Page MenuHome

Movie clip is deformed by resolution multiplier when offset is added in sequence editor
Closed, ResolvedPublic


System Information
Debian GNU/Linux
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] RV370 [Radeon X600/X600 SE]
Also seen on another Debian machine, unknown graphics card.

Blender Version
Broken: 2.76rc3
Worked: Don't know, maybe never.

Short description of error
When adding an image Offset to a movie clip strip in the Video Sequence editor while the resolution multiplier in the Render settings is not 100%, the movie clip does not scale with the video and therefore gets displaced, and remains too big.
AFAIK the Render multiplier is intended for fast previews, to be set at 100% for the final render. If the output changes (other than in size) by this setting, it becomes effectively useless.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error

  1. Click "Image Offset". Even though the numbers are (0,0), the clip changes from auto-fit to normal size. This is strange, but may be intentional.
  2. Decrease Resolution multiplier in Render Settings. The size of the clip does not change, meaning the result is not a scaled version of the output at 100%.
  3. Add an offset and change the multiplier again. The clip moves off screen.

Blender file:

Event Timeline

Bas Wijnen (wijnen) updated the task description. (Show Details)
Bas Wijnen (wijnen) raised the priority of this task from to Needs Triage by Developer.
Bas Wijnen (wijnen) set Type to Bug.
Sergey Sharybin (sergey) closed this task as Archived.Oct 10 2015, 8:21 AM
Sergey Sharybin (sergey) claimed this task.

It's actually how sequencer worked for ages. Any strip with Image Offset enabled is no longer scaled to fit into the full sequencer frame.

it's quite confusing, but solving this is not possible without breaking almost any sequencer setup in the world now. Could happen with some major sequencer recode tho.

So thanks for the report, but closing as know behavior and a TODO.

Bas Wijnen (wijnen) reopened this task as Open.Oct 10 2015, 5:25 PM

That was only step one. As I wrote: "This is strange, but may be intentional." Step 2 illustrates behavior that is objectively wrong; when rendering at 50% size, the result is not a scaled version of the render at 100% size. Step 3 illustrates the same thing is a slightly different way.

Bastien Montagne (mont29) triaged this task as Confirmed, Medium priority.Oct 17 2015, 11:31 AM
Bastien Montagne (mont29) claimed this task.