Wish for PP2.5- 3.0 to handle larger # of clips in vain?

[Marisu Fronc]

Actually, it’s known as CHOICE – say I need healthy food shots – I have a folder of about 1000 different choices that gets imported into the job (not including anything that may have been shot for that job) WHY, so that when someone says that portion is too large OR do you have something more ethnic OR I don’t know, let me see what you’ve got they have choices – and that’s just healthy food – then you add unhealthy choices, grocery store choices, people actually eating the food . . . pretty soon you have several thousand food shots. In a collaborative environment (especially one where lots of divergent opinions get expressed (and have to be taken into consideration) the more choices you have the easier it is to get a consensus (and yes, you do need to reach one). There are often different versions required for a particular customer – but not desired by the majority – again more choices. Believe me, if there was an easier way I’d love to find it. I must say, however, that it is not impossible to manage by nature, I have used this workflow for a number of years BEFORE switching to Premiere, and the number of sources in the database was never a problem . . . to tell you the truth, I’m not sure that is the problem here, it seems to be, instead, hinged on the way Premiere uses and more importantly RELEASES RAM.

slainte,
marisu

[Marisu Fronc]

Oh and BTW – if you want to see inefficiency in clips – try digitizing an imported EDL . . . now there’s a place where it would be WONDERFUL to have less sources . . .

slainte,
marisu

[Brian De herrera-schnering]

Good morning Marisu.

I probably lost an hour or more of time yesterday with the lockups/crashes/saves.

Brian

[Marisu Fronc]

Hey Brian-

I empathize . . .hopefully you didn’t have any of the “I said i sved but I didn’t” ones – those are the WORST!

marisu

[Vince Becquiot]

I’ll agree with you that Premiere doesn’t always handle things in the most efficient manner, but the convenience of that amount of data is certainly not anything Adobe ever intended, and I again, I would challenge you to try any of the other top 3 software based NLE with 30000 files. They will all slow down to a crawl.

If there is one thing I can commend the Adobe team on for PP2, it’s its stability. I have used PP2 for the last 6 month an average of 5 hours a day (not much of a life in the winter time), and I can’t recall the last time I saw a crash.

Vince

[Blast1]

To add to Vincent post, the problems you are having is from trying to use a $600 NLE to manage assets beyond its scope, You need to contact a consultant and have them setup a Video Data Management and Information Retrieval system otherwise invest in a more upscale system that has larger data management capabilities.

[Richard Milner]

I’m happy (and somewhat jealous)that PP2 is working great for you.

I have a problem that I don’t know is being considered for a fix.

What I am hearing from you is that since Adobe, up to now, didn’t ever think anyone would have that much source material that I’m asking for something that isn’t worthwhile.

As more and more editing workflow centers around common shared storage, It’s obvious that this will become a very common problem.

If the answer is not PP in 2007 then so be it. I will have to find another solution which may be more expensive intially– but in the long run— results in more productivity.

You know that once a more workable solution presents itself, and I switch to another platform; the chances of Adobe winning back my current 5 seats of edit software and my future 20 seats of editing software is highly unlikely as the cost of entry will be too high.

Avid is making a very large bet that Database management will be the center of workgroup editing an beyond with Interplay.

The funny thing is that PP is very workable when the jobs aren’t so big, and with better asset management tools, I probably would be very content.

Respectfully,

Richard

[Jim Leonard]

“I currently have a project with 30,000 files under the main folder (some of these files are not referenced by the project). If we assume that each clip is five seconds in length the result is 41.67 hours of footage, which is completely reasonable.”

Unless you are trying to edit together a 40-hour movie, no, it is not reasonable. I still maintain you have a serious workflow problem, no matter what editing system you choose. You can’t possibly blame Premiere for this kind of thing. I second the previous poster’s suggestion to hire a media consultant to work with you on better management and workflows.

More personally, how in hell do you work with 30,000 5-second clips? How many months is it taking you to edit this job? How do you find what footage you’re looking for? Did someone log/describe all of those clips manually?

“If there are any suggestions out there, I’m all ears.”

Consolidation, obviously. If there is a sequence in the original imported footage the client can agree on 30 seconds in length or longer, export that sequence as a single file (using a lossless codec), re-import it, and then delete the source files that made up that segment. Do this for about 4 or 6 hours in a single day and you’ll save many more days’ time down the line.

[Vince Becquiot]

Of course, what works for me, may not work for you. I mostly work on moderate size projects, and may not be pushing PP to its limit, but again, I also trim down my project regularly, so that my load times are kept to a minimum. One thing I learned to avoid is closing or even editing with too many rendered files. Of course, I am not running the newest and best hardware out there either, so millage always varies.

The best thing to do at this point is to send these requests to Adobe for consideration.

Cheers,

Vince

[Richard Milner]

Vincent,

Thanks for your input.

Back to the subject line of my post, I find it interesting that none of the leaders of this forum have chimed in on this.