I'm assuming I'm going to need to download AE again?
Not really. This is most likely simply a resource issue. Do the usual - update your graphics driver, turn off security stuff and so on. Also provide exact system info and the crash details from your Event Viewer as well as exact info about your project like the footage type used, your cache settings and so on. You have not provided any of that info.
thank you for your input. Naturally I would expect if my work flow in CS5.5 works great, I would not have to make any changes in CS6 to accomplish the same task. With that said, I made it as simple as possible for CS6 AE to handle the Warp Stabilizer effect, and it crashed? If I went directly back to CS5.5, no problems at all in AE (same source footage, but of course different projects). When I first tried CS6 AE it appeared to work fine, even when doing Warp effects. So when I ran into the issue I saw above, I started thinking it was possible the update I did to AE may have caused some other issue. By the way, the projects I open in both CS5.5 vs. CS6 were independent, meaning, I did not convert a CS5.5 job to CS6, etc... (See notes below).
My setup is standard:
Nvidia Quadro 4k
Footage is Canon 5D Mkii 1080p
All drivers up to date.
-I think going back and forth between CS5.5 and CS6 may have caused some issues? When I rebooted my system, CS6 AE seems to work fine when applying Warp Stabilizer effects again.
-What I did find more interesting and effective, was that CS6 Premiere has Warp Stabilizer right in its own effects now! Works great in the premiere flow and plays back far better then going through the Dynamic Link with After Effects! When playing Dynamic link effects back in Premiere, I'm sure everyone sees performance issues in the playback. However, in at least with applying Warp Stabilizer directly in Premiere, the playback performance is much better.
The best advice I can give you for using Warp Stabilizer and Camera Tracker is to only track or stabilize just the footage you need. The shorter the sections, the better the result. Neither tool was designed to work with long shots. The math involved in the solutions gets more complex the longer the shot and the more the camera moves. Warp Stabilizer is a fine tool but it should not be a substitute for careful camera work.
Roger that Rick. I definitely agree!
I shoot underwater scenes, which make for complex camera planing. I use warp for short 3-8 sec scenes, and where tripods can't be used or practical underwater. With Macro, underwater video with tripods are a must. But with Wide angle scenes, shooting sharks and whales, I'm in free space ocean! You would think being in water would dampen most of the motion, but other types of motion are induced in that setting.
Yeah, the down side of Warp is the loss of frame size when it scales to compensate for the motion (I see 105% scaling in most cases, which is fine for me). The upside, is I have no choice.. : ) The best we have underwater is extending a mini tripod in my swimming plane. This helps with the small quick jerks and shakes.
Ok, I'm going off topic, but you made me just think of something?! Can we scale up our raw footage (just the short scenes we want), through Photoshop Extended, to say 110%, then run warp stabilizer. Yes, every frame in Photoshop would have to be resized, but the upside is we could still hold the full resolution of the frame at 1080p.. There must be a way to bulk resize our raw footage.. Perhaps by creating a action to process that clip : ) Sure we would still lose some of the frame content to cropping in Warp Stabilizer, but now we could hold the resolution...
...every frame in Photoshop would have to be resized, but the upside is we could still hold the full resolution of the frame at 1080p..
Oops: not so. any time you scale up past 100%, you just make the existing pixels bigger. You're not gaining any additional resolution with that Photoshop trick. It's a nice thought, but ineffective.
So there's no such thing as underwater camera stabilization, huh?