Also, when you first started your project, which project settings did you select? It's very important that you selected the correct project settings for your video? What model of camcorder did it come from and what resolution is it?
Finally, how much of an effect did your auto effect have? Was it dramatically different -- as in going from a poorly lit picture to a bright, colorful picture? It may be that the change was so subtle you can't see it in your output.
Maybe that is my problem. My video clips came from a Canon D10 digital camera in the video mode. The size is 640x480 and 30 frms/sec. The closest Project Settings I could find were Flip Mino and Ultra 30p, which said was for a Sony type camcorder. The effect I used was 'Auto Levels', and yes the change was dramatic. My Canon camera outputs the video file as a .MOV file. When I again looked at the Project Settings I could not find any settings which were closer than the ones I used. Is there any hope? Thanks
<RANT MODE ON>
Unfortunately, camera mfgrs. insist on going beyond the "standards." The 640 x 480 is basically SD, but with Square Pixels, i.e. PAR = 1.0, where standard SD is either Standard 4:3 @ PAR = 0.9, or Widescreen 16:9 @ PAR = 1.2 (different programs use PAR's at a few more decimal places), so that throws a real monkey-wrench into things. I have no sympathy for the developers of these non-standard formats, and spec.
I would anticipate that with the clamor to do non-standard formats, PrE 11 might add some, but no sooner, than they do, the mfgrs. will move the goal posts. Personally, I feel that standards should be adhered to, and when camera mfgrs. deviate, they should be punished, by consumers not buying their gear.
Now, the MJPEG CODEC has been around for decades, but lost popularity about 10 years ago. It was revived, but then each camera mfgr. tweaked it, to suit their purposes. What that meant was that one HAD to install the exact version, that their camera shot. Instead of offering their MJPEG CODEC as a separate install, they decided that they would force a user to install their cataloging, or editing software, just to get the CODEC. Many of the popular MJPEG CODEC's were rendered obsolete, and one could ONLY use the exact version of the camera mfgr. Personally, I think that the consumers need to grab the camera mfgrs. by the neck, and shake them, like a momma dog shakes a bad puppy. Same for non-standard formats, and PAR's in those formats.
Most camera mfgrs. assume that ALL consumers will ONLY want to hook up to a TV and play the files, or just upload them to some social media, without editing. Why? Why not think that they might wish to edit the footage?
Then, camera mfgrs. decided to hide the H.264 CODEC inside the AVI wrapper, when MOV, MP4, MTS, and other wrappers were standard. I mean, who thought of that? Why not put H.264 video inside a Photoshop PSD file?
It appears that each is bent on finding the most obscure, non-standard way to do video, that one can possibly imagine.
I feel that the consumer is being held hostage by Nikon, Panasonic, Canon, Olympus, and most of the rest.
<RANT MODE OFF>
Just thinking here.
Thank you very much all. I appreceiate you taking the time and effort to help people like myself who do not have the knowledge to understand the intricacies of this stuff. I used a video conversion program on my .MOV file, and that did not work either. The fundamentals of my problem are above my skill level, but at least I understand the reason why it does not work. If it is not supported, why will PE10 import my file, apply the video effects to it, display it with the effects and then act like it is rendering and saving it, BUT DOESN'T? It is so dissapointing because the easy one click editing effect is so dramatic, just like in PSE10 when editing a photo. Oh Well! If it is not supported, it is not supported.
Thank you again for your help.
If it is not supported, why will PE10 import my file, apply the video effects to it, display it with the effects and then act like it is rendering and saving it, BUT DOESN'T?
I only wish that I had an answer for that. I cannot think of a reason for the Effects to NOT be part of the Export/Share. I would just think that they can be Applied, and then would show up, when one outputs the Timeline. It is a real puzzle to me, why it is not working that way. I do not see the Frame Size/PAR being an issue, and would not think that the MJPEG CODEC would be either, but I have no candidates for the "cause."
Actually, parts of your Source Footage ARE supported - just not fully, like the Frame Size. While the MJPEG CODEC is not native, nor is it included in the installation of PrE (like the Adobe MainConcept MPEG CODEC's are), when it HAS been installed, is then supported. I do not know if there are any limitations to that level of support, but when users install their cameras' versions of the MJPEG CODEC, things usually go smoothly.
As that 640 x 480 w/ PAR = 1.0 (square pixels) scheme is becoming more popular (several popular consumer stills cameras now output to it), I anticipate that at some point, Adobe WILL add that Preset to PrE. Will it be in PrE 11? I do not know. I believe that the reason for this is that stills cameras produce PAR = 1.0 Images. With SD Video, the PAR's are rectangular, and basically only four - two each for PAL and for NTSC, which dictate whether the Video is Widescreen 16:9, or Standard 4:3. The PAR = 1.0 is common to most HD footage, and to those Project Presets, but one would not want to put 640 x 480 w/ PAR = 1.0, into an HD Project at, say 1920 x 1080, as they would end up with LARGE black bars, or if they Scaled that footage up, would end up with really lousy footage.
As non-square pixel footage is disappearing, in lieu of HD footage, mostly with PAR = 1.0, there is likely to be a surge in your type of footage - 640 x 480 w/ PAR = 1.0. That might one day, replace the current standard for SD footage, but not yet.
You talk about not knowing all the ins and out of video. Do not feel alone. We are right in the middle of a major transition. Rectangular pixel CRT TV's are going away. I no longer have any in my home. HD TV's are coming way, way down in price and spreading like locusts around the globe. Things are changing rapidly, so keeping up with it, is almost impossible. Also, most people just "want to know the time, and not how to build a clock." Unfortunately, Video is complex (many hundreds of times more complex, that still images, and especially so, when one adds in Audio). Add in the changes in "standards," and it boggles the mind. Even the pros struggle to keep up. What they know today, might not apply so liberally, tomorrow.
Hope that PrE 11 DOES offer a Preset for that SD footage, as it is likely to be the replacement for what we now still consider "standards."
Good luck to you, and to all of us! "The Times They Are A'changing."
I hope we have thoroughlty confused you, biflip!
MJPEG are a strange beast. And, while technically, they aren't aren't supported in Premiere Elements -- they often do work in Premiere Elements for a lot of people! (I'm one of those fortunate people.) It's hard to say why. It's sort of related to what codecs you have on your computer. But if they work they work!
It sounds like the format does work to some extent on your system. And, even if it doesn't, I don't think that's the reason your effects aren't showing in your outputs.
To figure that out, you'll need to answer the question I posed in my first post: Which auto effect did you apply and how dramatic was the change?
Auto effects do little for my video at their default setting. (Version 10's Auto Vibrance is an exception!) Try apply an effect -- or adjusting an effect -- so that you see a dramatic change in your video. Then look at the output and see if it's made a difference.