How are illustrator pictures designed?
The Image Trace tool in Adobe Illustrator allows you to do just that! Whether youre working on a dubious doodle or a major masterpiece just follow these 1-step ge to digitize to create unique illustrations s . 1. First make some line art with pen and paper. We need a black and white drawing but it can be as elaborate andplex as you like. Youll get the sharpest results using a pigment-based pen and clean bright white paper. My personal favorites are Uni Pin technical pens . You can use paper with dots or a grid but try and get paper where the grid is printed in a light shade because that will make it easier to exclude the grid when the s below uses an inverted grid which is easy to exclude. 2. Scan or photograph your artwork Use a flatbed scanner if you have access to onethey create the least distortion because they keep the paper flat. Alternatively you can simply photograph the drawing using your phone. If you use your phone camera try to get the page lined up with the four corners of the frame to minimize perspective distortion. If your drawing is very small like mine below just photograph the part of the page you need and try to line up the grid with the edges of the frame. 3. Download the to yourputer is probably to email it to yourself and download it. Once youve got the photo saved to yourputer open up Adobe Illustrator and create a new document. It doesn matter what size you choose for the initial artboardI just went for A4 landscape. 4. Place the file select it and then click and drag to insert the file into your document. 5. Crop the and select Crop Image. Use the resizing handles to trim the s 15 195 master_ s zoomable s 127 1776 master_ s zoomable trace settings With the s. If you reduce this setting to a smaller number the white point is set lower so more of the colors in the original photo be white. If you increase the setting they be black. The Threshold setting is very useful if youre trying to exclude grey dots or gridlines in a scanned s 117 195 master_ s zoomable making it possible to manually edit them. The Expandmand can be found in the Options panel at the top of the Illustrator interface 9. Ungroup the shape Initially when the paths are expanded they are all grouped together. If you want to edit the shapes or add color to them the easiest way is to Ungroup the paths. With the to deselect the group. 1. Edit the shape Using the Move tool V have a go at selecting individual paths. To add color select the path you want to edit then open up the Swatches panel (Window Swatches if you can find it) and select a color. I ended up doing something awful italic with gradients Bonus tips Creating enclosed space in your drawings will make editing easier. In the example above there are two enclosed spaces in the original drawingthe circles for each of the lenses. This made it easier to apply colors to those shapes after the so that the strokes run off the edge of the in Photoshop apply the threshold in Photoshop instead of Illustrator (Image Adjustments Threshold) and then use the Pencil tool to make your edits in black and white.
What is the most advanced professional video editor on the planet?
What a bombastic way to ask a question! It sounds like your asking what is the fastest supercar in the world or which fighter plane can fly the highest etc. I guess your question is really; what do you think is the best video editing software package? italic The most advanced thing in video editing of film editing is the editor - the actual person who edits a film. The software we use is just a tool - a tool that plays back clips of video and audio. There is not much creatively that you can do now that you could not do 25 years ago. Howeverputers are hugely faster and there are several really nicely developed software packages. Im sorry to disappoint you but the expert view is simple; there is no clear winner. There is not one system that is outright better than all the others. My personal opinion is something like this Avid Media Composer For long-form broadcast or feature film editing when there is literally hundreds or thousands of hours of footage and many workflow issues to solve Avid Media Composer is undoubtably the mostplete tool. Furthermore the really critical thing with any industrial process is that there are lots of skilled editors italic whom can make the film and hand over sections or whole episodes to one another. My wife and I are both professional film editors. We know many many other film and TV editors from all over Europe and the US. Even if the odd person has a fun or fruitful relationship with a package like FCPX or Premiere Pro they would never be so daft as to suggest that they are more suitable for heavyweight productions than Avid Media Composer. Never. Avid Media Composer is rather old in it thinking. At times it feels a little bit stuck in its ways. Other systems feel more free or seem to embrace non-linearity morefortably but none of the other systems cope as well with all the boring strains of huge productions. So if you want to join the actual industry of making broadcast film and TV where you collaborate with lots of high-level industrial people then you should learn Media Composer eventually. But wait the other systems are also really cool Adobe Premiere Pro I use Premiere Pro at home for lots of projects. I think it works really well for assembling films on a single edit suite. In fact now with it new edit sharing tools it is getting better at collaboration. For many years there were lots of niggling issues that made professional editors slap their heads in disbelief but now it not too bad. Lots of stuff has been fixed. Ive been using Adobe After Effects since version 3.1 in around 1998 though probably played with it fairly extensively in 1997. Back then we all used to use After Effects with Media 1 an edit suite that has long ago fallen out of favour though I think it still available. Editors who used After Effects as well could do things that normal editors simply could not. We were kind of like an offline online editor and a Silicon Graphics Flame artist all-in-one. Long ago probably around the time that FCP became stable around 24 25 we all starting using FCP instead. It was cheaper and a bit newer. That was until until Apple threw everything away in order to bring the pro version of iMovie to market instead and call it FCPX. After that most of those s that either originally used Media 1 and After Effects or had joined the party in the intervening ten or twelve years all bailed over to Premiere Pro instead. FCPX was just too unfamiliar for us. Premiere Pro just borrowed almost everything from the legacy of older editing suites. You will often hear that one of the reasons so many people like Premiere Pro so much is its integration with Adobe After Effects. It is pretty good. You can leave After Effectspositions within your sequences in Premiere. That means they are capable of being continuously updated when changes are made in After Effects. You do not have to export chunks of video from Premiere Pro import them into After Effects render (or re-render) them and then finally bring them back into Premiere Pro where you have to insert them into your timeline. It is pretty cool. That system alone should probably suggest that the winner of your rather over-the-top question is Adobe Premiere Pro. However I think sometimes it is a pain in the arse. Clips with motion effects in Premiere Pro do not transfer properly. Theye into After Effects in rather a messed up state. After a crash which is all too often in Premiere Pro a made to After Effects is gone. So yeah it is pretty useful but not flawless. And as I said a moment ago the system is not really stable enough. Ive had too many crashes in the past couple of months. With Avid Media Composer I can spend weeks editing without ever considering the machine having a crash. Premiere Pro with all its cleverness is a bit flakey Final Cut Pro (FCPX) Though I don really use FCPX I know a lot of very skilled film makers do. Notice that I call them filmmakers rather than editors. Clearly lots of people whom identify themselves as editors use it but they are unlikely to do so while collaborating with a large production. FCPX is a very carefully designed edit suite. It has lots of ideas that throw away the rule book for editing software. It is fast and fairly simple to use. People love it because it does not really require you to invest huge amounts of time in it. Avid Media Composer almost seems to insist that you be a professional to use it. It is very daunting because there is nothing that it cannot do that an industrial tool that works as part of a big production system should require. FCP on the other hand feels elegantly simple and modern. It looks and feels ike modern edit suite. The interface flexes and changes to suit the mode of operation. They did away with having to always have a source and a program monitor. Of course Media 1 did that back in the mid 9s but everything borrows from something else. Apple I think quite consciously wanted to invest in a new generation of editors. They knew that editors like my wife and me and the vast majority of professional editors were whether they were happy or not wedded to Avid. They were thus wedded to the old-school way of doing things. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with FCP in its current guise but we the incumbent professionals do not need it. It assumes that the way we do things is unnecessary but it is not. We like the stolid nature of our audio tracks. We use them for different things We do not want the whim of the software deciding where things would go. We decide. So there is nothing wrong with FCP (X) other than it is not very liked. I also think that we the current professionals do not consider it industrial enough to replace either Premiere Pro or Avid Media Composer with. The fact is that even if you or others disagree it makes no difference because for the time being it is us italic the current professional workforce whom are asked what we think. We have to make serious judgements that could potentially screw things up for tons of us if we make the wrong call. So until we are all too old and grey and being relegated to the retired pile things are unlikely to change. Black Magic Da Vinci Resolve Ive written about Da Vinci Resolve on these pages before. I was trained to use it as a Colourist several years ago. I only did a few grading jobs with it for other clients but it was really enjoyable. Da Vinci Resolve (let just called it Resolve) is slightly odd and unique in the way it functions as it clearly started out life as purely a grading tool. That no bad thing as it is a really great colouring tool. Blackmagic made it clear several years back that they were keen to not only turn Resolve into a fully recognised online editing tool but to encourage a workforce as well. They began to offer cheap or free course to editors like me to persuade us to use the system. It really has worked. Resolve is stable elegantly designed and includes lots of proper industrial tools. Blackmagic did quite the opposite from Apple - they did not assume that they a bunch of programmers and marketing s who don really know anything much about film making should dictate what a professional editing system should be like. No. They asked and interacted. Though I have not really been working as an online editor for about eight years I know that Resolve has be an established fixture in broadcast TV and film. Funnily enough I am about to do two days of online editing for a Channel 5 programme over the next two days but it not my bag anymore. This next job is on Avid but the online editors I know all know Resolve. But hang on! That is not the end of the Resolve story. Resolve is bing increasing popular as aplete edit suite. Offline editors are learning to use it. Aspiring editors can just download the free version which kind of does almost everything the paid for version does. I met a chap who runs the TV facilities at Swansea University when I was at the Production Show the other day. He told me that they had switched all of their department over to Resolve. They love it. Many other universities are doing so. Students will be learning this tool and entering the marketplace. Producers and directors will talk with their post-production supervisor colleagues and agree that they could use Resolve for a broadcast job from beginning to end. If the skilled staff are there to use it and the system is industrially designed rather than still being a bit flimsy (like Premiere Pro and FCPX) then we can trust it. Now I do think that there will still be issues for the vast swathes of professional editors who don really need another editing package but I think of the last three in my list Resolve is showing the best signs of making the jump into broadcast acceptability. But please as a final note do not simply conclude that one of these systems is definitively better than the others. They are all really italic fabulous bits of software. And also don forget that they are just bits of software - they are tools. The really advanced bit is the human the editor It is them whom have to use these things to make films. They the humans have to ponder the right process that will help them collect organise synchronise understand edit and modify the media to make a film. The software will not do that for you.