I am surprised there is still no un-nest feature.  In fact, nesting is an area in which Premiere Pro is woefully behind.

Should anybody from Adobe read this, the following features are NECESSARY for editors.

• The ability to edit from a source sequence into a program sequence WITHOUT nesting.

That is, I can mark and in and an out in a sequence, and then insert or overwrite edit into my program sequence, and have the source clips, rather than the source sequence be edited into the sequence.  For years editors have been assembling sequences of cut-downs, ins, selects, or what have you, and then editing from those SEQUENCES.  It allows an editor to scroll through ALL of their ins and edit directly, rather than having to continuously load subclips, or cut from an untrimmed master clip.  In this work methodology, nesting makes no sense, and is a pain.  Avid Media Composer has never featured nesting, and recently Final Cut Pro added the commands "insert sequence content" and "overwrite sequence content" as alternatives to "insert" and "overwrite" which edit the sequence content into your program, rather than the sequence itself.  This NEEDS to be added to Premiere to bring it up to Media Composer 1998 functionality, or FCP 7 functionality.

• The ability to take a nested sequence, and "un-nest it"

In the event that sombody has edited a nested sequence, one must be able to click on that sequence chunk in the program sequence timeline, and select a "de-nest" or "un-nest" option, that replaces the sequence chunk with the actual clips contained in that sequence chunk.  This is useful not just as a fix for the missing "insert sequence content" feature, but also provides functionality in the event that one wants to make an instance unique.  Let's say that a sequence is used in four different other sequences.  In three of those, it's good as is, but in the fourth, subtle changes have to be made.  Rather than cutting and pasting, one should be able to simply "revert to clips" or "de-nest" and have that sequence exploded into clips right onto the timeline, where the editor will then be free to edit as she or he sees fit.  Copy and paste is not an elegant editing methodology, and lacks the power of in/out, insert/overwrite, slip/slide, trimming (also, why is there a separate trim mode monitor, BTW?  Why does that not just appear in the Program monitor when trim mode is engaged?).    

• The ability to export OMFs of sequences which contain nested material.

Obviously this is a huge one.  Should a person nest sequences ON purpose, then one must assume they, like any other editor, will eventually want to be able to export OMFs for their sound mix.  Someday, perhaps, Soundbooth and Audition will be used exclusively for audio post, but in today's market, that's not the case.  That makes OMF export a requirement.  This is one of the main missing features that made FCPX into a joke to professional editors.  This is one of the main reasons today that people are considering Adobe Premiere Pro -- because Apple FCPX has foresaken editors and the features they need.  Adobe MUST provide editors with the features they need.  If PP can export OMFs, why can't it export OMFs properly with nested sequences?  That's the kind of limited functionality that makes a product appear buggy.

Ultimately, nested sequences DO provide some useful features.  If you're outputting a tape with 10 different spots on it, then each spot can be cut in its own sequence, then nested into a master output sequence.  And one sequence can exist per client (with different slate IDs per sequence).  That's very useful.  But during day-to-day cutting, nesting as implimented in PP is a hinderence, rather than a boon.  Thanks.

Please address this stuff.  I would love to embrace PP as the new hot NLE.  Dynamic Link with AE is a FANTASTIC feature.  But the straight editing is still clunky. 

I agree with the O.P and an Un Nest function would be awesome. (Its so practical and  logical)

(I wont be wasting time with a feature request though.  That seems to be a numbers game and it is unlikely to get the numbers.)

Oh yeah, it appears that OMF export of nested sequences is a well-known bug.  Or at least I've seen a bunch of posts relating to it, and I've had the problem myself.

I don't want to nest.  I almost never want to nest.  Nesting is only really useful during versioning or finishing, which ought to be the last step, and a fraction of the process.  Editors -- in my experience -- spend about 95 percent of their time making cuts from raw footage selects. 

Copy and paste does not take into account in-points or out-points.  Also, it's a mouse-driven interface (select clips via mouse) and thus slower.  And finally, in order to see the clips, to select them, they need to be in a timeline, so I'd have to switch the timeline from my program timeline to my source timeline, highlight clips, CRTL-C, switch back to my Program Timeline, CRTL-V.  That's way less efficient than just being able to mark in, mark out, insert/overwrite.  That's three keystrokes (four if you include playing to the out-point after setting an in-point).  Then, I jump to the next cut, or fastfoward to the next section, mark in, mark out, and make another edit.  This is waaaaaay faster than mousing around, selecting a new subclip to load or switching the timeline to display the source, highlighting clips, copying, pasting, then trimming them in the Program monitor.   

That's true, I neglected PiPs and FX.  I usually do most of my FX in AE, and now, with dynamic link, I'm even more inclined to do so.  But certainly I can understand the wisdom of using nests for FX builds, and actually I hadn't even thought of the PiP use of nests (mainly because I hardly ever use PiPs these days), but that's fairly powerful.

I guess what I'm saying is, nested sequences ARE useful (heck, I use precomps all the time in AE... same thing), but as a default setting for cutting from one sequence into another, it misses a very established workflow -- cutting from an Ins sequence or a Selects sequence or a Cutdown sequence.  The problem here could be solved by simply including an "insert sequence content" and "overwrite sequence content" command, as in FCP, and that would allow you to either cut in the sequence, or cut in the stuff from within the sequence.  And the addition of an "un-nest" command would be brilliant. 

I know that people that learned in Premiere or FCP probably don't use that workflow (since it hasn't been available to them, until more recently with FCP), but for editors who cut their teeth with Media Composer, or flatbeds, or tape-to-tape, this is sort of a default methodology.  Why constantly load individual clips into the source monitor when you can load everything you're gonna need at that moment.  I mean, let's say I have 30 different b-roll clips of fire.  I could load each one into the source, by double clicking.  See if I like it, then cut in the one I like.  Or, I could just load one fire b-roll sequence, and cut the exact bit I wanted from that.  And if I wanted to take LESS of it than was in the original clip, I would need to use in/out editing, not copy and pasting. 

The name of the game isn't "can it be done" it's "can it be done elegantly, efficiently, and intuitively?"  So, the fact that there is a work around that takes like 80 more steps isn't good enough.  This is about being able to get the job done in as little time as possible, with clients breathing down your neck, directors eager to see the latest cut, and delivery deadlines looming.  The other two big NLEs can do this.  PP can't.  PP has the chance right now, honestly, to become the industry leader... IF they pay attention to the workflow of editors using MC and FCP.  FCP editors are loyal, and will stick with FCP7 until they can't stand the 32-bit speeds.  MC editors are using the best EDITING tool already, but the integration with AE isn't there, and the cost is still prohibitive to smaller boutiques/individuals.  If PP can convince these two groups that they can do everything they did with their native editor AND integrate with the rest of the Adobe Creative Suite at a very attractive price, then I think we'll see PP chip away at the FCP user base which chipped away at the MC user base (and also created a new user base).  Now is the time, before FCPX gets more revisions that allow it to be taken seriously.  Although, I highliy suspect that FCP's days of being a pro tool are now behind it.

I know of at least two NLEs that work this way.  Their names are Avid Media Composer and Final Cut Pro. 

You have been able to load sequences into source monitors since I started using Media Composer in 1999.  I have to assume it was possible prior to this, because I learned as an assistant editor at a company that had already established the workflow of: digitize tape to single clip.  Load clip into sequence.  Make cuts on that sequence.  If necessary, consolidate that sequence to get rid of unnecessary media (back when HDs were small).  Use that cut-down sequence as source when editing a program.

Later on, when acquisition became clip-based instead of tape based, the same methodology stood: load all of the camera raw clips into a sequence, trim out the fat and bad takes.  Edit using that cut-down sequence as a source. 

Heck, when cutting 16mm we would cut out our selects, hang 'em in a bin, then, frequently, splice 'em all together so we could watch our selects sequence, rather than spooling up each individual clip. 

It's not a new paradigm.

A source monitor only being able "to see one clip at a time" is precisely the reason we want to be able to load sequences into the source monitor, and cut from there.  Without it always creating nested sequences.  If I could do it 12 years ago in Media Composer running on OS9 and PowerPC, I should be able to do it now using Premiere Pro on a 64-bit OS with four times the RAM, and a processor a zillion times faster. 

I'm seeing your point(s) on these issues.  Particularly, I do like the subsequence functionality in Media Composer where you can mark In & Out on the sequence timeline and click & drag from the subsequence icon above the program monitor to a bin.  This helps in the situation where you want to make more than one version of your timeline, where for promotional purposes often times this would be necessary.  It would make editing a bit easier, although I don't see it as a huge handicap of Premiere Pro. 

I guess there's still some confusion over this workflow.  It is more efficient to watch a series of clips, then to watch one clip at a time.  I don't want to watch clips INDIVIDUALLY, I want to watch a SERIES of them, back to back to back to back.  I want to scroll through 10 clips without ever touching the mouse.  The way to do that is to put those 10 clips into a sequence, and cut from that sequence.  I swear to you guys this is normal, particularly for anybody that comes from the world of Media Composer.  Once you've edited this way, the idea of loading an individual clip one at a time seems wasteful and ludicrous.  Every time I'm worrying about what's in the browser, I'm not editing.  Every time my hand leaves the keyboard to go to the mouse to double-click a clip to load it, I'm not editing.  These are time sinks. 

Let's say I've got three takes of the same shot, and they're all roughly similar.  If I'm editing from clips, or subclips, then this is the workflow:

I load scene 12b take 1 into the source.  I watch it.  It's okay.  Next, I take my right hand away from JKL to reach for the mouse/trackball/track pad, mouse over to the browser, double-click on take 2, load it into the source monitor.  Hand moves back to JKL.  I watch the clip.  Okay, it's a'ight.  So now I have to watch take 3.  Again, hand leaves keyboard, clip is double-clicked, hand comes back to JKL.  Now I've watched all three.  Hmm.  Let's take a look at that first one again.  You know where I'm going.  This time I use the mouse to go to the clip select in the source monitor pulldown.  Okay, then I watch the clip again.  Hmm.  Maybe this one.  Let's look at the third one again, because something was weird with the way talent said the word "species."  Okay, up to the source monitor.  Okay, definitely take 1.  Hands off the keyboard again, back to the source monitor.  Okay.  Now I'm ready to mark my ins and outs. 

That's one way to go.  Let's take a look at using sequences. 

I load the scene 12b sequence into the source monitor.  I hit L and start playing.  I've now watched all three takes.  I want to return to the first take, so I hit the "previous edit" key twice.  Now I'm back to take 1.  L button and I'm watching, okay, I've seen all I need, let's hit "next edit" twice and jump to take 3.  Hit L twice to fast forward to the word "species."  Sounds kinda wack.  Let's hit that previous edit key again (I've got it mapped to "A" so my hand never leaves the homekeys) and go back to take 1.  Mark in, mark out, and now it's time to insert this shot into the sequence.

In MC and FCP (using the insert sequence content command instead of the plain insert command), this cuts the clip into the sequence.  In PP, this cuts a nested sequence into my sequence.  For starters, now I am unable to export this sequence as an OMF to get to ProTools.  That's a deal-breaker in a professional environment.  Then, I've got this nested sequence that has no real reason to be nested.  For starters, a quick glance at the timeline reveals not which take I actually used or the name of the master clip, but rather the name of the entire sequence.  Matching back goes back to the sequence, as opposed to the master clip. 

If you already know exactly which take you're going to use, without looking at other takes, then a subclip straight from the bin is a fine edit strategy.  But I've found that circled takes don't always cut well with each other for continuity reasons or technical reasons.  Therefore, being able to watch a series of clips, quickly, without incessant mousing around (which indisputably is slower than tapping a key once or twice) from timelines to monitors to browsers and back is of great importance.  It's a usability issue.  When doing realities or doc stuff, the same is true.  I'd way rather scrub through a whole sequence of shots of "heat energy" than have to load each clip which demonstrates heat energy individually.  That's a real life example from a series of fairly hoaky educational videos I worked on.  We had 100s of tapes worth of footage, and if we had to load individual clips, that would mean scrolling through thousands of clips.  I'd spend more time looking for the actual clip I wanted than watching shots.  As Walter Murch suggests, scanning through footage is also a more helpful process than scanning through folders or bins of clip names.  If I'm scrubbing through a sequence called "HEAT" looking for just the right shot, I'm being exposed to all of my footage, even at high speeds.  I might find something I hadn't thought of using, or see a shot that I might want to use later.  If I'm scanning through a bin looking for a subclip named "boiling water" then I might not see some of that other stuff.  That lessens the chances of happy accidents, and I'm less familiar with the actual visual content of the footage than if I had scrubbed through a sequence.    

This isn't some crack-pot editing method I dreamed up in a vacuum.  It's a pretty common method that has been around as long as NLEs (as far as I know, or at least since I began using professional NLEs in 1999).  Avid editors aren't just salty old-timers who think all this new-fangled stuff is crap.  As any of us, we've all gotten used to FCP, but we're still annoyed by some of the inelegant, time-wasting design flaws.  And as we explore Premiere Pro, the same is true.  Something that requires five keystrokes and click wastes more time than something that requires two keystrokes.  That stuff adds up at the end of the day. 

As for FCPX, the magnetic timeline scares the heck out of me.  Collapsible tracks sound interesting, like a way of opening up a nested sequence, but FCPX most certainly doesn't offer the functionality I'm looking for (about that OMF export... oh yeah, and it doesn't even HAVE a source window, nor can I easily keep things on the tracks I want them on -- nightmare for keeping all of one's music on these two channels, and all of one's VO on that channel... like every broadcaster or client wants their masters tracked out).  Oh, and since I'm talking about tracks... this whole stereo track/mono track thing is a little clunky.  To most editors, we think that a stereo track is just two tracks.  Channel 1 and Channel 2, and those can be panned left and right.  If I have four tracks, I should be able to put L and R in any one of those tracks, and mono clips into any one of those tracks, because there's no difference between a mono clip and a stereo clip's channel 1, except panning.  To have tracks that can only accept one or the other is just plain clunky.  So -- additional feature request.  Let me cut a stereo clip into two mono tracks.  Without having to break-out to mono and perform 3 edits, instead of one. 

I know I've been really verbose.  But, honestly, Premiere Pro is really close to actually being Pro, and I'd love to use an affordable, and feature-full 64-bit NLE that integrates with the other software I use.  On a PC?  Great!  That saves me a grand on hardware.  Premiere Pro can be this software, IF Adobe listens to long-time professional editors and incorporate standard usability.  Not listening to editors is what made FCPX such a lemon. 

I see what you're saying more clear, and I can see how it would be handy. Copying and pasting from sequence to sequence may not be as elegant, but may achieve the same goal in some circumstances.

I've never really worked in that fashion so I don't feel at a loss, but I suppose more alternatives are better. I wouldn't mind that functionality added as long as it doesn't F'up what works now.

I'm not a developer, but I suppose there may be IP issues with copying exactly what other NLEs do. Maybe that's why Editing Software all evolved with such vastly different interfaces.... wait, never mind.

Add a feature request. I want a better feathering tool for alpha channels. Others are clamoring for a better monitoring solution. They'll have to add something to make people upgrade to CS6 or CS7.

Best of luck.

That actually DOES help.  It's still a little clunky -- I can't have the same key be "next clip" that is "next edit" in my Program/Timeline, probably.  So it wastes a key, but it does keep me away from the mouse, so that's definitely a step in the right direction.

Having to make a bin full of subclips is a little less elegant than using a cutdown sequence, but if the footage is aquired as clips to begin with, at least some of the breaking out has already happened.  And, if I have a good assistant editor, they'll handle that.  Of course... I haven't had an assistant editor in like five years.  Oh, budgets.  But, yeah, thanks.  This does make Premiere a little more flexible. 

Now... where do I add a feature request?

In a different scenario, "un-nesting" would help me out. I'm editing interviews, and I have grown attached to using the multi-cam feature. When it's time to grade, I can't import nested sequences into DaVinci. I'm pretty new to this, so if I'm missing something obvious, please tell me. In the meantime, I'd love to have the ability to "un-nest" the multicam sequences and have a basic sequence. Once I make the first pass, I rarely go back into the multicam window. Everything I do from that point is slipping & sliding on the timeline.

If anyone has a recommended workflow for multicam that includes DaVinci, I'd appreciate hearing it.