MyPaint. All open source and free.

I too use GIMP and find it very good.  It is very much like Adobe Photoshop, but the best bit is that it is FREE.   I also use Paint.net and Picassa, they all have their different advantages.  Only this morning, I used 3 different programs for different tasks on photos.  I could probably just use one, but some tasks are easier in some programs than others.  I guess it's all about learning.

Adobe Premier allows one to interface output designed with Photoshop, but the advantage is not much greater than simply to create the content in Photoshop (or some other CS application), and then import it into Premier (or Studio, or whatever).  If Pinnacle did offer a plug-in to to the same, charging perhaps $80, people habituated to Photoshop (Elements sells for about $80) might still find it more dynamic or familiar.

 BTW, one can use Studio's 2D Editor - Advanced tool in Studio, in conjunction with key-framing, to do all kinds of transparency and animation effects with photos, videos, or graphics created or imported from anywhere.  Chroma-key or Luma-key tools are also very potent tools.