[Dan Pullit]

[Daniel Waldron] “I would keep searching for a solution. I just completed a project that had several images larger than the one you described, and other than needing to render them in the timeline to avoid laggy playback, everything works fine. I have zooms, blurs, and several color correction filters on them too.

Sorry for the mini-rant, but I’m tired of the cop-out answer that you should just go to After Effects to solve your Premiere Pro problems. I love AE, but going to AE for simple techniques like zooming on a photo or feathering a mask (thankfully fixed in CC!) is a cumbersome workaround of a flaw that shouldn’t be there to begin with. I think the latest version of Premiere is a huge step forward in solving a lot of these issues, as well as introducing some fantastic new features, but once in a while there are still odd bugs and it seems like the standard go-to response is “just do it in After Effects,” while basically blaming the editor for even thinking Premiere could handle it. It’s a solution that is good to have (better than nothing!), but should not be the default answer when other NLEs have found solutions years ago. Again, going to AE is better than not having any solution, but I think more of the blame needs to be placed on Adobe for taking so long to fix these issues than on the person using their software.”

Hi Daniel

I’m hardly a PP expert but thank you for not making me feel stupid by thinking that such things should be normal in an NLE! I finally figured it out thanks to Alex.

I agree, the AE trip should not occur for such trivial things. For me it presents problems – For example: I don’t know how to include audio clips (non related to video – narration) in this round trip to AE from the PP timeline. All I get in AE is just the video clip. And I had to cut this zoom to certain words….

augh… thank goodness I don’t have to do it.

[Dan Pullit]

[Alex Udell] “Here’s a question….

are you using mercury engine in hardware (gpu) or software (cpu) mode?

toggle that…and see if it makes a difference…

maybe the GPU doesn’t like mapping images that large (dimensions) ?

shot in the dark…

Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX”

Aaaaaarghhhh –
I need to buy you a beer Alex.

That was IT! It works perfectly now!

THANK YOU for preventing my visit to the looney bin 🙂

[Dan Pullit]

I understand now but still find it hard to make sense. It’s an 8mb image, 8 bit.

So is this the de facto way of working with big images in PP? Taking them to AE and then bringing them into PP? I’m asking because I have a lot of big images and in some cases I want some panning across or some zooming in.

I’d like to have the full resolution picture to work with if possible.

Your project sounds very interesting. Synching live music to video always fascinated me.

[Dan Pullit]

Yep, that’s what I did. I put them in AE. It works.

I could not find any limit (at least not one I’ve crossed) for .png.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4109447/file-format-limits-in-pixel-size-for-png-images

https://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/iso/index-object.html#11IHDR

Ah, so that’s why it worked in FCPX. I would bring in big images and put them on the timeline.

Is this standard procedure? Always resizing before bringing into PP?

Sorry for the silly questions but my main app is Houdini and I regularly bring in 16k maps for texturing. I use NLE’s like PP to stitch things together and I don’t know their limitations.

[Dan Pullit]

It’s a still.

Adobe considers zooming into an image an “effect”?

More than that, it’s not working properly even when it’s sitting still on the timeline. I guess Adobe considers that an “effect” as well 🙁

Call me crazy but I would expect something as simple as that to work in PP. It did in FCP.

I was hoping that I was doing something wrong. In my current project I have a lot of big images.

To have to resize them all, to even be able place them statically on the timeline seems a bit unreasonable for an NLE – unless it’s microsoft Movie Maker 🙂

[Dan Pullit]

Hello Kevin,

The dimensions are
height: 5300
width: 2387

Of course I could resize, but then the zoom in would be really poor quality as it needs to go from the whole to a detail.

I’ve also tried removing the alpha channel and this helps a bit but not much.

It’s very strange to have to go to AE for a simple zoom in. BTW – it absolutely flies in AE with no problems whatsoever. It’s just that it complicates the workflow.

Mind you, as stated earlier, PP turns to molasses when I just bring it into the timeline, never mind the zoom.

It baffles me because this would be a basic move for something like a documentary where you show a huge group picture and then you zoom to a specific person… Or many other such situations.

David – If there is a 4k limitation, that seems hugely myopic on the part of Adobe’s PP team.

[Dan Pullit]

I’ve seen shots that required roto because they went outside the cyc wall. Especially low ‘hero’ shots. You usually end up having to bite the bullet and roto it out because if you put the subject too close to the green wall you get bleed.

My main concern with low ceilings is light inconsistency. For example a scene where the subject has to move around a bit and you can’t cover the area from the top to make it look like a single distanced light source. Something like having to comp your subject onto an outside sunlit backplate.

[Dan Pullit]

Thank you Alex.

Yes, that’s what I ended up doing, but it seems counter intuitive for something so simple. I don’t remember having this problem in FCP.

[Dan Pullit]

Yes, sorry – meant .png.

I tried .psd, tga & tiff too. Same problem. I mean the photo is large, but I don’t see why that should matter so much. Especially since I haven’t even got to zooming in etc.. it’s just displaying it in a static position on the screen and everything has slowed to a crawl.

Once I clear it from the bin, I’m back to normal again.

Any thoughts – thanks.

[Dan Pullit]

Thank you Todd. I’d love to get a 14′ but unfortunately these kind of structures don’t exist in my area. I’d have to rent a space that’s too far and would cost too much. Like you, my most optimistic option (for price and somewhat close location) would probably be 11′. Good to see however that 11′ can be made to work. 🙂