Wouldn't it be nice if

Hi Everyone

I’m pretty sure we’ve covered this before but i’m thinking of a feature request which i don’t think is available right now unlesss there is a clever work around that someone knows.

I’m doing a lot of beauty work on similar shots but obviously all different. Wouldnt it be nice if there was a sort of master batch that that fed all the others. I guess a conected conform for batch.

Be great to tweak one node say A2 Beauty and it effect all the others. Be interested to know wether this would be a worthy addition to the tool set in peoples opinion.

Appreciate any sneeky tips if there are any. M

1 Like

Hi Marcus

The only effective way I can think of to do this would be to have all your setups in one script.

Then u could have master nodes W connected to all the other ones.

Would make for a beast of a script but I can’t think of any other way


Hi Dan,

Having had several beers together over the years you must of realised im not really a man that can handle massive scripts.

Masive scripts frighten the be jeezuz out of me infact.

Hope your keeping well.

I very often do this kind of thing, compass is a great way to split a batch up into different shots, I just wish you could pull a compass out of a batch when loading.

1 Like

Isn’t that one thing that BFX is great at? Set up a base setup, exit BFX, and then copy that BFX to all your other shots to modify.

Yes copying BFX clips is indeed great but this isn’t what I’m suggesting. The thought isn’t about copying the same setup to new clips but more about adjusting a value on a node that effects all nodes on bespoke clips within other batches. Hope that makes sense.

My apologies @Marcus_M . I misunderstood what you were trying to do. Yes! That would be really cool!

This was brought up recently. It’s involves adding another level of expression recognition to the desktop level rather than being limited to the batch group. I’d like to see that, but if think it would involve a greater level of expression management as well, which there is currently very little of.

1 Like

You could make one giant batch but keep each individual setup in its own group, but I find the effort is rarely worth it and end up saving the updated node out and loading it into all the other setups.

Or copy/pasting it. I love that copy/paste


Morning All,

I believe i have now raised this as feature request. If i have done it correctly you can find the link here.


1 Like

I just commented and voted but I always saw this as a function of linking across batches where I have ten shots with a “look” that needs to be changed across all shots it would be great if we could link the values and change them all at once but would also need an offset value to say this shot needs this change +5 or some sort of offset.


If I picked up a setup from someone with 5 shots in one batch I would get violent and most likely break the monitor from screaming at it, asking why would someone do such a thing only to find out they linked nodes that I can’t even see how they are linked.

1 Like

I would see it that any node in batch you could assign maybe a PIN number or reference.

Then when you use that node whatever it is in another batch you could right click and select link too (type the pin code in) and it’s now on mimic values to that node.

Something like that.

Maybe not for everyone but id use it for sure.

could be like keyframes where it has a red link dot next to the linked nodes and clicking on the red circle lists the batches its linked to and clicking on the batch in the list opens that batch.

1 Like

Exactlly that. Great addition. :+1:

k one revision it would be nice instead of a circle its a line —> which would be outbound linking <—> bi directional linking <— inbound linking and the rest still applies.

…if you could on the desktop atl g go to timecode and with a T tap style select a clip and have it take you there on the open source clip.

Or can you and you guys are all keeping to yourselves?

Define coarse? Its unbelievably good and it’s in 98% of all of my setups.

I can’t say that I use it. I’ve tried it, I understand the concepts behind it, but I feel like I have more versatility and control when I build out my own frequency separation rigs. Sometimes A2 Beauty might be part of that in regards to effecting the low pass, but I tend more towards just Gaussian blurs or doll face or infill blur for that (again- just on the low pass). Then you know, playing around with max lighten or min darken transfer modes, etc. I think it’s just different strokes for different folks. Whatever looks good!

At the end of the day, I thiiiiink A2Beauty is already built to be doing a lot of the stuff I’m doing- I just really like to see the procedural stuff in discrete nodes, as it can be a little opaque in a matchbox that just has names for all this stuff that I don’t know what they mean right out of the box. And for me, avoiding plug-ins and building my own stuff from simple and universal nodes keeps me software agnostic and, I find, really helps me understand what is actually happening. This inevitably leads to me finding new ways to retool and hack those tools for more and more uses. But again, different strokes for different folks and not doubting the usefulness of A2- it just doesn’t end up in my batches very often.

1 Like

In general I don’t do “beauty” spots, but when a client asks for some beauty on a regular spot, that and crok_beauty are my go to’s for quick touch-ups. I used it to take down the shine on someones face the other day.