[Brian Sarfatty]

Thanks. Then why is it that (at least of of 7.1) Adobe is changing the GPU setting of all existing projects to OpenCL?

And (as of 7.2) I just opened an old project, and it was set to Software Only?

Shouldn’t it just leave everything as CUDA, and make all new projects as CUDA?

[Brian Sarfatty]

SO should I manually switch all my projects to CUDA or leave as OpenCL?

[Brian Sarfatty]

And now I re-upgraded to deal with a different problem, that was fixed in 7.1.

[Brian Sarfatty]

So, I decided to roll back to Premiere CC 7.0, and suddenly my waveforms are there and I can render audio as usual. The issue seems to be specific to CC 7.1 which came out 10/31/13.

So if you use multicam, and like audio waveforms, DO NOT upgrade. Also, 7.1 has crashed a lot more frequently than 7.0.

To Roll back, I just restored the Adobe Premiere Pro CC application folder using Time Machine.

If you don’t have a Time Machine backup, here’s instructions to download the old version:
https://forums.adobe.com/message/5827476

I now have waveforms again, hallelujah!

[Brian Sarfatty]

SO, when I take two clips and right-click and select “Make Multi-Camera Sequence”, the resulting sequence gives me waveforms.

HOWEVER, I have gone through and manually synched many many clips into one timeline. In previous versions I could just nest said timeline into another, click multi-cam>Enable, and viola, I have multicam sequence. Now, while this still works, this workflow produces an empty waveform.

I have tried first creating a TRUE multicam sequence from clips using “Make Multi-Camera Sequence” and then replacing the content with my pre-syched sequence of several clips. Interestingly, when I do this, the waveforms disappear.

[Brian Sarfatty]

Thanks Job! That’s an interesting solution. I wish I had figured out about this a while ago. It still doesn’t solve the problem of letting me “cheat” the aspect ration a bit without layering effects or loosing the trim, so it kinda puts me back where I started.

Yes, I know Avid is doing the mathematically correct setting. It’s just two things:
Aesthetically, it helps fill the space a bit better if I “cheat” and leave the image slightly stretched.
I have some footage that appears it was recorded slightly off (the footage has been converted and converted, it’s a doc that is largerly found footage). So in those instances, the mathematically correct also looks visibly off.

Anyway, thanks for the tip, for other projects I could see that being helpful.

[Brian Sarfatty]

The downside is that this method means I can’t tilt/pan outside the area cropped on the first layer, as the bottom effect clips the source.

[Brian Sarfatty]

I did some experimentation. Apparently I CAN stack two Resizes (one to adjust and lock aspect ratio, one to do the fake cam move) and still see previews in trim mode.

Not so elegant, but something to way pros and cons with the 3d warp method.

I wish the Pan and Scan effect had some ability to tweak the aspect ratio it uses. It lets me tweak aspect ration and do moves in one effect. But for me, it’s squashing the footage too much – giving me slightly skinnyhead people that noticeably look a bit off when mixed with footage actually shot 16/9. I’m noticing 100/125 is about right (as opposed to 100/133 which is the mathematically perfect 4/3 to 16/9 correction).

[Brian Sarfatty]

I just tried installing the update. Hasn’t resolved the problem. Tried creating a new User Profile.

The project was created on a different machine running MC 6.0, and has also moved on and off a computer running 5.0.

So I’m guessing that may be part of the problem of why bins are opening where they would have on the other systems(s)… Though it won’t explain why the console is still opening with the top off-screen.

Any other suggestions?

I am guessing I need to trash whatever file stores where bins and where tool windows are positioned. I have been trying to find this and have trashed various things, and looked extensively online but found no answers….

[Brian Sarfatty]

OK, Thunderbolt is the way forward, but consider the following:

From what I understand, thunderbolt only makes a difference for SSD. For a 7200 RPM spinning disk, I don’t think it’s super necessary (yet), considering how expensive SSD thunderbolt storage is. Also, as a freelancer, I don’t typically buy drives, usually the production company I’m working for does.

I have a stack of existing 7400rpm SATA drives I was using with my eSata dock for my old computer. These are mainly archives, not worth porting over. And as cheap form of storage, when I need to supply it myself, I may continue to buy spinning disk SATA drives for archive and editing.

There is a thunderbolt / SATA dock in the work (rocketStor 5212), but not out yet. Obviously this would be the ideal solution, but not sure if it’s worth waiting for… This was announced last June as being out “later in the year” of 2012, and still not out. So maybe just around the corner, may be a long way out or not ready for primetime. But then I could drop in SSDs or spinning disks and save costs over the pre-enclosed drives.

In practical terms, I can spend $40-50 on a USB 3.0 dock and connect them that way, and for the last generation G-tech drives my clients still give me I just use the FW800 port.

OR, I get the Lacie eSata / THunderbolt device for $200, and then I can connect it to my existing eSata/SATA docks for my stack of OEM internal SATA drives. And then get the added bonus of connecting via eSata for the client drives. Though I suspect computer > Lacie device > eSata Dock is slower than Computer > USB 3 dock just because of the number of connections.

I guess I’m just having a hard time justifying an extra $150 for eSata on what seems to be an obsolete technology to get that bit of extra performance for the legacy client drives.