Is it possible to use Keyframer non-destructively?

[Soom]

I need to use a Keyframer FX on a bunch of cleaned up characters, but there is no way I can let them blur in the process of transformation. Is there any way to apply it non-destructively - i.e. by forcing it to use only exact 1 pixel increments, and set smoothing to None (as it's possible with Panning and Transform tools)?

[Elodie]

Hmmm, I don't think so.

Maybe a script can do the job.

[Soom]

Hmmm, I don't think so.

Maybe a script can do the job.

I guess this hsould be a feature request, cause this could save lots of work and peoples lives Imagine that we must redraw each frame because it cannot be transformed non-destructively. I understand that when it's rotation, or size transformation, then little blur is inevitable, but when it's just panning, this should be possible...

[slowtiger]

But would you really spot the difference in motion? I'm all for crisp lines, but noticed I can mix crisp lines with blurred ones and nobody would notice (in common fast movements).

[Fabrice]

I need to use a Keyframer FX on a bunch of cleaned up characters, but there is no way I can let them blur in the process of transformation. Is there any way to apply it non-destructively - i.e. by forcing it to use only exact 1 pixel increments, and set smoothing to None (as it's possible with Panning and Transform tools)?

I might be wrong, but if you do some calculations (number of image used = last position - origin position), it shouldn't be blurry. (assuming it's a pan)
Also, depending on the source you choose, you won't modify the original layer.

[Soom]

I need to use a Keyframer FX on a bunch of cleaned up characters, but there is no way I can let them blur in the process of transformation. Is there any way to apply it non-destructively - i.e. by forcing it to use only exact 1 pixel increments, and set smoothing to None (as it's possible with Panning and Transform tools)?

I might be wrong, but if you do some calculations (number of image used = last position - origin position), it shouldn't be blurry. (assuming it's a pan)
Also, depending on the source you choose, you won't modify the original layer.

Hmmm.. that might be correct, but if I have several keyframes on the pan, it makes calculations more complicated, and if I use a progress profile, or pan diagonally, I think, it becomes impossible... so calculating is only easy for straight line motion from point a to point b. An option could be, that there was a separate FX that uses the Pan Tool over time for those tasks - this would be ideal.
I also agree that for most independent productions this issue probably is trivial, but for big projects with strict requirements, this can be quite fatal : )

[Fabrice]

Hmmm.. that might be correct, but if I have several keyframes on the pan, it makes calculations more complicated, and if I use a progress profile, or pan diagonally, I think, it becomes impossible... so calculating is only easy for straight line motion from point a to point b. An option could be, that there was a separate FX that uses the Pan Tool over time for those tasks - this would be ideal.

ok it makes sense.

[Elodie]

In the to do list

[Soom]

In the to do list

Thanks!