Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Any way to get frame accurate in icon view mode?

Jan 25, 2013 4:53 PM

Does anyone know if there is a way set frame accurate in points in icon view mode?  I know that if you are "hover scrubbing" a clip, and then click on it you can use the JKL keys to shuttle through the footage.  But is there any way to go frame-by-frame through the footage as well?

 

I ask because I have a 4-camera shoot where the clips were synced by a slate clap.  I'd like to make a multicam clip from the shots so am going through and setting the "clap" as the in point of each clip, and then using them as sync points for the multicam clip.  I hover scrub to the general area of the slate clap (works great) then use the JKL key to narrow in "clap" even more (also works great).  However, it is nearly impossible to stop exactly on the frame where the slate hits using the JKL keys.  So I would like to get in the general vicinity using JKL, and then use some other keys or method to get to the exact frame of the "clap".  One would assume that the arrow keys would do this, but they don't. 

 

Does anyone know if there is a way to accomplish this?  Thanks in advance for any help.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 6:52 AM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    Hold down the Shift key while pressing J or L.  You get super slow motion frame advance and can easily stop on the proper frame.

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 8:02 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    Hover scrub in the Project Panel was never meant to be anything more than a way to see approximately what was in each clip as far as I can tell. Please explain this workflow a little more in detail. How do you mark the spot even if you hit it exactly?

     

    It seems a lot easier to doubleclick on the clip and find the exact spot in the Source Monitor instead. That is what it is designed to do. Then put a marker on it. That marker will show up in the timeline when you put the clip on the sequence.

     

    When you put up to four clips in the timeline on tracks one through four, you can select them all and from the right click menu select Synchronize. It will put all of the markers at the same point in time.

     

    Right click on the sequence in the project panel and make a new sequence from the clip. Right click on the clip in the new sequence and select Multi-Camera and enable it.

     

    It is slightly different on a Mac, but instead of right click they have something else to get a context sensitive menu.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 8:53 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Steven,

     

    You can mark in/out points using keyboard shortcuts during hover scrub and icon preview.

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 8:56 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    I think Steven's point is valid, though.  While you can do some things in Hover Scrub, it's not necessarily meant to be a full-on substitute for the Source Monitor in all situations.  If you can't get what you want out of Hover Scrub, do it the normal way - in the Source Monitor, where you have all the control you need.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:05 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    More control in the Source Monitor for sure.  But using hover scrub with adequately sized icons and the panel maximized, you can quickly go from one clip to the next, setting in/out points while literally flying through all of your clips.  It's much faster than having to return to the Project panel or Media Browser to double-click the next clip to be loaded into the SM.  It's even faster than pre-loading all of your clips and using the Sourc Monitor tab's drop-down list.

     

    Some days I use icon view, some days I use the Source Monitor.  It's good to have different workflows available.

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:05 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    Oh. Thanks Jeff. That never ocurred to me, I guess. I never tried to use hover scrub for anything other than making sure I was looking at the correct clip.

     

    In my defense, I haven't had breakfast yet. My wife is making a cake to take with her to some crafts sale on the other side of the bay.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:07 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    You'll find little gems like that more and more as you use the software -- breakfast not required!

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:09 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    It's good to have different workflows available.

     

    I think that's the real take away from Steven's post.  If one way doesn't work, do it the other way.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:14 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    Remember, I have been away a while. Also, I seldom edit in a hurry. I plod through, watching each clip, remembering the occasion, taking the entire project into account and after a few views deciding on a clip to use.

     

    But then again, I am a very linear thinker. The software may be non-linear, but I am not. I almost always use clips in the order that they are shot and I very seldom require more than a couple of takes to get what I want. It isn't like I shoot actual movies. Training videos and vacation videos are my thing.

     

    I will tell you something I learned today. I put a clip marker on a clip in one project, and when I went to use the same clip in a new project, the marker was still there. I was surprised by that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:15 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    I think that's the real take away from Steven's post.  If one way doesn't work, do it the other way.

    But the point of *my* answer is that the OP's preferred method can work with a little modifier key action.  There is no need for him to switch to a so-called "better" workflow because the one he wants to use is certainly doable.

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:17 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    A fair point.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:17 AM   in reply to Jeff Bellune

    Yes, but slowing down the video is not the same as stepping through the video one frame at a time. I just assumed that it would be better to attempt to change his workflow instead of trying to accomodate the request by getting him close - but no cigar. You know?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 9:19 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Another fair point.

     

    Jeff

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2013 7:20 PM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    I understand your point, and it never ocurred to me that I part of my normal workflow when doing things like that to more than a few clips is to select all of the clips and put them all in the Source Monitor with a single command. (Select them all, right click, and select "Open in Source Monitor".) So I don't go back and forth between windows. I guess I have been doing it so long I missed that step in the explanation. Sorry about that. Also, please understand that I skipped CS4 and CS5 so when I started using CS6 I have never really been comfortable with the hover scrub for anything serious. Not yet anyway.

     

    I figure that all of the clips will end up in the Source Monitor anyway before they hit the timeline, so why not put them up there and as I finish with each one I close that window and start on the next one.

     

    Those of us who go back to when Premiere became Premiere Pro have been waiting for some of these features a very long time. Slap-your-head it might be to you or me, but Adobe only has so much money to pay engineers and there is always something more important to work on. Like becoming codec agnostic or handling huge frame sizes. Adobe has borrowed many features from FCP, but it is still a work in progress. We just submit feature requests and attempt to convince others to do the same. You can't imagine how much time we spent a decade ago getting people to create the proper sequence. Now you just drag a clip to the New Item button and your sequence is perfect. That is magic to someone like me, who taught people how to use Premiere Pro 1.5 by copying FCP tutorials and recreating them in Premiere Pro (for Lynda.com) using the same footage.

     

    Jim Simon is often quite vocal about things he would rather see done that some of the requests. I agree with him most of the time, but every now and then a little thing I think should be done is not on his list and he will let me know in no uncertain terms why he thinks what he thinks. He can be pretty persuasive and it is difficult to argue with his logic. The Adobe folks read these forums, yes, but they read the feature requests and look to see how many customers want certain things done. Not a bad way to prioritize. Now that more FCP people will be submitting requests, there is a good chance that you will see more features that you want.

     

    So, while it may be obvious to you, it isn't obvious to Adobe until the masses speak. I suggest that you might want to consider being a rabble rouser, getting like minded people to put in the same requests. That is probably the best way to get what you want.

     

    As for going in reverse.... I think that if you have never had some of these things, they are not important to you. They are not all like adding reverse. Some are but some of these are like the tailfin on the 1959 Caddilac. The higher the better back then. But are they necessary?

     

    Capture.JPG

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 11:27 AM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    AlaskanNomadProductions wrote:

     

    That's how many of us FCP defectors feel about PP.  Often.  There are things in there that are potentially soooo awesome… except that the slap-your-head-it's-so-obvious feature that would bring it all together is simply missing.  (Sorting in Icon View, anyone?  A way to search for offline media?  Simple audio tracks instead of 3 different kinds where none of them really work?  Changing a clip name in the browser changes it in your timeline?) I have never used FCPX, but I've heard they have something similar to hover scrub.  And I can all but guarantee that there is a way to frame advance in that puppy.  That's how FCP worked, the stuff that you assumed would be there almost always was.

     

    But FCP didn't work exactly like Media Composer. And Media Composer didn't work like Media 100. And Media 100 didn't work like Pinnacle, etc. We hear former FCP users loud and clear, but you cannot ever expect all NLEs to work exactly like each other. That said, over the past few versions we have listened to FCP "switchers" and have implemented and changed dozens of features to be more friendly to FCP editors. Unfortunately, you can't have everything instantly. Software development takes painstaking implementation, testing, and then more testing. As an editor, it is hard to have an understanding of how difficult it is to write and maintain code for NLEs. I was surprised once I entered the world of software.

     

    Sorry you've been dissatisfied from time to time. To change the way Premiere Pro works, you must file a feature request, hope others have filed the same request, and then exercise patience.

     

    Feature request form: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 11:25 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Steven L. Gotz wrote:

     

    I understand your point, and it never ocurred to me that I part of my normal workflow when doing things like that to more than a few clips is to select all of the clips and put them all in the Source Monitor with a single command. (Select them all, right click, and select "Open in Source Monitor".)

    Right, this is a pretty cool feature. Load all of the clips from the bin into the Source Monitor at once. Then, you can use a keyboard shortcut to move to the next clip.

     

    source next.png

    Steven L. Gotz wrote:

     

    Adobe only has so much money to pay engineers and there is always something more important to work on. Like becoming codec agnostic or handling huge frame sizes. Adobe has borrowed many features from FCP, but it is still a work in progress. We just submit feature requests and attempt to convince others to do the same. You can't imagine how much time we spent a decade ago getting people to create the proper sequence. Now you just drag a clip to the New Item button and your sequence is perfect. That is magic to someone like me, who taught people how to use Premiere Pro 1.5 by copying FCP tutorials and recreating them in Premiere Pro (for Lynda.com) using the same footage.

    Well said. Adobe does not have unlimited resources. We concentrate on prioritizing needs for our customers.

    Steven L. Gotz wrote:

     

    The Adobe folks read these forums, yes, but they read the feature requests and look to see how many customers want certain things done. Not a bad way to prioritize. Now that more FCP people will be submitting requests, there is a good chance that you will see more features that you want.

    Right. To clarify, it is mainly me and support reps perusing the forums. If you want to make a change to Premiere Pro, a feature request will reach the engineers, while making noise on the forums probably will not (unless I point them to a discussion). So, that is why it is so important to file a feature request: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish

    Steven L. Gotz wrote:

     

    So, while it may be obvious to you, it isn't obvious to Adobe until the masses speak. I suggest that you might want to consider being a rabble rouser, getting like minded people to put in the same requests. That is probably the best way to get what you want.

    Rabble rouser? Again, keep in mind, the bottom line is creating a feature request. If you attempt to get others to make the same FR, that's totally fine. You can be persuasive without causing trouble, though.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 11:28 AM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    AlaskanNomadProductions wrote:

     

    Does anyone know if there is a way set frame accurate in points in icon view mode?  I know that if you are "hover scrubbing" a clip, and then click on it you can use the JKL keys to shuttle through the footage.  But is there any way to go frame-by-frame through the footage as well?

     

    Does anyone know if there is a way to accomplish this?  Thanks in advance for any help.

    Hold down K and tap J or L to advance frame by frame in icon view.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 11:56 AM   in reply to Kevin Monahan

    Kevin,

     

    Thank you for your input. It's greatly appreciated.

     

    One thing, that seems to happen in such discussions, is that folk, who have switched to Premiere Pro tend to forget that Premiere Pro also has a large user-base. Some have been using Premiere from well before the "Pro" days, and have matured, along with the program. Most have developed very efficient workflows, based on how Premiere works. There are many such editors.

     

    Those, coming from other NLE's, may well have some great ideas and improvements to make Premiere Pro a better NLE all around. However the goal is often, "we want PrPro to be just like our old NLE, so fix it." Let's take FCP as an example, though one could fill in any program's name. Many want PrPro to be what they hoped for with FCP 8 - that never came. Every feature on the FCP 8 "wishlist," and every feature from FCP 7, cannot be instantly implemented in PrPro - not that one should want everything - just the good features. What those are, should be determined by Adobe's team, and based on those Feature Requests. With luck, the good WILL become a part of the program.

     

    Just throwing away PrPro, and coding FCP 8, will likely alienate many loyal PrPro users, who have established workflows. We have already seen some grumbling, with changes to CS 6.

     

    I came to Premiere from AVID, and expected a learning curve. There was one, and I adapted. However, when I encountered something that I felt needed improvement, I filed the Feature Requests. I still file those to get clickable-dragable Audio & Video Tracks, like in some DAW's that I have used (though have not done so for CS 6, so I need to get busy). Some of those requests seem to have reached "critical mass," as they have found their way into PrPro. Others? Well they just sit around My Documents, ready to be filed again.

     

    I feel that there ARE some features from AVID, FCP, etc., that can improve PrPro, but not everything.

     

    Just some personal observations,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 3:25 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Bill Hunt wrote:

     

    Kevin,

     

    Many want PrPro to be what they hoped for with FCP 8 - that never came. Every feature on the FCP 8 "wishlist," and every feature from FCP 7, cannot be instantly implemented in PrPro - not that one should want everything - just the good features. What those are, should be determined by Adobe's team, and based on those Feature Requests. With luck, the good WILL become a part of the program.

    Bill, some of the FCP style changes are implemented even better in Premiere Pro. For example, dynamic trimming was only half-baked in FCP, while in Premiere Pro it's fully functioning. Many examples of "going beyond" FCP and Avid, in addition to improvements we'd like to make.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 4:02 PM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    AlaskanNomadProductions wrote:

     

    And Bill and Kevin, while I can see where you're coming from and I appreciate it, please remember that there was no hover scrub or a similarly functioning "Icon View" in FCP 7. 

    Well, sort of. You could scrub icons in FCP with the Hand tool. You could not set In and Out points, nor play JKL. You could only set a new poster frame. And man were those icons tiny! Another thing users complained about that never got improved in FCP.

    AlaskanNomadProductions wrote:

     

    some obvious functionality seemed to be missing which is why I made the post.  Happily in this case, there was a solution.  Unfortunately, that's not always how things work out.

     

    Regarding "obvious functionality," sometimes a feature is created, but all of its functionality might not get implemented for that version. Engineers run out of time sometimes. Time is their chief enemy! For example, perhaps they did plan on sortable icons, but did not have enough time to finish the code, test it for quality, and stamp out bugs. This is the nature of software creation.

    AlaskanNomadProductions wrote:

     

    But that doesn't change the fact that there are some things that seem very obvious to me and a number of other editors (even some who have been using Premiere for years) and we're all equally baffled that these features don't exist.  Some of these posts are years old, with slews of people claiming they're "Leaving this post right now to file a feature request".  And here it is years later and we're still posting about the same thing.

    I'm right there with you. There are many things I wish I could change. Feature requests that have been around for awhile often don't get fixed for versions upon versions. However, that is the case with all NLEs. There are some very basic features many NLEs have that never made it into Final Cut Pro going into version 7, for example. I know this because I worked at Apple on Final Cut Studio 1 and 3. Stuff people complained about broken items and new features that simply never made the cut. All software companies have to deal with this, unfortunately.

     

    Your feature requests do get read, sorted and accounted for. Because they aren't implemented is all about priority and resources. Chin up, though. Things are going to be very good in upcoming versions, including some of the things that are bothering you, so stay tuned.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 7:26 PM   in reply to Kevin Monahan

    Kevin,

     

    I do agree. When something is BETTER, it benefits all.

     

    However, not all is better, just to accommodate some, who liked a certain status quo, that does not exist.

     

    I am a perpetual "student," so I am always ready to learn something, that is truly better.

     

    Some, however, only seem to want what they once knew, regardless if there is a better way out there. We still see folk, who insist on intermediate files, though PrPro handles things natively. They just do not wish to move on from what they knew, and do not wish to hear that there IS a better way. I would feel that Adobe was doing a disservice, if they went with intermediate CODEC's, just to make some happy.

     

    Improve, but do not ruin a great program, just to satisfy some.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 28, 2013 9:06 PM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    AlaskanNomadProductions wrote:

     

    And the discussion will go something like this:

     

    OP: "I want to do this."

     

    Reply: "You can't."

     

    OP: "What?  Why not?  It's so obvious."

     

    Reply: "It just doesn't work that way.  Do this instead. 

     

    Yes, it is most likely very frustrating. But please remember that these are primarily user to user forums. If you want to do something, we can generally tell you how. It sometimes takes an extra step or two, but often it is just different than you are used to, and sometimes even better. If you don't like the answer even though it does the job, then there is nothing we can do to help you except follow your lead and put in a feature request along with you.

     

    What would you have us do when asked a question? Just say "No. That feature is not in Premiere Pro", and then ignore the question about why? We don't know why. Or would you rather we offer alternatives. The very same alternatives we use ourselves, and in some cases would be annoyed if it changed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 29, 2013 8:17 AM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    To me, at least, one of the beautiful things about this forum is that there are some very sharp people who hang out here, with varied backgrounds.

     

    It is almost daily that someone pops up with an editing method, in PrPro, that others just never thought of.

     

    If one were to just go from the Help files, it might appear that operation ___ was just not possible, but then another user, thinking totally "outside the box," floors me with a neat workflow, to accomplish exactly what was asked for.

     

    That is one reason that I usually run my Feature Requests by the forum first - there might well be a slighly obscure way to do, just what I want, without changing a thing. Lot of bright people around here, and I learn something new, on each of my visits.

     

    Good luck,

     

    Hunt

     

    PS - in just the last week, ShooterNZ, Steven and Ann Bens have shared a workflow that amazed me a bit, as I would have answered "No, not in PrPro... "

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 29, 2013 9:04 AM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    @ AlaskanNomadProductions

     

    I understand and I didn't take any offense. Actually, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I really would like to hear how we should answer FCP converts when they ask questions like that.

     

    Sometimes we agree that it is a problem, but even then, my first thought is to provide the workaround. I know that wasn't the question, but if someone complains about something, I generally assume that they do not know the workaround.

     

    I would love to feather a crop. It was only recently that I figured out how to feather a garbage matte. But we can't. So, do we tell them the workaround, or do we just say no? Or worse, do we just not answer because there is no answer to the question about "why"?

     

    Like I said, sometimes we believe our way is better. Sometimes we like the idea but would rather have the engineers work on something else first. And sometimes we agree and submit a feature request.

     

    Maybe we need a better FAQ for FCP converts. Maybe that would solve a lot of these issues. It would have to be a FCP user that writes it. Care to volunteer and maybe work with people like Ann and Bill and myself to iron it out?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 29, 2013 11:53 AM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz

    Steven L. Gotz wrote:

     

    @ AlaskanNomadProductions

     

    Maybe we need a better FAQ for FCP converts. Maybe that would solve a lot of these issues. It would have to be a FCP user that writes it. Care to volunteer and maybe work with people like Ann and Bill and myself to iron it out?

    I like this idea. Check out this article by Scott Simmons at the editblog for a good start on a FCP > Premiere Pro FAQ:

    http://provideocoalition.com/ssimmons/story/105_adobe_premiere_pro_cs6 _questions_answered/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 29, 2013 1:36 PM   in reply to Steven L. Gotz
    Maybe we need a better FAQ for FCP converts.

     

    I don't know.  I think abolishing the horrid Online Help system with it's maze of endless links and including the PDF as the default for F1 and encouraging new users to read that should be sufficient.  It's what I did when I came to Adobe after being trained on Avid.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2013 12:49 AM   in reply to AlaskanNomadProductions

    It's just that it doesn't stop us from scratching our heads on how a program could be so advanced... without having some basic things that we have to "workaround" numerous times each edit session.

     

    Conversely of course...if a PPRO User went to FCP ( and I did once)...they might be saying..."wheres the Titler" or "you mean I have to transcode my native footage ( Log and whatever it was) so I can edit it".

     

    The list of what a PPRO User would miss would be extensive and the "workarounds" would come in thick and fast from the FCP Users.

     

    Hell...we would even miss our cool Adobe User to User Forum where we get to talk with the Adobe guys directly.

     

    Just saying for a bit of balance and perspective.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2013 6:17 AM   in reply to shooternz

    I mentioned before that I created the Premiere Pro 1.5 tutorials for http://www.lynda.com by copying the FCP tutorials, step by step. I distinctly remember that I had no trouble following the FCP tutorials step by step. I do remember that I had to add the section on editing audio using audio units instead of frames. The idea that it was possible to edit a section that is, for example, 1/100 of a second in duration just flipped out the editors at Lynda.com - who were using FCP to edit my tutorials about Premiere Pro. When they got to the audio section, they were surprised, to say the least.

     

    Yes, there are some nifty features that Premiere Pro is missing. However, what we consider normal, seems like a workaround to you, and some of what FCP requires is quite foreign to us.

     

    As for the article by Scott, it does look like a good start. It also looks like it could use an index, or table of contents. I imagine someone should create one and post it in our FAQ section here on this forum. Or, I suppose I could post it on my web site. My new camera arrives tomorrow so I may be occupied for a while, but I will see what I can do.

     

    Steven

    http://www.stevengotz.com

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points