Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Proxy Editing

Jun 23, 2011 11:23 AM

Is there any way to set up a proxy file automatically like you can in FCP7 or Edius?  I know you can change the playback to 1/4 resolution, but that's just not as nice as playing back a fast, non-high bit rate file... not to mention it's easier to hand off to a long distance editor.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2011 1:14 AM   in reply to Toomany3

    Unlike other editing apps, the whole philosophy behind Premiere Pro is that it saves time by editing natively, no proxies required.  Hence, it does not have extensive tools to make working with them easier.

     

    The better solution (I think) is to use hardware sufficient to the task.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2011 1:55 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    I'm also looking for a good proxy workflow.    Native or not, I want to edit 5D2 footage in Multicam (4 cameras) and it's simply not keeping up in a fluid way.  It's *really* laggy.   So, I started looking at proxy workflows and .....

     

    I have two folders, one called "Source Media" and the other called "Proxy Media".   What I was hoping to do was tell PP that all the footage was offline, then tell it to link the media to the proxy folder.   So, it asks me where the first file is located and it connects to the proxy media fine, but then it links all the remaining footage back to the source media folder instead of following the path I get it for the first file. 

     

    For a few files I could do it all manually, but there are 715 files in this project....

     

    The only way I've come up with so far is to take all the media offline, RENAME the folders so that the proxy becomes the Source Media folder then bring them all back online again.

     

    Is there a better way of doing this?  Is there a way to have the offline media all connect to the proxy folder instead of going back to the source folder (without having to rename the folders!!!!!)?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2011 7:49 AM   in reply to Toomany3

    While I agree that some sort of proxy editing system would be great, I think it's highly unlikely that we'll ever see it built into PPro. Adobe has gone too far down the road with native editing to back up the truck now. This would have to be sort of a "roll-yer-own" endeavor.

     

    I've done this in the past similar to the way ExactImage is describing. Transcode a batch of files from one format to another, edit with the "proxies," and then change the folder name at the OS level and relaunch. So long as the file parameters (e.g. dimensions) match, and the file extensions are the same, relinking should be a one-click or even no-click operation.

     

    The challenge comes with dealing with stuff like H.264 DSLR clips, though. You're already dealing with relatively "small" files, due to the H.264 compression. You could transcode to something like DVCPRO HD to make editing easier (even my 3-year-old laptop will handle about 3 streams of DVCPRO HD fine), but you'll really be bloating the files. I just converted a Canon 1080/30p clip to DVCPRO HD 1080/30p, and the file size went from 176MB to 426MB--the reverse of what you're after. You could experiment with some other codecs--PhotoJPEG or MJPEG come to mind--but it'll be a delicate balance between being able to see clearly enough to edit, small file sizes, and not taxing the system with as much or more decoding than you were already. This was easier back in the days of SD, because DV was always a decent offline codec; I'm not aware of a similar codec that will work for HD, though. Technically, you could transcode to DV (widescreen, probably), but it gets a bit messy when you're trying to conform frame rates, frame sizes, etc.

     

    There's no easy solution to this, and again, I wouldn't hold my breath for proxy editing to be a part of any future version of Premiere Pro. I reserve the right to be completely wrong about that, but I think the current state of the application speaks to the likelihood of that ever happening. Make a feature request, though, and see what happens. In the meantime, do some experimentation with various codecs and see what works most efficiently in PPro from a size-to-decoding-power ratio perspective.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2011 8:55 AM   in reply to Toomany3
    I don't agree that it would be a "back up the truck" feature.  I think it's like adding another gear forward.

     

    You're missing my point. I understand this feature would be useful, but it would involve (I suspect--I'm not a software engineer) a massive overhaul of the program to enable such functionality. Given the shorter durations between releases, that would mean a lot of other things that would benefit far more users would have to be left on the table.

     

    Again: I'm not saying this is a bad idea or that it isn't useful or that it won't or can't be implemented. It would just seem that the cost-benefit of such a feature would shove this way down the list of priorities. The amount of effort that has gone into editing native source files would suggest that that is going to be continued to be improved and accelerated, in lieu of a built-in proxy editing system. I AM prepared to eat my words, however. If Premiere Pro goes more in the direction of being able to pperate collaboratively in a network situation or other shared/distributed way, there is the possibility (perhaps necessity) of developing some sort of proxy codec, etc.

     

    What proxy codec is Edius using? What codec would you suggest for Premiere Pro? I've yet to find in my experiments any codec that meets the lightweight requirements--both from a file size and a processor standpoint--to facilitate a decent proxy workflow.

     

    One or 2 TBs worth of footage is a wee bit much to send to AME to batch export.  I'd be done editing two whole projects by the time it finished my offline files.

     

    Ain't no free lunch, my friend

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 19, 2011 9:11 AM   in reply to Toomany3
    It will just take 8 lines of additional code... at least the way I see it.

     

    Ah ha ha ha! And I've got some land south of the Can-Am border to sell you

     

    Seriously though, I think it's a major undertaking. You're talking about being able to version a project file, track changes in it or them, generate and then manage proxies, and then be able to successfully relink proxies to the originals, which are presumably full-length and not trimmed. This isn't just an aftermarket bolt-on spoiler, here--you're talking about tearing out the engine and rebuilding it.

     

    I think it exports to mp4s, but who knows what inside that container.

     

    I'd be curious to see how this works. MP4 seems like an odd choice, but then again, some cameras actually generate low-res MP4 proxies while shooting, so it's conceivable.

     

    There you go again, the first to burst my bubble.

     

    As always, my pleasure

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 11:18 AM   in reply to ExactImage

    I'm also looking for a good proxy workflow.    Native or not, I want to edit 5D2 footage in Multicam (4 cameras) and it's simply not keeping up in a fluid way.  It's *really* laggy.   So, I started looking at proxy workflows and .....

     

    I have two folders, one called "Source Media" and the other called "Proxy Media".   What I was hoping to do was tell PP that all the footage was offline, then tell it to link the media to the proxy folder.   So, it asks me where the first file is located and it connects to the proxy media fine, but then it links all the remaining footage back to the source media folder instead of following the path I get it for the first file. 

     

    For a few files I could do it all manually, but there are 715 files in this project....

     

    The only way I've come up with so far is to take all the media offline, RENAME the folders so that the proxy becomes the Source Media folder then bring them all back online again.

     

    Is there a better way of doing this?  Is there a way to have the offline media all connect to the proxy folder instead of going back to the source folder (without having to rename the folders!!!!!)?

    I have the exactly same problem! I tried everything I could and there's no solution found. Why Premiere is SO STUPID??? Ok there's no proxy (how could developers leave this feature aside?!), but why premiere looks fot files to link in OTHER FOLDER?

    May be someone created add-on or script to make it easy?

    Adobe, please, answer!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 12:36 PM   in reply to Anri Orlow

    The only way I made this work reliably was to take the media offline, rename the folders and then re-connect.

     

    It's a pain, but it's not as painful as doing it one file at a time.

     

    FCPX is so much better at this than Premiere Pro.  I wish Adobe would get off the 'we play everything native' horse and start to understand there are times when editing natively is not the only game in town.

     

    Sometimes, we want (or need) to edit with proxies and as we move steadily but surely towards 4K being the norm, frankly I don't want to edit in 4K native when proxy would be much easier all round.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2013 6:30 PM   in reply to ExactImage

    I would guess that most of the folks who can afford 4K cameras, or who are getting paid to edit 4K projects, can also afford the hardware needed to run 4K smoothly.

     

    If anything, I'd rather Adobe spent their time getting such formats to run even smoother than working on a Proxy feature.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 2:10 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim, I agree. I there are many PC laptops for about $1,200.00 that could do it. I admit proxy files would be easier to email but mailing a hard drive is not that hard either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 2:50 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Please tell me what "$1200" spec (or frankly any price spec) you think I need to edit 8 cameras 1080p multticam (47 mins) totally smothly with no lag, no stuttering, and no jerkiness etc? This is exactly what I'm editing this morning.

     

    My o/c 4.4Ghz i7 with 16GB ram, GTX570 and RAID 0 (> 600MB/s) won't do it even on windows with Premieire Pro, yet the very same hardware booting OSX and running FCPX CAN do it.  Also my lowly 2.4Ghz i7 MacBookPro can do this from a single HDD (no need for a raid) with FCPX. Nor do we get the silly angle swap bug when you stop!

     

    I don't want to start a platform war, but I do want to understand why Premiere Pro can't do this on regular hardware when others (including Edius & more) can.  It seems the Mercury Playback Engine is in need of some further optimisation.  Having a proxy workflow would help a lot in these situations.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 3:36 AM   in reply to ExactImage

    ExactImage, I agree.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 8:38 AM   in reply to ExactImage

    yet the very same hardware booting OSX and running FCPX CAN do it.

     

    Well there you go, that's what I'm talking about.  Adobe should concentrate on smoother playback.  That would obviate the need for proxies.

     

    You have to remember that from the beginning, proxies were a solution to a problem, or more accurately a work around.  Let's not drag Adobe into the "work around" mind set that other NLEs have used for so long, let's get them to actually fix the problem.  They've come a long way with the Mercury Playback Engine.  It would be a good thing if they kept on making those improvements.  It would be a distraction to create from scratch the old and outdated work around of using proxies.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 8:55 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Maybe it's easy for you to talk about Mercury playback Engine using extremly-powerful hardware, but I, on my weak laptop on Celeron 900 and integrated Intel video really suffer from lack of proxy feature every normal editing sofware has. My computer simply cannot playback Full hd.

    And don't tell my "buy new computer", please...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 11:34 AM   in reply to Anri Orlow

    And don't tell my "buy new computer", please...

     

    Well, that is the proper solution to your problem.  Why would you expect Adobe to solve it for you by investing time and resources into a work flow the company has never adopted?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 11:44 AM   in reply to ExactImage

    I have this doc: Create clips for offline editing.

    Beyond that, make afeature request: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 3:51 PM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Jim Simon wrote:

     

    And don't tell my "buy new computer", please...

     

    Well, that is the proper solution to your problem.  Why would you expect Adobe to solve it for you by investing time and resources into a work flow the company has never adopted?

    I have to agree with Jim.  there comes a point when you can't reaonsably expect Premiere Pro to perform well, and I think a low powered Celeron meets that spec

     

    You will just have to find a workaround, and proxy is almost certainly the way to go.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 3:58 PM   in reply to Kevin Monahan

    Kevin Monahan wrote:

     

    I have this doc: Create clips for offline editing.

    Beyond that, make afeature request: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish

     

    Thanks for posting this again Kevin.   I've posted feature requests in the past about this, but alas I assume it's never risen to the top of the queue because nothing got changed.

     

    The last project I had to work on have 2572 clips.  I think the work around where you replace the footage one clip at a time is akin to 'having a laugh'

     

    The only way to work on this (within reasonable time and keeping my sanity) was to take the footage offline, rename the assets folder (to something that signified offline) then reconnet to the media in the proxy folder.  

     

    Once the edit was complete enough to go back to the original media, take all footage offline again, rename the proxy folder to proxy_offline (so premiere pro can't reconnect there automatically), raname the assets folder back to the original name (instead of offline) and reconnect.

     

    Without renaming the folders, Premiere Pro attempts to reconnect to the orriginal footage even though it was pointed to a different folder for the first file.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2013 6:15 AM   in reply to ExactImage

    Thanks for this thread. What a brilliant and simple solution...

     

    i'm going to make low quality copies of my clips, do my thing in ppro & ae, and when i've finished

    i'll swap the names of the folders "originals" and "proxies", open the project and render out the final.

     

    Thanks chaps.

     

    And to those that keep saying Buy a Better Computer - you obviously dont do any *real* work!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • joe bloe premiere
    4,391 posts
    Dec 6, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2013 8:32 AM   in reply to WebOfWebs

    And to those that keep saying Buy a Better Computer - you obviously dont do any *real* work!

     

    Hey, WebOfWebs

     

    Proxy editing is a practice only required if an editing system is

    incapable of a fluid editing experience with demanding media types.

     

    As a long time professional doing 'real work', one thing I accept

    is that I will need to constantly upgrade hardware... including the

    expectation of completely replacing my primary editing system

    every 24 to 36 months.

     

    Saying "buy a better computer' is the reality of professional work if

    one intends to maintain pace with constantly advancing capabilities.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 5, 2013 7:48 AM   in reply to WebOfWebs

    you obviously dont do any *real* work!

     

    I'm kind of curious...what's the *fake* work?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 1:25 AM   in reply to joe bloe premiere

    I guess if you are self employed then how you respond to difficulties is your choice, but i come from a large companies background, and the philosophy is somewhat different. The departments budget is set and spent, and if a difficulty arises we needed to find solutions not just go shopping.

    Now i suspect that most of Adobes customers cannot afford to run out and buy the latest tech each time a project jumps in complexity, so i am surprised there isnt more info about workarounds (on adobe websites). but i now see many more websites that do discuss exactly this.

    We recently had the jump to HD, and then a renewed interest in 3d, and now theres talk of higher framerates, and next... theres always a next. So if you really are a professional then you are used to fiding solutions to get the job done.

    As the competition do not have an 'issue' with proxies, nor do movie studios, then neither shall I, and if it allows me to get a job done, i'll use it. I certainly wont cry about hardware just because Adobe fans say its wrong.

    But dont waste time arguing the point. time will prove us 'proxy users' are on the right path.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 1:35 AM   in reply to WebOfWebs

    How can you afford the Adobe software if you cannot afford to get a new computer every 3 years?

     

    I hope the folks at Adobe don't pay much attention to your comments. I know I couldn't if I owned Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 2:47 AM   in reply to joe bloe premiere

    There are other reasons to want proxy editing in a distributed workflow (such as the ability to cut with dailies issued by another department, which happens all the time in CGI). Multicam in Premiere is a particular issue that I acknowledge the MPE cannot cope with as well as customers expect it should - even on the machines that currently top the PPBM tables you won't be multicamming 8 shots of 4K RAW.

     

    Going back a couple of years I would agree with your proposition that a 'pro' user will have the funds to invest in both the software and the hardware, but you have to remember that the customer landscape has changed completely with CC. We now have a vast community of users whose total outlay for CS6 is a few dollars for a monthly subscription, and the capital investment in an editing workstation and RAID array is often beyond their means. Some CC customers might only use Premiere a few times a year, and even with budgets available there's no commercial justification for them to buy Harm's Monster.

     

    Does that imply that for some people, Adobe's decision to include 'pro' applications in a 'prosumer' rental service was a road to nowhere? Yes. Does it mean that those customers who would like to use CC on high-end but consumer-spec machines should be told they're wishing for the impossible? No - so this thread needs to steer away from any implications that customers are second-class. I'm not saying we will get proxies in the next release, but asking for them is perfectly OK and sensible.

     

    joe bloe premiere wrote:

     

    Proxy editing is a practice only required if an editing system is

    incapable of a fluid editing experience with demanding media types.

     

    As a long time professional doing 'real work', one thing I accept

    is that I will need to constantly upgrade hardware... including the

    expectation of completely replacing my primary editing system

    every 24 to 36 months.

     

    Saying "buy a better computer' is the reality of professional work if

    one intends to maintain pace with constantly advancing capabilities.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 4:10 AM   in reply to Dave Merchant

    I'm not saying we will get proxies in the next release, but asking for them is perfectly OK and sensible.

     

    I second that. Recently I tested a 4 camera GoPro multicam project on my 'Monster' and it was jerky and choppy like hell. OK, this is a typical CS6 problem, so maybe in the future this will be solved, but in a number of cases and especially with systems that are not as extravagant as my own system, it makes a lot of sense to use proxy editing. Edius has a nice workflow for that and I think Adobe does well to copy that functionality in their suite as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 4:29 AM   in reply to medeamajic

    wow!

    just wow!

     

    anyone not appreciating the diversity of life (and how people live) should steer clear of trying to be creative (and using creative tools).

     

    again wow!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 6:31 AM   in reply to medeamajic

    medeamajic wrote:

     

    How can you afford the Adobe software if you cannot afford to get a new computer every 3 years?

     

    I hope the folks at Adobe don't pay much attention to your comments. I know I couldn't if I owned Adobe.

     

    Thanks not a very well thought out argument.  Perhaps people can't afford a new computer 'because' they spent the money buying adobe software

     

    Seriously, we're using proxy editing a lot.  Not because Premiere Pro can't handle playing clip natively, but because it can't handle playing lots of clips natively in a multicam, or when adding lots of effects etc.   And as we transition more and more in to 4K source footage then proxy is even more important.

     

    And no, we're not using totally out of date gear either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 8:37 AM   in reply to WebOfWebs

    We recently had the jump to HD, and then a renewed interest in 3d, and now theres talk of higher framerates, and next... theres always a next. So if you really are a professional then you are used to fiding solutions to get the job done

     

    A fair point, but it's not uncommon when updating your work flow to the next level to also update the necessary equipment to handle that work flow.  It'd be foolish to upgrade from DV to AVCHD and expect your older Core 2 processor to keep up.

     

    Personally, I'd prefer Adobe keep on it's current path and find ways to make editing smoother for the native media.

     

    (And of course, it's to everyone's benefit for camera makers to stop using folder structures and simply create one uniquely named, self-contained MXF file for every clip.  Doing that would obviate any need for Adobe to invest limited resources on developing a proxy work flow.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 8:38 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    One of the troubles is that the cost of the cameras has come down so much. A SD digi beta was £30,000ish now 4k sports cameras are £500, its hard to justify spending £000s on new PCs and the associated hd monitoring just to edit this material.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 8:40 AM   in reply to Richard M Knight

    Not if it get's the job done quickly and keeps the work coming in.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 9:24 AM   in reply to Toomany3

    You can export the files in Adobe Media Encoder, and then relink to the original files when your're finished editing. Here you go: http://adobe.ly/XqxSWB

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2013 1:07 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    "It'd be foolish to upgrade from DV to AVCHD and expect your older Core 2 processor to keep up"

     

    Well of course. But if you've spent a few grand on a new computer, and then almost a grand on Adobe software, and a few grand on Autocad software... then the boss can quite rightly say Make It Work! We are NOT spending any more on upgrades, extra hardware, not even a new chair for a couple of years.

    So when a client has a multicam project, or a promotional animation, and theres some sticky point that pushes your computer to the limit, a workaround is the sensible and only solution.

     

    I wish we all had unlimited funds to just throw money at every problem.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2013 6:02 AM   in reply to ExactImage

    ExactImage wrote:

     

    medeamajic wrote:

     

    How can you afford the Adobe software if you cannot afford to get a new computer every 3 years?

     

    I hope the folks at Adobe don't pay much attention to your comments. I know I couldn't if I owned Adobe.

     

    Thanks not a very well thought out argument.  Perhaps people can't afford a new computer 'because' they spent the money buying adobe software

     

    Seriously, we're using proxy editing a lot.  Not because Premiere Pro can't handle playing clip natively, but because it can't handle playing lots of clips natively in a multicam, or when adding lots of effects etc.   And as we transition more and more in to 4K source footage then proxy is even more important.

     

    And no, we're not using totally out of date gear either.

    I am not doubting the mulitcam may need to be revamped but the Muliticam Feature is different than editng proxy files. The Mulitcam feature in Premiere Pro 6.0 may not tap into the CUDA cores that well. It would be wise for Adobe to make the Mulitcam feature work better with the CUDA technology.  Having said that I would like to think mulitcam would give you the option to view the 4k source clips at 1/4 resolution. If it cannot that would make for a good feature request.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2013 8:02 AM   in reply to WebOfWebs

    a workaround is the sensible and only solution.

     

    Agreed.  I'm only advocating that for those occasionally difficult projects that exceed your new hardware's capabilities, you find that work around yourself, instead of asking Adobe to do it for you by investing limited resources on developing an integrated proxy work flow.

     

    I think it would serve the majority of editors better if Adobe spent their time on making native files easier to edit on any given hardware.  Plenty of folks have complemented how smooth Edius is by comparrison with the same media on the same computer, so at first glance, it does look like there's room for Adobe to improve here.  That would be the better path, I think.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2013 9:24 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    And finding an answer ourselves is exactly what we do - by asking around in forums.

    Also you'll probably find Adobe is quite capable of answering queries for themselves without relying on fans.

     

    And anybody who accepts money from Joe Public becomes accountable for their products and promises.

     

    If adobe wants to leave proxies out of premiere - note their other products make use of proxies - then premiere better work as well as the competition.

    With the advent of new film media all the time, proxies are inevitable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2013 4:16 PM   in reply to WebOfWebs

    then premiere better work as well as the competition.

     

    Preferably better.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

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