Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Why is my priemer elements crashing when I try to add a quantity of photos?

Mar 18, 2013 5:57 PM

Tags: #crashes

Why is my priemer elements 10 crashing when I try to add a quantity of photos?

I have just downloaded my software to my new Dell XPS 17, 24gRam......

It still crashes....

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2013 7:28 PM   in reply to 24007

    Hi, 24007. Premiere Elements has its own forum and not many of us here in the PSE forum use PRE. I'll move this over there for you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2013 7:59 PM   in reply to 24007

    Pictures that are "overly" large cause video editing problems

    Photo Scaling for Video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/450798

    -Too Large May = Crash http://forums.adobe.com/thread/879967

    -And another crash report http://forums.adobe.com/thread/973935

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 18, 2013 9:55 PM   in reply to 24007

    Welcome to the forum.

     

    What are the pixel x pixel dimensions of those Still Images?

     

    Good luck,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2013 4:03 AM   in reply to 24007

    From which camera are your pictures, what is the extention.

    Crashing while adding to the assets bin or to the timeline?

     

    John check your links befor adding them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2013 5:13 AM   in reply to Ann Bens

    I'm with Bill. The main reason this happens is because you're using photos larger than the recommended 1000x750 pixels in size.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2013 1:04 PM   in reply to Steve Grisetti

    This is something that should be in the manual.

    Besides its an odd dimension.

    Steve Grisetti wrote:

     

    I'm with Bill. The main reason this happens is because you're using photos larger than the recommended 1000x750 pixels in size.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2013 1:09 PM   in reply to Ann Bens

    Well, for what it's worth, it's in ALL of my books!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2013 1:12 PM   in reply to Ann Bens

    Those dimensions go back quite a ways, and are obviously for a DV Project. Those allowed a little "wiggle room" to do a limited amount of Panning, on a zoomed out Image. I am not sure who the first to list those dimensions was, but it was done years ago, and is just sort of a couple of round numbers. Maybe Steve knows the history of them?

     

    Personally, I always Scale to the exact Frame Size of my Projects, and if I do need to Pan on a Zoomed Out Image, will calculate how much movement I will need. I then Scale to exactly what I require, and even Crop the vertical dimensions, to just what I need, unless I also plan on doing a Tilt too.

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 19, 2013 8:14 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    I think there is some other reason beyond resizing.

     

    There have been similar discussions recently.  I didn't know better before I read them and put some photos on video 2 to help block some dull footage on video 1.  (It is a family documentary that I never should have volunteered for!)

     

    After reading the discussions, and finding I was doing it wrong, I tried the suggestions ( that Ann points out are not in the book). I wanted to "get it right" with the best picture quality for future projects involving still photos.  I tried a variety of resizing methods in both Lightroom and Photoshop Elements 11.  I compared results with HUGE RAW files from a Sony camera. 

     

    Granted, I have a fairly new i7 based computer.  I could not get it to balk, stall, freeze or crash when I used "Get Media" to load a variety of picture files.  The RAW files are 20MB.  The .jpgs are are a fraction.  I tried a project with all resized .jpgs, another with RAWs and a third with mixed.  The best final quality came from ignoring the "resize" recomendations and having PrE11 deal with the RAW files.

     

    Granted that I have a relatively new computer, but I can't find any reason to worry about resizing.

     

    Bill

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2013 5:41 AM   in reply to whsprague

    Sorry, Bill, but you MUST resize your photos. It doesn't matter how fast your computer is. As with most video editing programs, you will get the best and most efficient results (and least likelihood of crashing) if you optiimize your photo sizes before adding them to your project.

     

    Photo size, by the way, has nothing to do with file size. JPGs can be very small files but still be oversized photos. It has to do with pixel density of the photo itself.

     

    For standard definition video, you must resize your photos to 1000x750 pixels in size.

     

    For high definition video, you can go as large as 2000x1500 pixels in size.

     

    Using a denser, larger photo does not give you a higher quality video. It only taxes the machine and the program more.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2013 7:38 AM   in reply to Steve Grisetti

    Steve Grisetti wrote:

     

    Sorry, Bill, but you MUST resize your photos.

     

    Using a denser, larger photo does not give you a higher quality video. It only taxes the machine and the program more.

    I was following this same subject in another thread three weeks ago.  I spent several hours trying "resizing" using the different ways suggested and posted the following, including a link to a 20 second video with the results.  You can download the original HD video and look for yourself frame by frame. 

     

    Part of my curiosity stemmed from an Adobe update.  I bought PrE11 with Photoshop Elements because I needed the newest ACR for a new camera.  When I used "Updates..." in the help menu in PE, the automatic Adobe update software took over and installed ACR in both PE and PrE.  Why would Adobe put ACR in PrE if it were not to process RAW images?  I don't see it work the same way, but the Adobe updater put it in PrE for something. 

     

    Pasted from a March 3 topic:  http://forums.adobe.com/message/5118284#5118284

     

    Bill Hunt wrote:

     

    PrE lacks the Scaling algorithms, that PS has, and expecially PS CS 6. It is a "one trick pony."

     

    Photoshop has Bicubic Smoother, Bicubic Sharper and with CS 6, Bicubic Auto. Both the quality of the Scaling, plus the control that one has over which algorithm to use, will be an improvement.

     

    It is not the same with PrPro, as of CS 5, where CUDA/MPE allowed Adobe to improve the Scaling algorithms in that version - with the proper video card. PrE does not have the PrPro Scaling algorithms, and has no CUDA/MPE.

     

    I vary between Bicubic Sharper and Bicubic Smoother, depending on the subject matter of my Still Images - some look better with one, while some look better with the other. I have not done full testing on Bicubic Auto yet.

     

    So, regardless of what some might tell you, the quality will be better by doing the Scaling in PS, rather than in PrE, plus you have more control.

     

    Then, there are the resources used, to push around a bunch of unused pixels. A stout computer can do that, but resources are used unnecessarily.

     

    Good luck,

     

    Hunt

    I worked on it this morning.  I converted a RAW file two ways with Lightroom 4.3 and thee ways with Photoshop Elements 11.  The picture is of a rusty 'hot rod' with colorful decals.  In the background are some tiled roofs that are sharp in the original when viewed 1:1 in Lightroom.  The tiles are not as sharp at 1920 by 1080.  (You should have been there when the engine was started!)

     

    All five conversions seemed to brighten some colors a little.  It is most obvious watching the decal on the rear fender.  So Bill is right that there can be a difference.  But Anne is right in that there is so little overall difference that the extra work flow steps are not worthwhile when each slide is displayed for only a few seconds.  The viewer won't have time to see it.

     

    Later in the afternoon I played with the PrE Sharpen effect on the original RAW photo.  A tiny bit of sharpening brightened the fender decal in the RAW file and I could no longer see any difference in the photo versions.

     

    Discovering the "Bicubic" options in Photoshop Elements was a surprise two ways.  Until yesterday I didn't know it was there and, secondly, it demonstrates another example of where CS6 is not necessary for me!

     

    One surprise was file sizes.  File size seems to make no difference in quality.  The Cubic DNG was half the size of the Cubic Smoother and Cubic Sharpen.  The smallest files came as .jpgs from Lightroom.  So, if disk storage space is an issue, maybe taking the time to scale photos has value.

     

    I output rendered the video at 1080p59.97 and uploaded to Vimeo so that you should be able to see it that way.  It is only 20 seconds long with 6 slides.    https://vimeo.com/60952115   You can download the file as rendered in the orginal form if you want to see it without Vimeo's transcoding.

     

    The project took me most of the morning and I learned a lot about how to handle still photos for use in a PrE video.

     

    Bill

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2013 12:19 PM   in reply to whsprague

    Here is another sample.  I randomly picked some RAW photos taken at a street fair, in the desert and an RV park.  I did not pick them because of their photo or creative quality.  I picked them to see if PrE could struggle through unsized RAW photos.   It did so with quickly and without issue.

     

    https://vimeo.com/60904593

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 21, 2013 11:05 AM   in reply to 24007

    This article explains how to batch Scale Images in Photoshop and Photoshop Elements: http://forums.adobe.com/message/2200755#2200755

     

    Good luck,

     

    Hunt

     
    |
    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