Adobe Community: Is Warp Stabilizer stable yet? Has it been patched?

Currently Being Moderated

1. jstrawn,

Feb 15, 2013 12:34 PM in reply to dsc106918

Report

I don't know of any specifc problem report ID's regarding destructive warp stabilizer results at the project level, so I can't say if any bugs have actually been fixed for you or not.

But I can tell you that I did a lot of warp stabilization with CS 6.02 and never saw any destructive problems. Yes, there were cases where the warp process did not do the greatest job, and even some cases where it failed altogether, but that was usually with warp-unfriendly footage (if you know what I mean), and even then it didn't wreak havoc with my project; I just had to tweak the paremeters or use better source media.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

2. Jim Simon,

Feb 15, 2013 12:38 PM in reply to dsc106918

Report

Every shot needs to be stabilized as I shot with that being the plan

That's a bad plan. Stabilizing in post should be reserved for when you muck up the shot. You should never shoot crappy on purpose with the plan to fix it in post.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

3. dsc106918,

Feb 15, 2013 2:40 PM in reply to Jim Simon

Report

Thanks Jim, but I shoot great footage. It was a documentary and India shot on limited available stabilization equipment in need of minor smoothing in post. I've done multiple projects like this with fantastic results. When you are moving all around 3rd world countries on tight time tables with little room for equipment, you don't have the luxury of loading up cranes and dollies everywhere you go.

The end results look superb.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

4. dsc106918,

Feb 15, 2013 2:38 PM in reply to jstrawn

Report

OK, good to know about no destructive issues.

What about program stability issues? I haven't encountered too much, but ran into an old thread that got me worried. There is a certain clip that causes Premiere to crash every time I drop the warp stabilizer on it.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

5. Jim Simon,

Feb 15, 2013 3:11 PM in reply to dsc106918

Report

you don't have the luxury of loading up cranes and dollies everywhere you go.

That I get. You made it sound as if you shot it shaky on purpose with the plan to stabilize it later. That sounded weird to me, thinking you should always shoot as stably as possible. (The exception being when the scene specifically calls for shaky-cam.)

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

6. dsc106918,

Feb 15, 2013 5:19 PM in reply to Jim Simon

Report

Yeah, I shoot as stable as possible and smooth out the imperfections in post. Since I'm running a handheld stabilizer (DVtec MultiRig Pro) it's a smooth floatiness with minor shakes that is then smoothed out. Stateside I use crane, dolly, etc. but overseas requires subtle motions, push, pulls, and tracks to be done semi-stabilized for the sake of portability.

In any case, I'll have 200+ clips in the final edit that I will want to run the "detailed" warp stabilizer on and can't have stability issues with the program

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

7. hbernhard,

Feb 16, 2013 2:33 AM in reply to dsc106918

Report

Similar to me it seems so that you have no option afterwards...... I used recently the warp stabilzer on a project with 400+ clips without any problems (Sony CX700, AVCHD 50p). I used warp stabilzer in the final editing steps before CC and sharpening. You must apply Warp Stabilzer on every clip seperately to get the best results, i.e. to avoid excessive autoscaling. nomotion on stable clips, smooth motion on panning/zooming parts.

Looking to your HW specs you should run at least 10 instances of Warp Stabilzer in parallel (quite CPU and memory consuming..) without running into the possibilities of overload situations. In any case it's time consuming and not always (I would say in rare cases clips like filming a sunset on a stormy beach) will be unusable (as discussed above).

"Professional look" was the feedback from the audiences, nethertheless to avoid some unusable clips I still stick to "hardware stabilization"

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

8. Jon Chappell,

Feb 16, 2013 10:29 AM in reply to hbernhard

Report

There have been stability problems and project bloating issues but many have been fixed in 6.0.2. However, I would still recommend not going overboard with its usage as the data is embedded in the project file and too many instances will slow down saving and loading your project.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

9. traveler6666,

Mar 14, 2013 8:33 AM in reply to Jon Chappell

Report

I would be very carefully. First of all your project will become very slow in loading and saving (probably more then 30 minutes). Additionally it might be that you get an "unknown error" at the very end when you export everything with no hint where it occured in the footage.

These errors exists in the latest version 6.02 and cost a lot of time.

|

Mark as:

Currently Being Moderated

10. rejdmast1,

Mar 14, 2013 6:38 PM in reply to traveler6666

Report

Dude,

Bite the bullet and buy Mercalli for $249. You won't regret it. It blow's away the Premiere warp stabilizer and it runs faster than real time on my laptop - at least 6 times faster than the Premiere warp stabilizer without bloating the project file size.

You can download a free demo that puts an X in the video. I bought it to stabilize some NASCAR racing video I had to shoot at 22x zoom. It blew my mind away with what it could do and I have been editing and doing effects work for 30 years. Make sure to read the online manual to get the most out of it. Let us know how you make out.

|

Mark as:

Premiere Pro

Is Warp Stabilizer stable yet? Has it been patched?

Feb 15, 2013 11:19 AM

More Like This

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status