[Alex Udell]

I see that what the end result can be accomplished.

The other way was nice in that could optionally work based on source frame rather than % of frame rate.
This made it easier to work with in many instances.

Also, you didn’t have to ripple the length of the clip unnecessarily to create an effect. I kind of liked that option. Finally you could set to simple frame mixing to see the result in near real time, but switch it to frame blending or “optical flow” one you got the timing the way you wanted it. Made it really nice to make changes quickly.

I know, I know…I’ll post it as a feature request.

🙂

Alex

[Alex Udell]

Hi….

best way to do this is via “sub clipping”

https://tinyurl.com/23u6e8g

and

https://podcasts.creativecow.net/adobe-premiere-tutorials-podcast/subclips-what-why-how

Alex

[Alex Udell]

Hi…

are you on a SAN with iscsi or are you just connected to storage via standard ethernet to a shared volume?

[Alex Udell]

I am a huge fan of Matrox.
I was also a user of RT.X2 and Axio at several facilities.

However I think you’ll find that with the Mercury playback engine and Adobe shifting to that architecture that Matrox is moving on from those platforms to their external hardware.

So unless you’re getting it cheap, I’m not sure it’s a wise investment at this point. You might look at their external hardware options to be more future proof.

good luck!

Alex

[Alex Udell]

Yeah…

I don’t think it’s as complex as I likely overthought it.

If you create a template in the titler.

Then you base your titles on that template.

If you resave a new template version over the old template with the same file name…

then everything based on that template should change based on their dependency on the template.

Alex

[Alex Udell]

Thinking about it further…

What are the steps to create an underlying PPro Template?

If you modify and resave the underlying Title template…

wouldn’t the style of the dependent children titles change?

Alex

[Alex Udell]

Andrew….

I think that’s close to what is wanted.
But what he wants is not quite available here in software.

He wants a dynamic style template.

Where you can change the source “style” (font choice, color selects, etc) and the style change will affect everything dependent on that style…

BUT

not the content i.e. the specific text within an individual the title….

the closest I think you could get to this in PPro…

would be actually design your titles based on two (or more if necessary title objects)

In the case of a lower third….

Create the background lower 3rd elements as one title

then create the set type as a different object.
then layer them together on on the Ppro timeline.

That still wouldn’t let you globally change fonts in your titles

but you could dynamically update design objects they are sitting on.

As an aside, this can be achieved in the FCP/Motion workflow pretty easily.

[Alex Udell]

Right, but you don’t have to take the entire Sequence with replace with comp. Could be be just a section of a sequence, like for a VFX fix.

It also addresses workflows where there is some specialization in the group….for example allowing producers and editors to determine what needs to be “fixed” and at least timing the sources elements that need to be used in the fix in the editing environment and then sending that comp off to the AE gods. Sometimes this is crucial when it comes down to matching to final audio sweetening when you

I agree with your point about having to be a “picture lock” in the edit and it being a bit inflexible. I’m not sure Adobe really thought through working in “parallel” which is a necessity these days with compressed schedules and budgets.

In order to really pull this off, you need to save master versions of your sequence and then maybe develop a workflow for using sequence copies or nested sections to identify what needs to be effected.
So it requires organization and planning, particularly in long from projects.

I just had to cut a video in a similar fashion in FCP and Motion. What I did what get the edit as close to picture lock as I could, then pushed to Motion. Organized and set up the fx in motion pipe as best I could. As edit changes came in, I made them on upper layers of the video edit, and then sent only those changes tracks to motion and stacked them accordingly in the motion comp.

The biggest thing I reinforced with the producers was that I wanted to avoid the run time of the piece changing. That’s where I saw the biggest headache occurring and was happily able to avoid that.

Alex

[Alex Udell]

hmmm…

The tools of the NLE allow you to play long swaths of footage and time elements against one another without ram preview limitations or necessity.

The fact that you can do this in PPro and even approximate fx then send it off to AE for finish FX seems like a natural to me.

Maybe what your overlooking is that you can a group of clips not just an individual clip and “replace with AE comp” in Ppro. this creates the comp for you and you can just get started building in AE right away. And whatever you design is already dynamically linked to the PPro timeline no import necessary. (though it must still be rendered in Ppro.

alex

[Alex Udell]

Have you tried nesting your sequence in another timeline and applying an additional layer of CC to see what that looks like compressed?

Perhaps you need to overcompensate for the compression to dial in your final look?

Just a thought…

Alex