That's pretty non-standard video format you're trying to edit there, and that could be at the source or your problems.
What kind of camcorder shoots 20 fps?
Is this an HDV (tape-based) or AVCHD camcorder -- or something else? And have you matched your project settings to your source video? (Which is pretty much impossible if you're actually using 20 fps footage.)
Also, have resized your photos to no larger than 1000x750 pixels, per the FAQs to the right of this forum?
Thanks for the quick reply. My bad! It's 30fps. The info came from the Project Settings / General tab.By the way, all the footage was shot in high-def (tape) and converted to MOV files.
My images are all 2880 X 1620 pixels at 72DPI (RGB of course). I made them 50% larger than the screen size so can zoom and pan without pixelation.
Any other thoughts?
Could it be the gargantuos size of the raw footage files? Should I go an export the segments that I need (about 10) so I end up with smaller file sizes? Or, does the raw footage file size doesn't make a difference as the software is only using/rendering what it needs?
Message was edited by: josejb70 (typo)
Sizing those photos to 1000x750 will still give room to pan and zoom around your photos in standard resolution without overloading your system, Jose.
But, since you're apparently working in hi-def, you can probably go to 2000x1500 pixels -- but do note that, even on your modestly powerful computer, photos at that size are going to take their toll! If you've got more than a few, you may see your system choke.
There are solutions and workarounds, including working on the photos in a separate project and bringing them into your project as video files. And they may be worth looking into if you've got a dozen or more photos.
But are you planning to output your project to a BluRay disc? If not, you may be able to save you (and your computer) some stress by down-rezzing your video and photos to standard def video. That would certainly get you around that out of memory problem -- especially if you resized those photos to 1000x750 pixels.
(Oversized photos are nearly always the cause of out of memory problems.)
Indeed, I have a stack of 60 photos. Each is around 3MB. All are JPGs, all 72DPI, all the same dimensions (I worked on the in Photoshop to make sure they were all consistent). Images right now are 2880 X 1620. Do you think that reducing them to 2000 X 1500 px will make that much of a difference? Maybe I can optimize them for web to reduce file size?
I have to work in High-Def. Yes, eventually I will output to Blu-Ray. But, for my immediate needs, I'm outputting to Flash video. From there, I'm converting to an SWF loop, which the client will play at a tradeshow. The client is insisting on maximum quality, so I know they would not like a downsampled (is that the right term?) movie.
I hear ya on the "modestly powerful computer." I run CS4 with no problem. Thinking that Premier Pro would certainly be too much for this system, I thought that PE (because its a consumer product) would run ok. Maybe I'm just pushing the limits... of everything (my computer, the software, the pile of images, etc.)!
I'm almost done (been working on it for days), so I think I'm gonna leave images as they are for now. For the time being, I'll just keep on rendering and saving (save as) at every step. And, when all else fails. Close and restart!