This content has been marked as final. Show 11 replies
No problems. Maybe give more details.
Frame hold works correctly on my computer. Sorry to ask but have you checked the small square to the left of frame hold? If so you may try to set a marker 0 (using the "Marker" command at the top) and hold on that.
Thanks for the repies.
Harm, unfortunately, not many more details to give. I click the "hold on" box and select "in point", "out point" or "marker 0" (after selecting a marker), and the video keeps playing. This is the same thing I've done on every previous version of Premiere.
Pierre, You got me thinking... I tried clicking the other boxes, and viola! Clicking the "deinterlace" box forces the timeline to briefely render, and then it works OK. It seems that forcing a render of the held frames makes it work.
I have a Matrox RTX2 RT video card, so maybe it has something to do with that.
If you click only the "hold on" box does it still work for you, or do you have to click the "deinterlace" box also?
If I shot interlaced, I never de-interlace and halve my vertical resolution as a consequence. It is not necessary for frame hold. If that solves your problem, it is a temporary solution and sub-optimal, normally nor required. You have to investigate further what could cause this. It might be the Matrox drivers and the notorious field inversion that accompanies the Matrox.
Harm, You are right that the quality suffers, when clicking the de-interlace box. It is so bad, I would have to dissolve to the held frame to avoid an obvious cut, as it looks so fuzzy by comparison.
Unfortunately, I have to get this project done, so I don't have time to track down the cause right now. These tools should be mature enough by now that I shouldn't really have to-- especially as I bought the EXACT system that Matrox certified as compatible with RTX2 on their website. Sigh, Oh well, back in the real world...
I just exported a still frame and used that instead (like maybe Premiere version 1?). The only other work-around I can think of would be to tag out the shot, as I have a couple of seconds where nothing is changing. Four or five copies of this short clip would also work.
If I find too many more little surprises with CS3/Matrox I may just go back to Premiere Pro 2 and wait for updated drivers from Matrox.
Thanks again for the reply.
Ok, so I decided to take an editing break and search the Matrox forum for "frame hold" issues with CS3, as it was just too irritating. Up pops a bunch of posts regarding this problem.
Buried deep within the project settings / general / advanced / playback menu, on one of the Matrox hardware tabs there is a check box for enable frame hold.
Not sure what Rhodes scholar at Matrox thought it would be a good idea to have this turned off by default. Not even sure if it was a setting in CS2, but on by default, or if they just decided to add this wonderful new "feature" in the CS3 drivers.
Anyway, thanks again for the replies.
Can someone tell me the advantage of using matrox?
In theory much of the video processing is offloaded onto the Matrox video subsystem, thus allowing more effects and layers to play back in realtime with out rendering. This is especially if you are working with uncompressed video. Also they provide hardware for analog capture and output, including driving a separate TV monitor for your video program output. You can also have simultaneous output via Matrox's firewire, as well as the analog. Finally, the compression to supported [SD] codecs like DV, DVCam, DVCPro and MPEG2, is hardware accelerated so you usually get very fast rendering/export-- realtime or better-- sometimes for similar codecs (like MSDV and Sony DVCam) it is as fast as saving a copy of a video file to disk, or many times faster than realtime. I read a while back about an issue with real-time accelerated export to HD formats not being fully supported yet. However, I'm still doing most stuff in SD for DVD, so it has not been a problem for me yet. A last handy feature is drivers for output to the TV monitor from other programs like Photoshop, After Effects, and Lightwave. The RTX100 would also send video from Windows Media Player to the TV monitor. However it seems like the RTX2 no longer does this.
I say "in theory", because as the computers get faster and faster you will need cards like the matrox less and less. Yet even with a newer highend workstation, I think cards like the Matrox still provide performance boost and time savings in a lot of ways.
I can capture analog and output thru my camera realtime, and also use it to feed to a tv monitor. as for the render times, I don't have a problem with that. From all the post I have read here, albeit, I probably only hear about the problems, I get the impression I am better off without it. But to each his own.
Phil, sometimes simple is way less headaches. You are right that you can do everything with just Premiere, especially if you are working pretty much alone, and offline with a single camera.
The limitations only really surface in a big way when you try to use Premiere for online editing (customer present who is paying by the hour). Every time the "rendering" message appears, however briefly, they tend to get more and more irritable. This is magnified even more with multiple cameras, as the footage pretty much all needs color correction-- very render-intensive with only Premiere's built in effects. Also, if someone else needs to be shooting with your camera while you are editing, you loose your program monitor and some of your functionality-- maybe never a problem for you-- but a limitation nonetheless. Finally if you have a really expensive camera, it is a lot of hours and heat-wear on the powersupply to leave it on to serve as a DA/AD/DV converter, especially just to drive a program monitor. Much cheaper in the long-run to use a card for this.
If only the Matrox cards came with benefits and no drawbacks. For me, the drawbacks got to overwhelm the benefits when Premiere turned Pro.