Effects can only be applied to clips in a sequence.
I am not talking about applying effects. I'm talking about telling PP to analyze all clips. You could do this in FCP 7. It was not applying an effect there either. It was right clicking the files and analyzing that way. This way, when you slap Warp on a clip, it's already analyzed. It writes a file somewhere with that analyze data. There should be a way to do this.
The "analysis" is part of the effect.
Sorry, but no it is not. The effect analyzes it. But the analysis data is not part of it. That is stored either in the project file or in the xmp data associated or in a custom file elsewhere. And it is a built in effect. There should be a way to "analyze for warp stabilizer" the same way you could in FCP and the same way you can analyze for other kinds of footage interpretations in PP right now. For instance, you can right-click a file in the project browser in PP and "analyze content" or "interpret footage". This is the same exact concept but seemingly missing for "warp stabilzer" in PP.
1 person found this helpful
What I mean is that the process of analyzing is accomplished only after the effect is applied. And you can only apply an effect in a sequence.
Trust me on this. It can't be done the way you want.
So your answer Should have been "No, not yet, hopefully soon." Because this is completely accomplishable. They did it in an inferior program half a decade ago and PP already has other "effect" analyses that can be done ahead of time with yet applying the actual effect.
I'm curious what analysis you think can currently be done without applying the effect?
Also, you can take warp off an analyzed clip and add it back on days later and the analysis is still there. The data is obviously written to xmp or the project file. As a coder, I simply know this as an absolute fact. So Adobe should add this capability just how FCP did it or, very easily, better than FCP. Hell, I could write it in a day if I had the source. This feature would be invaluable to my company and to restore a step of our workflow that we lost from the transition. I never had to wait for a single second to see my stabilized footage in FCP. I would ingest all clips, select all clips, and click analyze for smoothmotion. Come back in the morning and it was all done. The data for those was stored in the xmp data if I recall correctly.
See what? In post 6 you claim that PP can already do other effect analysis pre-effect, but don't specify which analysis, or for which effects. I'm wondering just what you meant by that.
For instance, you can right-click a file in the project browser in PP and "analyze content" or "interpret footage".
This is an actual thing that exists in CS6 dude.
It's just that neither of those two things analyzes for warp Stabilzer.
Neither of those are effects.
Does anyone else have any input on this?
[Personal comment deleted]
You'll get the same answer. You can only apply an effect in a sequence.
Jim's correct. If you want background warp stabilizer analysis, you'll need to file a feature request.
And if you wish to continue participating in this forum, you need to stop the personal insults.
The sky is blue. Correct but not answering my question at all. Thank you for a real response. I already made this feature request.
Has anyone else experienced any of these glitches with Warp when trying to analyze multiple clips? Seems like 1 to 2 clips at a time is the only thing I can reliably get away with.
Also correct. Warp Stabilizer in its current state eats up huge chunks of memory and creates huge, bloated project files.
1 person found this helpful
Here's a link to an After Effects blog post that may help. Much of the info applies to Premiere Pro as well:
Yeah. We've got 24GB of RAM and definitely don't even hit 5,000 frames total in any given project. SSD's and a GTX 670 4GB edition, the works. Never had a memory issue. That was a really good article though. Extremely informative about what's going on under the good. Definitely a system to be improved upon by Adobe. That said, I prefer the end result of WS over any other competitor and will continue to just rock WS on one clip at time, only when needed and wait the few to ten minutes and try and find something else to do while it goes. I do just miss that instant gratification of smoothmotion. Imagine only having the orange ribbon. That's how it is in FCP.
So your answer Should have been "No, not yet, hopefully soon."
Actually, Jim's answer should have been, 'No. Hope, will never happen, since it's silly to analyse extra data that don't need to be analysed at all'. Not to mention that stabilising with Warp Stabilizer requires sometimes some compositing work.
By the way, if you want to code something for PrPro, feel free to explore Premiere Pro SDK.
This community is a complete joke. I ask a question and get irrelevant answers and then an answer that hopefully the exact opposite of what I'm looking for happens.
I hope you're all proud of yourselves. A big pat on the back to all.
Your question was answered several times (which ultimately is the purpose of these forums). You can't do what you want in PP.
Not liking the answer isn't going to change it, though.
If your concern is with regarding to applying the effect to multiple clips, you could create a nested sequence and then apply the effect to the nested sequence. But as others have specified, this will result in bloated project files and extensive processing time. I have not worked with FCP, but I have worked with other third party warp stabilizer effects, and they have all worked the same way, you apply the effect, it analyzes the data, and then adjusts the image.
I disagree with your assessment of the community. I have always received the support I needed when I've posted. Remember that I and others who attempt to help are not paid Adobe employees. If you think this is a feature that needs to be incorporated into Premiere, file a improvement request with Adobe.
You declared you are a good coder, being able to develop what you want within a day - you got the link to Premiere Pro SDK. Quite relevant.
You argued the feature you want should be implemented, but got completely opposite answer - you have an opportunity to analyse why those answers were opposite. When you have time, 'cos all the neccessary 'data' for such analysis, which are more than relevant, are included in this thread.
I don't need to hear about the philosophies of how or why this feature should or should not exist. Simple answer, yes or no, and any input on how others attempt to analyze a bunch of clips in one go is what I clearly asked for.
I don't need to be told why I shouldn't do this or why adobe should never make this a feature. I am not attempting to analyze unnecessary data. There are times where a large group of shots are shaky from a windy day or just a bad assistant. I go in, make my selections, and then am left with a sequence of all the shots I hope to be usable. I would like to know if anyone has a workflow for this that doesn't involve doing it one at a time.
Nesting the entire sequence of clips and analyzing that would result in the most unusable disaster of a shot and a prompt that would say that warp can not be applied to the clip. You have to understand how these effects work to know what I mean, but trust me on it. If only it were that simple and easy.
And I'm a big boy. I don't need to be told why its a bad idea to analyze a bunch of clips. I pick all the shaky shots that I hope to see fixed and am looking for a way to put WS on all of those. The memory implications and file size issues are fully understood and I appreciate your "concern" for me over this issue.
I don't need to hear about the philosophies of how or why this feature should or should not exist
Yes, you do need, 'cos it's namely you who is arguing this feature should be implemented by all means.
I am not attempting to analyse unnecessary data
Yes, you are, since you're attempting to analyse whole footages in Project panel instead of particular clips in the timeline. In the timeline you are not prohibited from applying Warp Stabilizer onto as much clips as you want (and your spec allows) and leaving Warp Stabilizer running analysis phase overnight.
I am editing this topic to remove posts and content that are too personal and/or aggressive in nature. Please stick to debating the merits of the feature request and keep the nastiness out of it.
What about if you've applied the Warp Stabilizer effect to, say, 15 clips in a sequence and you want Premiere to Analyze them all, but you don't want to manually tell it to analyze 3 at a time (currently, it makes me go to each clip and click Analyze), you'd rather have Premiere analyze one clip after another until they're all analyzed (e.g., so you could leave it going overnight, say)?
Is there a way, in that sense, to set it to batch analyze? Telling Premiere to Render Effects In to Out doesn't seem to do this as it seems to think it's still missing that integral "Analyze" click.
I also fear putting all of the clips that require stabilization into one sequence and then adding the Warp Stabilizer to that because I reason that different clips require different degrees of stabilization and I don't want a relatively steady start of one clip affected by the shaky footage from the end of the clip that precedes it. Is that fair or am I crazy to think that?
Notes: I'm running Premiere Pro CC 2014. I responded to this topic instead of creating a new one because it was related and is the top result when searching for my question on Google using a bunch of different phrasings, hoping to help others like me--apologies if that isn't proper forum etiquette.
I completely agree with the OP about asking for a solution to this issue and getting none except snarky retorts and jabs about being wrong for asking the question in the first place.
While the replies are accurate (I suppose...) they don't help solve the fundamental problem the poster has asked help with.
The worst response anyone can give in these forums is - don't even bother. It really discourages anyone from using this resource or contributing to the community in the future.
I came to this thread looking for an answer to the same problem and Ste777 outlines the reason for this question perfectly.
When I rendered out a long wedding recently I was horrified to find a bunch of Blue Banner error messages across multiple clips because I had either forgot to analyze the clip - or the analysis had stopped itself automatically - or that analysis data went out the window when I reopened the project - OR maybe I changed a transition and now there was more "frames to analyze".
I was very lucky that I review the work before showing it to clients, but it just sucked 30 minutes to an hour of extra time hunting and pecking for clips in my long multicam sequence to analyze - repetitively even because the analysis sometimes doesn't continue to completion for no reason.
Not a stupid question at all, a very necessary feature if you ask me to allow Adobe to keep its current market advantage over Apple's FCP X blunders, and one I hope someone will fix - especially the original poster with their coding skills!
Geez. What is worse Jeff? Retarded, half-baked answers about a half-baked module in Premiere or snarkiness?
Personally, I'd rather someone was nasty and called me names, but answered the actual question.
This is still a problem in 2015. And since CS6 appears to be the last real version of Production Premium and I'm not budgeted for Master Collection/CC subscription pricing BS, from where I stand, this problem needs to be addressed.
I have a sequence that has an A-Roll talking head main line in 74 different segments/clips. I have shot many videos like this, but for some reason, today, my camera decided to lose control of its IS while on tripod and the image drifts all over the place. No problem, easily fixed with warp stabilizer right? Yeah, sure, no problem. Oh, but you need to click analyze for every single individual clip. And you have to wait until each clip has finished analyzing to begin the next one. WTF?
Why is there no way to just say "ok, analyze everything" and go do something else? Why do I have to sit on my butt and babysit my computer to analyze every single thing sequentially? That's Windows Movie Maker level performance.
Absolutely this is Adobe's responsibility to keep up with the curve. I'm getting so tired of people on these forums just making excuses for Adobe's mistakes and incompetence.
I've paid quite a lot of money for Adobe software and just because I refuse to chain my wallet to paying for CC does not mean that I - or anyone else - should have to settle for amateur "features".
The OP's question is not at all a stupid question. In fact, it's the most obvious question to anyone who is using this program. Why it would even render out with blue bars on the clip (yep, it's happened to me too) instead of just doing the analyze during the render in Media Encoder is beyond my understanding.
I wish I had better answers for you than what's been posted in this thread already, but I don't. WS isn't what it could or even should be. But if you work within its limitations, which are very real and annoying to many, it produces excellent results.
There is a very slim chance that WS will be fixed for CS6. But I would say that chance is about as close to zero as you can get without saying, "never". It may be fixed for CC going forward, but that will likely take a Herculean effort by a huge number of users filing feature requests. Selective background analysis from the Project panel, like can be done with Interpret Footage, would be a great feature. So would a safety net that won't allow export with un-analyzed footage. Neither you nor I can speed the adoption of such features/fixes by ourselves, but the user community as a whole could do it by flooding Adobe with feature requests. It all depends on how important it is to the community.
If you are at all interested in third-party stabilization solutions, pro-DAD Mercalli v4 can do batch processing. They have a trial version available. I'm pretty sure you don't want to spend any more money on this, but I included the info just in case.
Yeah, in the end, I just left the IS image drift in the video. I lost 2 hrs of productivity today because of WS. First because it was taking forever to do one clip at a time while doing other editing, then because it kept hitting parts of clips that would cause the stabilizer to crash and for some reason, it was tracking my subject's hand and shaking everything all over the damned place. +1 for Adobe. So far, in my experience, WS does a good job in roughly 30% of the times I need it. That's pretty underwhelming and is pushing me towards trying to find another NLE.
Also, I do understand that there is a very slim chance that CS6 will ever be updated, however, I will never pay Adobe for CC unless they unveil some level of perpetual licensing, so it's kind of moot. At this point, I'm considering selling my legitimate copies to try to get my money back out of it and just switch back to pirating. I've been voting with my wallet ever since the disaster that is CC descended upon Adobedom, but I guess they don't give a damn. Doesn't matter to me. I paid good money for what I bought and I expect it to work properly. When it doesn't, it gets me angry and makes me want to go to a different platform. And find a way to get the money I paid back out of Adobe's pocket for giving poor support to expensive product.
Eventually, I'll move on to something else. I also have a fully updated legitimate copy of Vegas Pro 13 which I paid for simply because they didn't go with a subscription payment service. I get a lot of crashes on my system using Vegas, but I'm hoping to switch to a new system this autumn, so who knows. Between features not working very well
As to paying money, no, I'm certainly willing to pay money. I have budgeted around $500 USD per year for software at this point and $800/yr for camera gear for the past 5 years. Of which, $225/yr was going towards my upgrade path for CS5.5 and CS6... and CS7... Sony got that money last year. That also goes towards plugins for my audio workflow as well. If Adobe wants to be part of my budget again, they are going to have to start offering value instead of a leash around my neck.
I'll also be looking into Hitfilm in the near future as well. Adobe had better pick up its pants and stop trying to screw us freelancers in the dank. Better, cheaper solutions are on the horizon and Adobe has certainly been working overtime to sour customer relations.
[...] I will never pay Adobe for CC unless they unveil some level of perpetual licensing, so it's kind of moot. [...] I've been voting with my wallet ever since the disaster that is CC descended upon Adobedom, but I guess they don't give a damn. [...] As to paying money, no, I'm certainly willing to pay money. I have budgeted around $500 USD per year for software at this point and $800/yr for camera gear for the past 5 years. Of which, $225/yr was going towards my upgrade path for CS5.5 and CS6... and CS7... Sony got that money last year
Hey, eschelar, not to go off-topic here, but to quickly argue in defence of CC--I was paying for CS licenses in the past and if you were a Master Collection user (the equivalent of a CC license now), the CC route is much cheaper than upgrading your license even every second major release in the past. Although I do concede that this logic only works if you plan on continuing to upgrade...
Back on topic--this still bugs me. I think I will submit a feature request formally today, to Jeff's point.
Yeah, I know, Adobe CC is really good for companies who buy seats of Master Collection and have a policy of keeping their software up to date. And it's good for literally *nobody* else.
If a company like that goes under, it has no need of project files. If you're an individual, not a company and your circumstances change so you can no longer budget for $600/yr for software that contains a bunch of stuff you don't actually need, you lose access to your project files. I would lose access to my XML work in ACR for 2500 pictures plus an hour or so of edited video for my sister's week long island wedding retreat. I would lose access to 75,000 pictures taken over the past 8 years that I've been using PSD format. I would lose access to my portfolio of work-related content, including 9TB of video footage and video projects. That's especially useful if I, as an individual, were to have to change jobs and start handing out resumes and couldn't access my own portfolio. But it's not about me, I know *hundreds* of other freelancers, even small businesses that simply cannot afford the jump to CC. Especially small video production companies and AI users and specialists. In fact, of all the professionals I know (I'm picky who I add to my networks and it's currently 324 people in places like Taiwan, Japan, HK, China, Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton, Toronto, the UK, Johannesberg, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, Seattle, California and Texas), I'd say that less than 5% of them are in a position to use the subscription model that makes sense over a span of a 25 year career. Many of them, like you, don't realize it yet, largely because you are probably thinking about the next 1-2 years, but believe me, the vast majority of those people are going to be hating life because of Adobe's subscription model at some point over the next 25 years.
The only people that CC is good for are people who are unable to plan beyond 5 years or expect to be dead around the same time that they stop using Adobe (ie a business). I've been using Adobe for 11 years or so. Planning beyond 5 years is not difficult for me.
And even for companies... Loads of printing companies around this part the world (Asia) that typically upgrade every 3 versions or so. The printing world right now is much more competitive here than it is in the West.
Plus there's all those Suite users (ie me), who were paying $375/yr or $250/yr if doing every other upgrade (ie me), plus the fact that if you're a freelancer or if you get sick or you have to ratify a budget with a boss for software costs for a year, you're basically screwed. Or if your career takes a slightly different path and you no longer use Adobe at work and keep a personal copy to work on personal projects. In my case, I work for a company and I use Master Collection at work. And I have a personal copy of Production Premium too. No way in hell I'm going to start paying 2-3x more for software for my personal use and freelance work just because Adobe thinks they want more money for less relevant updates and think they can get away with holding my project files ransom.
Granted, I can open .prproj files with Vegas, which isn't a subscription model...
I completely agree with these sentiments. Even if there is no "Stabilize All" or "Analyze All" or if the rendering takes a week and a terabyte, I want the renderer to warn me "Not all clips have been Analyze - do you want me to Analyze remaining or Skip analysis?" I fail to see how a blue banner in the output file will make either rushed or perfectionist editors happy. Extra aggravating is that you can go through and click "Analyze" on several clips without any warnings and only later find that they have stopped Analysis mid clip. If Adobe thinks this is a good implementation, I want them to provide free button clickers that come to my computer and click "Analyze" on one clip after another. I'll provide a comfy chair. Thanks for the ProDAD suggestions - may provide relief for the surely miniscule minority of editors that find themselves with several shaky clips in their timeline and have other things to do than babysit the analysis process.
I agree with 1johnricca this should have been a feature long ago - wether or not people choose to use it is up to them, but why hasn't anything been implemented? It seems this topic has been open and the requested feature submitted formally several times.
The decision process, within the Adobe programs as far as the user-base can see, is only partly driven by the program teams themselves. I've met most of the people involved with the back end of PrPro and SpeedGrade, and several other folks, at NAB in Vegas the last couple years. Every one of them does their own professional editing/grading work besides working for Adobe ... so they're heavy users of this stuff themselves. And rather nice people also.
But they're not the ones who call the shot for what bugs & features get included in each "cycle" ... there are people up above the teams who are tasked with studying the tabulated list of bug & feature reports to parse out how much of which section of the user base is affected; ... with doing market-research analyzation for what new features would get the most "buzz" or interest; ... and with determining the list of things that are worked on by the teams.
To get allocated budget, something has to be either way up the bug or feature report list, or catch the fancy of the marketing team. And then throw in that some "UI features" are decided even higher than that, that X programs across these areas all have to have the same color scheme or whatever ... at which point (unfortunately) the users of one program who intensely dislike the 'new' look of their program are cast against the users of a different program who love the new look.
Among the features talked about over the last three years of "this" topic, this issue has a very small request rate here on the forum. Would it be a useful feature? For some, yes. So, among many other things, ideally I'd like to see this implemented. For many editors, WS is a rarely used tool. For them, they'd rather have say a UI return to the "gold" text color by a long way. That's just Life ... your necessary tool isn't even involved in this other editor's tool kit. And what another needs you both look at and complain no one needs that more than you need your tools fixed. The arguments we've had here ... driven by being different humans with different ideas and needs.
Whoever it is that is making the decisions at Adobe these days is entirely out of touch with a good half of their customer base.
I stopped recommending Adobe for video editing over a year ago, with a policy of "only if you have no other options available". In my case, I am Adobe-heavy on my workflow, so I still use it, but every day I use Premiere, my desire to switch back or maybe even try out some other new NLE's grows.
Honestly, CC marked a major downturn for Adobe obviously in pricing, but the bigger concern here is that without those iterative releases, many problems are just not getting dealt with or even looked at. It's all just one big endless stream of moving sideways, then moving back. I don't use CC, but 99% of the problems I have had with CC are exactly the same for CS6 as they are with current CC versions. This means that problems that existed 3 years ago are still there. It also means that quality decisions to make sensible improvements to things are becoming rare. Look at what they did to the forums. Sometimes it works OK, other times, it throws in unexpected extra lines and moves your cursor up a line or two... The decision to set this up cannot be motivated by a desire to make it work better - especially if the result is that it works worse and then leaves the "fix" queue because not enough people are complaining.
And once these decisions start happening more regularly, the type of person who reports these things starts to care less because they are less emotionally invested in the product. If I care less about Adobe and have less faith that they will behave responsibly with the information I provide, I'm very unlikely to put the time into creating a quality bug report. Or any bug report at all for that matter. This means that the quantity *and the quality* of bug reports will start to decrease. People who care and understand how things work will be less motivated to share their thoughts.
This shows that the system of "how many people are asking for it" as opposed to "is this a sensible/beneficial feature" is not well balanced. If Adobe isn't trying to make upgrades to make the product better, it's just trying to satisfy their most vocal customers and/or maximize profits. While that's a decent strategy for the short term, it just pisses off long term users (I've been an Adobe user for around 13 years and my satisfaction has dropped to an all-time low. 5 years ago, I started pushing everyone I know to stop pirating and "go legit", because this supports the company and keeps the give-take between the company and the customers happy. I no longer recommend this and since CC, I actively encourage people to not pay for Adobe software, preferably to just use CS6 - although most of them don't understand why they should have to pay full price for software that already hit its upgrade cycle 3 years ago. I have taught workshops at Universities at beginner and intermediate levels and I'd guess there's probably a good couple hundred students that I've recommended to not move to CC. For those students, the most sensible option for them is to pirate.
And my general impression is that 4-5 years ago, most discussions revolved around individual bugs and quirks of behavior (my product is broken). A far higher number of threads on the Adobe communities are now discussing problems that are systemic (my product doesn't work right/logically and still hasn't been fixed after years), resulting from a change in the way Adobe behaves towards their customers. This topic being a perfect example of that.
Products like Photoshop Touch - which had a good start, but was almost immediately dropped with several serious flaws and deficiencies and never "touched" again for 2 years until it was killed off - becoming the rather lackluster (and CC subscription requiring) LR Touch, which offers no significant benefit over previous iterations or any other software out there. It's a step sideways rather than a step forward and at the cost of good quality software with strong potential.
This is a disturbing pattern and it's happening for all Adobe software.
FWIW, I now use Mercalli for stabilization. There's even a decent workflow for doing in-place replace of footage if you have a timeline already built by holding alt (or is it ctrl?) when dragging footage in from the Source monitor.
Understand. I'd add they haven't moved SpeedGrade forward since adding the new scopes and Direct Link back in the original CC or first CC2014. In some ways, it's feeling like it's gone backwards. Worries me. The new color workspace porting a fair amount of Sg's color science/controls into PrPro is in all a good thing, but parts of it aren't working exactly right (just filed bugs on the sat control bending the color left around the wheel and distorting a narrow "spike" of color into a wider diffused color mush) ... and they haven't done anything at all to announce in 2015 or the next partial-upgrade release either, as they've announced what changes are coming an nothing is slated for Sg.
The new color workspace in PrPro does mean a lot of basic work is easy enough to do it there & quickly, with a vastly better UI than say the three-way or fast color correctors ... to me, those are sick. Though they can be made to work. But that workspace is nowhere near the equivalent of a full grading program.