Owen Wexler
Forum Replies Created
-
Truth… once you use a good robust dynamic system of trimming you will not be able to edit without it… it is just so much faster, smoother, and more efficient than using trim tools.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
Would closing Premiere Pro while encoding have the same effect? Would be inconvenient and possibly a bit dangerous to keep having to turn autosave off and remembering to turn it back on everytime I do an encode.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
Have you checked out Bridge? Bridge is very good for what you are trying to do. Very powerful rating and metadata features.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
Yes, it’s still the same.
No, I believe it shouldn’t change. Even though it can be annoying at times.
Here’s my logic:
Firstly, having source and target track patch panels was an Avid thing originally. That alone is one reason to keep it, if we want more features and high-end television shows edited on Premiere Pro (which I personally do), we want Avid editors to be receptive to giving Premiere Pro a try, and keeping the workflow and muscle memory Avid editors are used to as intact as possible is key for that.
The other big reason for separate source and target patch panels also has a lot to do with a feature that is present in Avid, but not in Premiere at this time and hopefully will be added soon: the ability to cut content from a sequence into another sequence from the source monitor (instead of a nested sequence as Premiere does now). With separate source and target track patch panels, you can choose which tracks from the source sequence gets cut into the target sequence (so for example if you have some temporary graphics on V5 of the source sequence that you don’t want in the target sequence you can deselect the patch panel for V5). Not only that, but you can get total control over which tracks from the source sequence are cut into which tracks from the target sequence. Say the titles are on V5 in the source sequence, but you want them to be on V6 in the target sequence (surprisingly not an uncommon scenario) — no problem, just patch source V5 over to target V6 and hit your overwrite edit. Or you want to cut in some sound effects from another sequence (possibly from another house, or editor) that are on V7 and V8 in that sequence, but you need them to be on V11 and V12 because that’s what your facility requires. Same type of scenario. Having separate source and target patch panels gives more control and having that control is worth the occasional annoyance in my mind.
That’s why I believe track patching needs to stay the way it is in Premiere Pro.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
hitting whatever key you have set for the trim monitor (it’s the “U” key for me), selects the closest edit point as well, and then you can use your up and down arrow keys to jump between edit points with the trim monitor open.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
Did the Premiere Pro (CS5) to Color workflow with a project recently. XML out from Pr CS5 to FCP 7. No problems video-wise but the audio mix did not come over right (wrong levels, lost audio keyframes). Not too big a deal, I just exported the audio mix out of Premiere as a WAV and imported into FCP. All went well otherwise; I should mention that it was DSLR footage so I had to transcode it to ProRes first because Color does not like anything except ProRes, DV, and HDV. Now that I think of it, if you are having problems with the video not coming over right, try cutting down your sequence with the Project Manager, then transcoding all media in the new sequence to ProRes and see if it comes over right. FCP does not like a lot of tapeless HD formats and it basically wants everything to be ProRes (or DV/HDV).
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
If you’re editing a lot of DSLR footage, Adobe Premiere Pro would be your best choice as it can edit DSLR footage natively without transcoding (even FCPX transcodes in the background).
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
Deep DOF doesn’t necessarily mean lack of quality. Look at Citizen Kane and all the great deep focus movies of the 1950’s for example. Shallow DOF is aesthetically pleasing and is a very useful tool but it is not the be all end all for all situations (especially footage with fast-moving subjects). Getting a decent prime lens is important for the best quality. Canon 85mm EF glass is good on a budget and I’ve heard good things about the 85mm Rokinon as well. I still think a wide lens (24mm or so) is best for what you are doing. At 70-80mm there is always going to be some shallow focus even at F8 which makes shooting fast moving subjects tricky. Having a 24mm for the action shots and a 85mm for portrait shots and interviews is best for your situation. Steve is right about turning down the sharpness, that will make what you are shooting look more film-like.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
Shooting with a wide lens (or a fully zoomed out zoom lens) and keeping the aperture closed are the two best ways to get deep DOF with a DSLR. For what you are doing a wide lens is a good investment.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist
-
From my understanding, you do need a CUDA card for noise reduction in Resolve.
Cinematographer – Editor – Motion Graphics Artist – Colorist