I don't see the reason why it's not working. It's simple DIVX video with MP2 audio.
That second sentence is very likely the reason it's not working. You're trying to use consumer video meant for final viewing as source media in a professional editor. This approach often doesn't work. General wisdom is to simply not do that. For such media, a consumer editor is your better bet. VideoHelp.com may be a good resource for help locate one.
I hate that answer so much. You guys here even say that for DIVX now? No wonder I got so many answers like that when it came to MKV and h264. I'm not even going to get into that. That's just a ridiculous statement, sorry. If you don't know why it's not working, then don't reply at all or say just that. A reply like that just gets me angry, especially because if I reply to that answer as if I heard that for the first time, it would be a non-ending convo. In fact Jim Simon, I think it was in fact you that I had this conversation with earlier.
You guys here even say that for DIVX now?
We've been saying that about Divx for years; it's nothing new. Like it or not, using Divx as source just isn't a good idea, and is very likely the source of your troubles.
Well ok, ok. Looking beyond the confined view of DIVX = problem, it worked earlier, and so do the many other DIVX source videos I imported into Premiere. What in the video, that I linked everyone to, is Premiere not liking?
What am I expected to do, buy and/or record every piece of media I want to edit? Most footage I'd want to edit is here on my hard drive, downloaded off the internet. Most of these videos are DIVX and XVID. Most edited media is from these sources. This is a very unreasonable expectation/limit (which technically isn't really a limit since it supports DIVX..
What am I expected to do, buy and/or record every piece of media I want to edit?
Using Premiere, yes. Consumer editors are the better choice for your intended media. (Or conversion before hand to something more suitable for editing.)
This is a very unreasonable expectation/limit (which technically isn't really a limit since it supports DIVX
I find it quite reasonable for a professional level NLE to support only more professional media sources. (And Divx isn't one of them. That it can export to a format does not mean it has support for editing that format.)
You use the word "Professional" as if it has any effect on why Premiere shouldn't have to support DivX, XVID, etc.. Photoshop is also professional but would you make that same argument about JPG support?
The only rationale of the statement that Consumer editors would be a better choice for me is because they are "non-professional editors" that are "meant" to support things like the DIVX codec. I use Premiere because it's better than most editors and I've grown accustomed to using it. There is no "wrong way" to use a program, especially when the specific wrong way being referenced works perfectly fine.
There is no difference between these editors besides the title you're giving it and the capabilities of the program. That's like telling me to use Paint instead of Photoshop because Photoshop isn't meant to edit whatever it is I'm editing.
I want to edit some videos. Adobe Premiere EDITS videos. What I can be doing could be more professional than the reason you could be editing from your recorded/purchased material. Just because I'm using a DIVX encoded file doesn't make it any less "professional".
You can easily swap out the phrase "standard camera formats" for the word "professional" if you like. It's just a way of getting across the idea that unlike Photoshop, Premiere is limited in the formats that it works well with. Folks who try using other formats often do have issues. The best solution is to simply not use those formats. Either try a consumer editor, or convert the media to camera standard formats like DV or DVCPRO HD.
Why?... That really makes no sense.
What Doesn't Make Sense:
1) Unlike how you say, I haven't had any problems with DIVX or XVID until now with this specific video, in this specific version of Adobe Premiere
2) Why would such a massive program with such massive editing capabilities with such massive money spent on for development be created for such restricted uses?
3) Most people I know do not use Adobe Premiere for these purposes only. Have you ever heard of an AMV? Have you ever seen one? Have you ever seen how large a community with people who make AMVs is? Have you seen how many of them use Premiere for purposes that are "unprofessional"?
4) Maybe it does say it somewhere but.. where does it say by Adobe that Premiere is meant for standard camera format purposes only?
5) Why would these other formats not work well with Premiere or any other editing software for that matter? The only reason would be if it was purposely programmed in such a way for some pertinent reason (like if the program was made specifically for a certain company that needed it for standard camera format editing only, in other words, NOT for the general public).
6) Even if there's a problem with those formats, as with the file that wasn't working, AviSynth resolved the issue perfectly. There aren't any problems at all with the playback of the video in Premiere.
1. Then you're lucky. Many people have had issues with those kinds of videos is versions prior to CS4. Bottom line here is that behavior with such files is unpredictable. They may work, they may not. You just never know.
2. You'd have to ask the programmers about that.
3. OK. Not sure what this changes, though.
4. " native editing support for DV, HDV, Sony XDCAM, XDCAM EX, XDCAM HD, Panasonic P2, and AVCHD."
5. For technical reasons regarding the compression used.
6. If that works for these files, fine.
Alright. But, are you starting to see my point? It's not unreasonable to hate an answer like the one you gave where you just say "You're trying to use consumer video meant for final viewing as source media in a professional editor".
Plus, that statement by adobe means nothing. My HDTV has a native resolution of 1366x768. Does that mean that all other resolutions should be viewed in such a way as DIVX/XVID for Premiere. Just one example...
I know what you're trying to say though. In the future, maybe phrase it differently although this is obvious. Whoever encoded/converted to DIVX or XVID could've done it improperly and there could be problems with human input such as this. For that reason, there can be problems with those files which then cause problems in Adobe Premiere. Standard camera formats which it natively supports don't have human error factored into them besides maybe ripping if it's on a disc. My original question here was what human inconsistency in the creation of that DIVX file is Premiere CS4 not liking? As I've pointed out, it's not unreasonable at all to work with these kind of files in Premiere and that's why that question is fair game.
As I've pointed out, it's not unreasonable at all to work with these kind of files in Premiere
I couldn't disagree more.
I understand that terms like "professional" and "consumer" these days tend to carry connotations that can easily offend someone's sensibilities, but the essential idea behind that distinction is quite valid.
Many so-called "professionals" these days are forced by what their clients provide to use less-than-optimum editing codecs. The smartest and most capable of those individuals use whatever tools are necessary to make that questionable footage editable in Pr and other NLE applications.
The smartest and most capable "consumers" do the exact same thing for the exact same reasons.
Being a "consumer" doesn't mean you have less skill and artistic vision than a "professional". All it means is that you are (most likely) earning less money for your video productions than a professional is. It also usually indicates that your equipment and software budget isn't as high or as flexible as a professional's. However, that isn't always true - ask Harm.
When cameras with rugged durability and top-shelf optics start recording to DivX on removable media, then I may consider DivX a usable source codec. Until then, it's a delivery format, and it must be converted to something else before good things will happen in the edit bay.
As I've pointed out, it's not unreasonable at all to work with these kind of files in Premiere and that's why that question is fair game.
That is about the same as saying that using a hammer to press oranges is not unreasonable and why some consider it a wrong approach.
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. I took no offense to the professional vs. consumer distinction. It wasn't a factor that sparked my argument.
I didn't want to say anything past my original reply because I've been through this before on this forum. Obviously this belief is shared by most people here for obvious reasons...
In any case, as you just said yourself, even "professionals" are forced to use "less-than-optium" editing codecs. The only tools necessary to get around any possible setbacks is AviSynth.
Also, I believe there are already cameras that record to the DivX codec. Maybe not rugged durability and top-shelf optics but still. The reason DivX or XVID will never be used is for one reason only. They cannot produce the necessary visual quality. However, I don't see why H264 cannot be used. Maybe it's too slow or maybe it's already used, dunno.. It's besides the point however. Let's not get too picky with my next statement but basically, the only major difference between these standard camera formats and DIVX is compression. Every frame is capable of having less bytes per frame for a suitable quality representation. Of course there are flaws with such codecs - QUALITY flaws, but other than that, each frame is just as capable of being separated, edited, and rendered.. If used properly when encoding (basically using the codec in it's pure form without the influence of some program), there's no reason to feel that the codecs are problematic or just simply shouldn't be acceptable for editing.
"Consumer programs" are no different than what Premiere is apparently only meant for. If a problem is mentioned upon the import of a certain file with one of these codecs, it is just as likely to be a problem in another program. The problem isn't in the codec but in the way the file was created USING that codec. So again, even without "correcting" the file, it's not unreasonable at all to work with these kind of files in Premiere.
@Harm, I don't see how that's the same at all. A hammer is a tool for forcing one object into another. It's not meant for pressing oranges. Premiere however is meant for editing videos. What would make your statement true is if these codecs weren't videos that are even capable of being played back on most devices today. These so-called unacceptable videos are just as easily dissectible as the glorious standard camera formats if not more easily.
Alright. But, are you starting to see my point?
I've been seeing your point for a few years now. It pretty much always comes from those who do not have a proper education in video production, and hence try to do things a professional knows either won't work, or knows a better way to do it. I won't say that applies to you, but it's a fair summary of past posts in this subject.
My HDTV has a native resolution of 1366x768. Does that mean that all other resolutions should be viewed in such a way
Well, yes. That's exactly what it means. Every signal you feed that television, no matter what it started out as, get's converted to the native resolution of the screen to make it work. The difference here is that with the TV, conversion is done automatically. With Premiere, you have to do the conversion first using a different program. I generally use VirtualDub for my conversions.
My original question here was what human inconsistency in the creation of that DIVX file is Premiere CS4 not liking?
There's just no way to know, which is why the recommendation is to simply not use them. (Or convert them first.)
As I've pointed out, it's not unreasonable at all to work with these kind of files in Premiere and that's why that question is fair game.
Like Jeff, I heartily disagree. There are just too many consumer delivery formats for a pro level NLE that edits everything natively to keep up with. As a professional, I'd very much prefer Premiere just does the pro stuff extremely well, and leave the consumer support for the consumer programs.
The problem isn't in the codec but in the way the file was created USING that codec.
Not necessarily. If the NLE wasn't programmed to work with a specific codec, if it can't decode the video or audio file correctly and consistently, then you will likely have issues using those files, even if they were created perfectly. For example, Premiere Pro 1.0 cannot work with HDV media (even though it actually is a standard camera format) simply because it was not programmed to do so. VirtualDub (in it's original version) cannot work with any type of MPEG file, simply because it wasn't designed to do so.
It very much can be (and often is) the codec that's causing the issues, even if there's nothing technically wrong with the file.
"Consumer programs" are no different than what Premiere is apparently only meant for.
Actually they are. The critical difference is that consumer programs are often specifically programmed to work with consumer media, whereas Premiere Pro is not. Make sense?
Premiere however is meant for editing videos.
Correction: "Premiere however is meant for editing specific types of video." Trying to edit types of video not on that list, you take your chances. Some may work, others may not.
The only thing to be done well is the editing. How can it work with the native camera formats any better? Less lag?... There's nothing to improve on. The fact that it supports such formats as DivX, XVID, and h264 doesn't get in the way of anything.
"There's just no way to know, which is why the recommendation is to simply not use them. (Or convert them first.)"
So then you should've just said that... And if I may correct you, use IT, not them... It's this specific file...
My point with the HDTV was that it would be unreasonable to expect people to only play 720p videos on the TV and convert the ones that aren't 720p to the 1280x720 resolution manually IF the TV didn't upscale to that resolution of pixels automatically. Your point was that Premiere doesn't do the conversion automatically, which it obviously shouldn't, and that it's the reason files not natively supported should be converted (which would be the case for any editing program). There are very little ways to make a format MORE supported in one program than another.. MY point was that with resolutions smaller than 720p, and if the TV didn't upscale automatically, it'd work just as good but the quality would just be worse (smaller picture). That worse quality lays within the video file itself. The same thing basically applies to Premiere. The quality would be worse (normally true when without any influence from AviSynth filters) with these codecs because of their quality flaws just like the resolution flaws that files might have for the TV. For either case, it doesn't make it unreasonable to use these files with the products.
I'm not disagreeing that it would be better to use standard camera formats to edit video but when it's not an option (or only is with the disadvantage of quality loss), but it doesn't make less-than-ideal video footage to be unacceptable/problematic or whatever you're making it out to be.
The only thing to be done well is the editing. How can it work with the native camera formats any better?
If you decide to stick around these forums, you'll see the myriad problems that can be caused by non-standard formats.
The fact that it supports such formats as DivX, XVID, and h264 doesn't get in the way of anything.
Premiere actually doesn't fully support editing of those formats. It may well export them, but that is a different matter. If you have files in those formats that work, more power to you. But many have tried them and failed.
MY point was that with resolutions smaller than 720p, and if the TV didn't upscale automatically, it'd work just as good
Actually, it wouldn't work at all if the scaling wasn't being done. Fixed panel displays can only show one resolution. If you feed them anything else, it simply doesn't work. That's why the automatic scaling is built-in.
For either case, it doesn't make it unreasonable to use these files with the products.
Well, if the non-standard formats don't work, then it is entirely unreasonable to use them as is. You'll have to convert them first, or use a program that can use them as they are.
it doesn't make less-than-ideal video footage to be unacceptable/problematic or whatever you're making it out to be.
What makes that footage "unacceptable/problematic" is whether or not it works. And we really have no control over that one. The programmers do.
I agree. If the NLE wasn't programmed to work with a specific codecs, then obviously the codecs wouldn't work. If it's programmed to ACCEPT certain codecs but the programming isn't fully developed to work with these codecs, then obviously the codecs themselves would be what's problematic. However, this isn't the case with Premiere.
I see your point more clearly but now, it's not even debatable since the focus to which these codecs were programmed for compatibility is questionable - that is, based on what you said.
These "Consumer programs" that are programmed for specifically the purposes of editing these codecs don't have much room to go from Premiere. The only thing that can really make them more solid for editing DivX/XVID/h264 content is a greater compatibility range of containers for these codecs. The files that work in Premiere for the most part do not and will not work any better in another program. It's not a 100% solid argument but if you take a DivX video and render it from Adobe Premiere to the h264 format, the quality of the result will be exactly the same as if that was done through VirtualDub (if done with the same settings of course).
If your general point is that if a file doesn't work then that's just how it is and that those failed files are more commonly DivX, XVID, and h264 streams, then of course I agree. And yes, that does soley depend on the programmers. If your point is that if DivX, XVID, and h264 files are working but nonetheless they are still unreasonable to use, then I do not agree with you. In your last post, you said nothing that I disagreed with. It's really not the focus of the argument presented though.
-The thing with the TV, I guess it was a bad comparison but it wasn't meant to be realistic. It was all basically IF TVs worked that way, it wouldn't be unresonable to still use those other resolutions. Yes, it wouldn't work if it did't upscale automatically but in Premiere, these not native formats DO work and it'd be ridiculous if they didn't work for the most part which is not the case. Full support f these files only makes sense because of how frequently it's necessary to use them even in the professional world.
in Premiere, these not native formats DO work and it'd be ridiculous if they didn't work for the most part which is not the case.
Your experience may have been blessed, but for many (myself included), those files types often don't work. When that is the case, one has to find another way.
I don't know man... Before I knew how to use AviSynth, I used convert the VOBs that I ripped from DVDs into h264 AVI files and that's what i used for my projects. It always worked 100% fine...
probably gonna "hate" my answer as well, but most "professionals"don't get their material from the internet. They usually get it for themselves using cameras. That doesn't make them in itself professionals, but al least it's their own work and not somebody's else.
I know that... It depends on what your project is for. This program isn't only meant for editing things that you've recorded...
This program isn't only meant for editing things that you've recorded...
Well.....it kind of is. That's why you find support for the pro camera standards, and lacking or no support for consumer or Internet video types. Again, if you can get away with using video formats that aren't fully supported, count yourself among the lucky.
None of my projects consisted of any camera formats in which I used tons of different kinds of video sources with no problems. Me along with plenty of other people I know must've been very lucky. I feel so lucky now that I should start playing the lottery. If the program were meant for only editing things you've recorded, trust me, it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular and there'd be no direct way these other formats would work.. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, when the program was originally created, that was it's intended purpose. It isn't any more... I can link you to an endless chain of vids that were made using this program, none of which were made from any camera sources. About 2/3 of Anime Music Videos are made with Sony Vegas and the other third are made by Premiere. There are tons of AMVs out there - http://www.animemusicvideos.org/home/home.php
I'm quite agree with Thypoon (nice name, your way of writing is like the name).
Adobe, with his (our!!!!!!!) CS4 has given an unaspected crackdown to the "non pro editor".
The questions are:
-will Adobe fix, or want to, these bugs? Not when, just yes or no.
-why in previous suites something did work?
-why Adobe write "full compatibility" with some consumer videocam (mine for example), but we can't import audio files?
I think we have the right to know it, but Adobe is silent 'bout this.
we've not to fight for disagreeable answers, but just cooperate for the little that we can.
Anyway I'm also a bit with Jim because, rectify me if I'm wrong, PP never process DivX directly.
Thypoon I'm afraid you have to demux first, I do it with Tmpge but there are other freeware sw.
It doesn't take a lot.
Oh, wow, you're right. Strange.. I never really used DivX files - mainly demuxed h264 files. I just assumed that DivX would be supported if h264 is.. Maybe the files just all need to be demuxed for them to work.. The strange thing is though, this file worked before... Oh well - doesn't matter anyway. I got it working with this DirectShowSource in my AVS script. No problems.