I want to active Mercalli v5, but am confused by some of the forum posts. I have MVP X. When I look in my available Effects in the app it only shows "proDAD Mercalli 2.0". My app indicates that I have MVP X "Version 18.0.1.89", but my online account indicates that I have activated "Video Pro X (12)". This is confusing! How do I make sure that I have the current version of MVP, and get the Mercalli v5 suite?
--Ralph
Hi Ralph.
I'm afraid you are confusing me!
Magix Video Pro X is the VPX full title or referred to shortened to VPX or Video Pro X on the forum.
If you are looking at the VPX 'help' 'about' then yes the number should start with 18. as that is the build and update number.
In your account it should show up as (12) as that is the current version of VPX.
So yes you have VPX 12. Whether or not you have that plug-in or not would depend on what was offered at the time you bought it. What is offered now may not be the plug-in offered at the time you bought it.
I notice at the moment it is the HitFilm Cinema Style Pack.
Ray.
Further to what Ray indicated, if you upgraded to V12 from V11 by being under the 1 year update service, you do not get any third party programs until you actually pay money to renew or extend the Update Service. If the former is your case, there is no Mercalli v5 until you pay.
John CB
OK, however inelegantly I tried to describe it, both of you understood my question. I activated my Video Pro X (12) on 9/2/2020. Are you saying that I need to pay another fee to get Mercalli v5? If so, who do I talk to about this? I keep being sent back to this forum when I try to submit this question to Magix Sales/Customer Service.(?)
BTW, I appreciate all the posts and help from both of you! Yes, it was Sept 2020. It must have been a payment for an upgrade because I had a previous version of VPX. Looking back through my emails I receive an email 31 Aug 2020 with the coupon code for proDAD Mercalli V5 Suite and instructions to activate it under "Help"> "Activate content pack(s)". I do not see that option in my software.(?)
Never mind.
I tried again, and successfully used the activation code.
Hi Ralph,
Glad you have it sorted out.
However, for the benefit of others, can you list the steps including more detail about the coupon code that you received with email confirming purchase of the Upgrade/Update Service renewal, and then what (without showing any actual activation codes)? There has been some confusion in the past about what to do.
Thanks,
John CB
Sorry, this will be a bit wordy, but I don’t know how else to explain the problem and solution.
Firstly, when I only saw the “proDAD Mercalli 2.0” Effect option, I believed that my version of VPX was not current. This confusion was compounded by the confusion that my VPX software indicates it is “Version 18.0.1.89”, but online the current version is listed as “12”. Believing that I did not have a version with Mercalli 5, I downloaded a trial version of Mercalli V5 (for Magix) directly from proDAD and installed it. I believe, but am not certain, that this ultimately caused conflicts when I ultimately tried to install the Magix supplied version of Mercalli V5, so I uninstalled it, and cleaned the registry.
I looked further at the Effects options in my version of VPX and found in the “Extra Effects” an option for downloading “proDAD Mercalli V5 Suite”. I had to use my original Coupon Code from Magix for Mercalli 5 to download and install this software. After restarting VPX, the expected four tools in Mercalli V5 were visible in VPX. However, these had to be activated before they could be used, but the Coupon Code used to download the software would not work! Sometime after this, I noticed that I had “mysteriously” received a new email with a serial number for the Mercalli V5 Suite. That number activated all four Mercalli tools, and they now appear to be working as expected.
In my VPX software, I still have an Effect option of “proDAD Mercalli 2.0”, which is separate from Mercalli V5 tools. I have no idea why that is still there, and whether it has benefits, or other functions, not provided by the V5 Suite!(?)
That is my view also, but I don't know of a way to delete Mercalli 2.0 from VPX.
Hi Ralph.
Sometimes these things can share dll. and other file types. Removing it could accidentally cripple the working version. If You are not unduly worried about the amount of space it is taking up personally I'd leave it there until such times I needed to reinstall VPX.
Ray.
In my VPX software, I still have an Effect option of “proDAD Mercalli 2.0”, which is separate from Mercalli V5 tools. I have no idea why that is still there, and whether it has benefits, or other functions, not provided by the V5 Suite!(?)
V2.0 is still there because it is integrated into the effects part of the Magix program as opposed to V4 and V5 which are separate plug ins. Not sure why you can't find it in MEP Ray?
V5 seems to be very similar to V4 and the main difference to V2 is the Dynamic zoom effect that only zooms to the minimum required on each frame to hide the uneven border created by the stabilization - whereas V2 zooms the whole clip to the same extent as the worst frame in the clip meaning you lose resolution due to the zooming on parts of the clip that are steady. The way the zoom transitions from the worst to the best frame is configurable with a slider so that you can fine tune the dynamics of the zoom so that you don't detect a trommboning effect during playback.
The Real time V5 Stabi I have not mastered and wonder how necessary it is. The other effect in the V5 Suite that boosts the contrast and colour I find quite amenable and easy to apply.
Peter
Hi Peter.
Just looked and realized it is the video stabilization plug-in by ProDad.
Sorry, didn't recognize it as I never use it, it's not very good IMHO.
Must have developed a blind spot concerning it as I much prefer using the Vegas version supplied instead.
Even then, not that keen.
Ray.
What do you think makes it not very good?
I think V4/V5 is brilliant and more configurable than Vegas.
Peter
Hi Peter.
Because verticals, unless the camera is always pointing at right angles to the ground, shimmer and wobble if it is corrected by such means. It's a parallax problem with the depth of field altering the rate of off vertical axis objects at different distances getting worse as you get to the side edges of the screen when dealing with wide angled shots. It is better dealt with using a glide-cam or gimbal arrangement or a camera that has 5-axis stabilisation and dealt with at the shooting stage because you can't correct for all the vertical objects at once at the different distances.
A close crop with little background clutter on the other hand is not as disturbing to watch.
That, and as you say, the loss of some definition due to the cropping of the frame needed during post production.
If none of that is possible I would rather personally watch the shaky footage.
I know I am unusual and probably in a minority but these things tend to leap out at me and was my own cause of a lot of frustration when I first started to use video. I now prefer where possible to get it right in camera and often dump a lot of footage which at least with digital is much easier and cheaper to do.
Ray.
Hi Ray
Because verticals, unless the camera is always pointing at right angles to the ground, shimmer and wobble if it is corrected by such means.
You mean - always parallel to the ground don't you, and are you sure this is not partly due to CMOS rolling shutter effect with DSLR's?
....with the depth of field altering the rate of off vertical axis objects at different distances getting worse as you get to the side edges of the screen when dealing with wide angled shots.
Wrong terminology - DOF is to do with focus, but I think I know what you mean.
Have you tried setting the 4th and 5th axis in Mercalli ie. X axis - Tilt and Y axis Tilt ( both unactivated by default). Also there are a whole list of cameras you can select in Mercalli which appear to be small action cams with presumably wide angle lenses that once selected are supposed to help the stabiliser and CMOS correction deal with inherent distortions or corrections for rectilinearity in such.
And of course there is no substitute for steady images created in camera but you wouldn't need stabilisation software with that, and it is not always practical to set up tripods or rigs. I don't like shaky footage either but it is easy to be too critical of your own work until you watch some TV and see just how much stuff is shot with handheld cameras and how little it actually detracts from the story.
Anyway we are getting a bit off the topic here....interesting as it is...
Peter
Hi Peter.
The lens parallel to the ground yes, but the eyepiece would be at right angles unless you had the ability to move it or have a swivel screen. Sorry for any confusion.
How would you describe a shot that is in focus from near to far? With a wide angle capture it looks odd to have a shallow focus with background out of focus in a lot of instances. Yes I have played with the controls including the camera type of controls.
The rolling shutter would be a factor there is no denying that but out of the operators control.
The more control I get the more fussy I get about camera movement. I agree, such content would not need correction in post and is my ideal footage. Hence my aversion to using such plug-ins. I would rather where practical, slow the motion down instead to make any such movement less noticeable. Not practical where sound from the track is needed to be in sync in most instances but can also sometimes be fun to slow the sound down as well.
The plug-ins would suit some styles of filming as I said. Close up action or some sports footage for instance. This is my own personal aversion and I don't expect other people to agree but I don't use the plug-ins after trying them out.
I'm not overly fond of some modern production values either 😉.
Ray.
This subject should have its own discussion in the Off Topic section however
. . . . How would you describe a shot that is in focus from near to far? . . . .
Large DOF - the opposite as you have commented is Shallow DOF.
. . . . The rolling shutter would be a factor there is no denying that but out of the operators control. . . .
Not totally - that is the job of the Rolling Shutter correction - I do believe we discussed this a while ago and I put up a short video of a typical example of rolling shutter and its corrected version.
John EB
Hi John.
Thank you for the correction on Dof.
I meant it is beyond the operators control within the camera. We did discuss it earlier. I'm not happy about the correction of that either within the plug-in bearing in mind I only have version 2. Maybe my eyes are oversensitive due to my time working with Presburys' Screen Advertising in the early 70s before moving on to studio sound work. We spent every Wednesday morning in a Soho preview theatre looking for flaws in newly shot footage.
Ray.