You did this backwards. You should have nested first, then cut up the nests, instead of the originals. Then when you're done, go back to the original clips and apply CC there.
Thanks for responding. This is not a solution to what what I'm asking though.
With your workflow switch I would still end up with a sequence that is not condusive to editing, because as suggested your nests would now be reflecting affected footage from the CC applied to the original clips. So in this scenario the sequence I'm editing, with the proposed newly nested clips, would crawl depending on what effects I applied to the orginals its made from.
As mentioned "the goal is to always be able to edit the tracks of stacked raw clips together in a single sequence" - because thats most condusive to editing (no color correcting/grading has been applied to them yet) - and have those edits I'm doing to the low intensity original footage be reflected in a separate sequence down the line that has all the effects piled on.
But again the catch is all of the individual tracks from the sequence cant be lumped together - they have to be kept separate - and then again stacked in their own sequence to (a) recieve effects and (b) reflect new edits from its master. So each track from the sequence where I did my edits needs a different type of color correcting. Each track in that master sequence contains original footage from a separate shoot/camera angle to build the scene from (and each accordingly needs its own CC). And I may need to go back and slide clips around on that original track.
with the proposed newly nested clips, would crawl depending on what effects I applied to the orginal
That's why you edit first and apply effects later.
and have those edits I'm doing to the low intensity original footage be reflected in a separate sequence down the line that has all the effects piled on.
It just doesn't work that way. It works the other way. Effects on originals (after editing), and edit the nests. This is the only way you'll get what you're after. You can always turn off those effects if they get in the way of further editing.
That's why you edit first and apply effects later.
Yep. Wouldn't approach any other way. The core issue of my post here is of course one's first edit is never their last. And when I go back and edit those originals - and say adjust a clips length - I want those moves to be reflected in a subsequent nested sequences length which has the effects applied.
This is the only way you'll get what you're after.
It might be helpful to state that I can and do get what I'm after all the time on a singular level. I create Sequence B by nesting a track of clips on Sequence A, edit the length of one clip on the orgianl un-effected track in Sequence A and then that newly edited length of that orignal clip is indeed automatically reflected over on Sequence B (where I happen to have effects applied).
Where this breaks down for me is when I want to have Sequence A (several tracks of clips) transform into a Sequence B that has corresponding "tracks" to Sequence A - instead of a single track. As of now I can edit 10 tracks of clips on an original sequence with no effects and have those edits reflected in a "single" nested sequence track - but - I want to have each original track in a sequence have its own mirrored track in another multi-track sequence. This is where I'm running into my workflow issue.
and edit the nests.
A nest no longer has the slices and gaps - so I can no longer "edit" it (only apply effects).
You can always turn off those effects if they get in the way of further editing.
If this is really the answer - and people are turning off effects to edit their clips and then turning them back on - constantly across multiple tracks and individual clips - on say a short film - then I guess I'll concede to this concept. It's just the fact that I can get the workflow I'm after (re-editing my original clips and having those edits reflected in a subsequent nested sequence) if I dont mind all of my tracks of clips being merged into one track for effect application, so I keep assuming there must be a way to get a 1 track to 1 track relationship between a parent and a nested sequence somehow.
I'm still hopeful that I am either not explaining what I am after well enough - or missing something simple - or both.
I can get the workflow I'm after (re-editing my original clips and having those edits reflected in a subsequent nested sequence) if I dont mind all of my tracks of clips being merged into one track for effect application
Exactly. To get the 'cuts' and still be able to apply effects to the entire track, you do things as suggested. It's very similar to a multicam work flow, except that you have each of the original clips in it's own separate sequence, instead of all synced into one sequence. But the concept of editing the nests instead of the originals is the same.
And yes, if an effect is slowing things down, I'll turn it off until I'm ready for export.
I genuinely appreciate your engagement on this - thanks again.
First making nests of my original footage and then chopping those up makes no difference – I still have to then nest each of those nested tracks into an individual sequence – so I can color correct them separately/differently – and then I end up back in the same place. Going back and editing the 2nd generation nests does not alter the edits within the 3rd generation nests that are color corrected.
I can’t get the edited/chopped up bits back above one another on to tracks where I can slide them around and have those moves reflected in subsequent effect laden nests of themselves.
I’m still quite puzzled by this and think I may research all the different workflows people are using out there to see if a clue is inadvertently dropped to my particular conundrum. It's also interesting that I have never run into this issue before simply because I was always editing clips that were from the same interior shoot or same location/time of day exterior and all had a consistent look. With my latest project I'm having the need to color correct say 4 tracks of clips individually instead of nesting them and color correcting them as one... and its made re-editing the original clips a bit of a nightmare as I'm failing misrebly at explaining in detail.
My workaround/flow for now (and this may shed some much needed light on what I’m after) I keep one sequence of my raw original footage all edited and cut on separate stacked tracks as is my dream. Then I make a second version/copy of this sequence strictly to nest each track out. This leaves me with a new sequence of merged solid tracks for color correcting – and it created 4 new source sequences (if you will) of their cut and edited clips on a single track (oh how I wish I could get these now individualized sequences to stack up again in their “cut” format). When I need to make an edit I go to the original sequence of raw footage and dial it in just right – then I actually in-line copy the track(s) where I made changes and go over to those new individualized sequences of clips (that formed when I merged them to make the solid nests for color correction) and paste the clips (once correctly aligned) over the old ones. This does influence the subsequent CC clips as desired. Issue is the same though – I can’t edit the clips on their individualized sequences because I’m editing in a vacuum and can’t see their relationship to the other clips (which used to be stacked below them). Still seems like the long way around somehow… but we’ll see what some workflow R&D digs up.
1 person found this helpful
I still have to then nest each of those nested tracks into an individual sequence – so I can color correct them separately/differently
No you don't. You just go back to the sequence with the clip and add the effects there.
Just in case I'm not saying it correctly, here's a step by step of what I mean.
Add Clip A to Sequence 1.
Add Clip B to Sequence 2.
Add Clip C to Sequence 3.
Nest sequences 1, 2 and 3 into a Master Sequence. Edit there.
When you're done, go back to sequence 1 and add the effects to clip A. Those effects will show up on every instance of sequence 1 (clip A) used in the Master sequence. And you retain the ability to refine the edits in the Master sequence.
I won't know with full certainty until I put this in practice... but at a glance this "diagram" just shed an incredible amount of light on my workflow of darkness (a textual picture is worth a thousand words?).
Sadly, as soon as I throw noise reduction or unsharp mask on one of the original clips I wont be able to watch/edit that master sequence smoothly - so I think I just need to give up on my quest for having a raw footage master sequence to edit with that remains effect free and always influences subsequent sequences that do have the effects on them - and just go with this flow you are outlining - because this way I at least retain the ability to refine edits in "stacked" tracks of clips. I'll just have to accept the fact that when its time to refine the master edit I'll need to go dig up the original clips and turn stuff off (and then remember to turn them on again before rendering - and on and on).
All this to say that what you've outlined here could be best case for what I'm after - thanks much for clarifying.
Now you're getting it.
So I'm thinking the new ability to add effects to the same clip in two different places (master (source) and timeline) may do away with the need to create the mirrored sequences as we discussed here so long ago, and as I have been using ever since.
In case you are unfamiliar - you can add effects to a clip in the bin, and also on the timeline, the same clip of footage, but it sort of tracks and respects them as coming from two different places. So effects added to the clip in the bin affect every instance of that footage throughout the timeline - while effects added on the clip in the timeline only affect that single instance of it.
I have not followed the entire thread but for this objective..
Now I’d like to turn each track (of chopped video) within this master sequence into it's own new sequence so I can color correct the track of clips individually (each track is a different shot and requires its own color correcting).
Duplicate the original Sequence as many times as you have tracks.
Name them appropriately and delete the redundant tracks respectively.
What version of PPro are you using?
I just jumped on to say that I think the recent ability to add two separate and distinct sets of effects to the same clip may do away with the previously discussed workflow... and hoping to pick his brain.