[Tom Galli]

Exactly the situation I find myself in!

[Tom Galli]

To wrap this up:

Extensive searching and posts on various help sources have convinced me there’s no particularly easy way to do this. What I ended up doing was:

• Draw a pattern of diagonal bars in Illustrator.
• Wash said image thru Photoshop to make the background transparent
• Use keyframes to animate the image crossing the screen left-to-right in Premiere on v2
• Duplicate and offset that animation to v3 so I can have continuous bars with no gap when the edge of the image crosses the screen.
• Sandwich those layers between cloned footage on v1 and v4
• Apply a Luma key to v4
• Play extensively with settings until the effect only keys out highlights

It works, although I don’t have the accuracy of control I hoped for. But it’s close enough for this particular project.

[Tom Galli]

As others have said, using keyframes would be a simpler way to accomplish this. That being said…

Go to the last frame of your zoom. Open the Inspector, and take note of the values for

• Zoom
• Position X
• Position Y

Then. move one frame to the right, to the first frame of the static shot, and set those all to the same values.

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Tom Galli]

Autosave / Backups do not work like you expect.

In the Project Manager, right-click on the project. From the popup menu, look for “Project Backups…” near the bottom. This will give you a list of backup files. Click one (or several) and hit “Load”. This will put the backup project into the Project Manager, and you can then open it.

That being said, it seems to be that there are never as many backup files as I’d expect, given the settings in my Preferences.

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Tom Galli]

PS.
You probably already realized this, but the same quirk applies to the opacity level on video tracks.

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Tom Galli]

Score one for obscure preferences with silly names!
THANK YOU!

Why in the world would the system default to “don’t use the available resources designed for this task?”

Again, THANKS! You’ve takes some of the frustration out of the tedium of logging!

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Tom Galli]

I’ve been a Mac user for decades. It’s really not a personal choice, but what work supports. :shrug:
Anyway, I can’t believe its hardware when the system worked as expected before I “updated” to the current Adobe. I see a few obvious possibilities:

• There’s a preference, or preferences, what got changed when I swapped over
• Adobe 2020 is more of a resource hog than Adobe 2019 was
• Something is wiggy in the codec used by the Sony A7. Maybe it’s a licensing tiff… Apple is notorious for those

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Tom Galli]

One of the fun quirks of Premiere is that, if the audio channels are too small vertically, the line for levels does not appear.
Notice in the screenshot here that A1 has a line for applying keyframes, but A2 does not. The only difference is the height of the track.

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Tom Galli]

Thanks Andy!
I had actually already found that page. It’s quite a disappointment, don’t you agree? It says things like:

Sony engineers have developed LUTs designed to facilitate specific functions for filmmakers. These are all available free of charge.

and

There are a wide variety of LUTs available from independent filmmakers.

And how many LUTs are actually available for download?
Three.

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.

[Tom Galli]

Hey, an actual reason!

You’re right… I was fixated on where and how the cancellation is applied, but not on the content. That makes perfect sense! If the noise was a 440 Hz sine wave, and the cancellation was an out-of-phase 440 Hz sine wave, then any other 440 Hz sine wave entering the acoustic space inside the earcup would clearly be affected.

The signal shouldn’t be affected as much, I wouldn’t think:
–The increased latency of the path through the recorder, not to mention differing distances between your ears-to-noise and the mic-to-noise, would mean that the phases weren’t 180 degrees off.
–And any coloring that the mic imparted to the noise.
–And one would expect the amplitude of the cancellation signal should be calibrated to just enough to equalize the ambient noise, lest it become a source of noise itself.

But, as much or not, clearly it would have an impact. Heck, if distance plus latency were juuuuust right, the phases could align, and the noise cancellation system could actually increase the perceived volume of the offending sound, making you think a problem existed where there actually was none!

Thanks for that thought! I was planning some tests to see how things performed; thinking along this track has given me some ideas about how better to do that.

The difference between theory and reality is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and reality.