Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Premiere Pro CS5 topic, editing and export questions
  • a question for mac users using adobe suite, particularly premier pro cs5 and aeffects. im showing a video (hacked gh2 footage) on a 2k projector. my workflow: mts files into premiere pro for cutting, audio mapping with plural eyes, then adobe link to aftereffects for the color grade in 32 bit float. this is where im confused: what export settings are ideal for the highest quality master file.if there is another thread i missed, please provide a pointer. thx

  • 25 Replies sorted by
  • You should probably see this since it does affect you: http://www.eoshd.com/content/8612/mac-avchd-gamma-issues-the-fix

    what settings should i use in Compressor for flowmotion hacked footage?

    I'm not sure where does Compressor fit in your workflow, but if you refer to converting before cutting in PPro, try 5DtoRGB app. Select ProRes 422 HQ or 444 as your destination codec.

    and what export settings should i use for the best quality end result. it is a 30 min video, the target file should be less than 10gb.

    That depends on what your WD player can play, probably some high bitrate h264 would be fine.

  • This may or may not affect you, when using MTS files generated using Flowmotion and when doing post in PP CS5 on a Mac.

    I found I had problems when using the Flowmotion patch with PP CS6 on a PC.

    see http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/101379#Comment_101379

  • thx inqb8tr, never heard of the 15-235 fix for pp. thx skydragon, havent had a problem with flowmotion2.2 on pp cs5.

  • question is: how does the compressed result look

  • "aftereffects for the color grade in 32 bit float"

    Here is my question. Why color grade in AE? Why not PP? PP pro doesn't support 32 bit float? Does AE output at 32 bit float?

  • AE is the Photoshop of intensive video editing aspex

  • You can cut native MTS, then export edited version from Premiere Pro to ProRes 422 HQ with 15-235 fix applied. Import in AE, grade etc. export to ProRes 422 HQ again.

    And then create delivery versions from ProRes 422 master.

    Or make everything ProRes 4444 if you need it.

    Maybe not the most economical workflow, but benefits are that you have locked edited version that can go to audio as well as video post production, skipping dynamic link that can be buggy in cs5 (at least for me was), and the most important - better grading results. It is better to grade codec that is more robust.

  • why export 2x when you can do it once (via adobe link)? i dont mean to be combative, i just dont understand the logic (and also havent had buggy issues w/dynamic link in cs5). nevertheless, i do like the idea of possessing a prores 422 master...will have to try it out

  • i just dont understand the logic

    Probably the most important reason is that ProRes 422 is more suitable codec for color grading and other effects, it holds up better, easier to work with, all in all yields better results.

  • I'm rendering a 90 minute film at the moment from Premiere pro CS6. 14 hours have elapsed and I have soon rendered a fifth of the movie, Adobe Media Encoder says that I got 55 hours left. I wonder if someone with a similar system could verify if they have the same rendering times (I know this hard since evry system and project often is quite different).

    Anyway, I'm editing native 24p from the hacked GH2 and exporting as H264 1080p, 23,976, 35mb/s, VB1pass. I've unchecked the "render at maximum quality" and "render at maximum bit depth".

    In Premiere I've added curves from a plugin. I've also used the auto color effect with temporal smoothing of 1 second on most of the clips (it is a family related project done in a hurry, the auto color was the easy way to get rid of the green color cast). I suspect that the temporal smoothing might slow things down since it has to analyze the surrounding frames for every frame. I use warp stabilizer on a few clips.

    My system is a Dell XPS 17 with i7-740qm (quad-core 1.73 GHz, 2.93 GHz turbo boost). 12GB of RAM. Two 7200 rpm hard disks with premiere installed on one and the project on the other. A GT445m graphics card with 3 GB of memory (I've enabled Mercury playback engine).

    I closed all other applications in Win 7. The system is set to maximum performance. Still Premiere only uses about 30% of the CPU at average. I tried to export directly from Premiere and through Adobe Media encoder, the rendering times are the same both ways.

    Sorry, I know this is a hard to answer and quite a boring question, but it seems like I should be able to render a little bit faster. Any input is greatly appreciated.

  • @Alfaerik, you probably should export first to proves 444 with maximum quality and bit depth and from that to your final format with media encoder

  • @eyefi, Thanks for reply. Yeah, I guess that might have been faster. But this is a family holiday video, so I just wanted the easiest workflow and edit native. The edited movie is 96 minutes so prores would have eaten a lot of space.

  • I would import premier project and encode from Encore.

  • " I'm rendering a 90 minute film at the moment from Premiere pro CS6. 14 hours have elapsed and I have soon rendered a fifth of the movie, Adobe Media Encoder says that I got 55 hours left "

    I think Encore would be faster because it would encode automatic default setting

  • I think Encore would be faster because it would encode automatic default setting

    Probably would, If he was going to burn a DVD or BR disc. But

    exporting as H264 1080p, 23,976, 35mb/s, VB1pass

    so Adobe Encore, as a DVD authoring software it is can't help here.

  • Alfaerik: My system's a bit less powerful than yours, but I get similar rendering times. I'd like to point out that the biggest rendering slowdowns happen when the original video and the final renders are of different resolutions or framerates. For example, the last thing I shot was an hour long, and shot at full HD (1920 x 1080) at 29.97 fps. Rendering the edit down took maybe five or six hours... if the final product was also of those specs. Changing the framerates-- even from 24 fps to 23.97 fps-- requires a lot of processor work. Changing the resolution adds time, but that can be slimmed by formatting the sequence in the new resolution, and not changing it in the render. Temporal smoothing is also a huge slowdown as well.

  • inqbatr: You're right, in that Encore's great for rendering disks. But it is very, very fast at that. The project I described above was full HD, but the DVD I created was standard def, 720 by 480. Rendering that down in Media Encoder'd take about two days. But sending that sequence right to Encore got me a DVD file in about six hours.

  • @tinbeo @Brian_Siano

    Thanks. I thought about doing a H264 Blu Ray, but the rendering time in encoder was the same as ordinary H264 (which of course make sense). But I still don't understand why encore would be faster? At the moment I have about 28 hours left of rendering (it will be 70 hours in total), I don't think it's a good idea to cancel and try encore at the moment. Are you sure that encore would be faster exporting a 1080p 23,967fps VB1pass H264 Blu Ray than encoder is at rendering 1080p 23,967fps VB1pass H264?

    I belive that it is the curves that I added with a plugin and the temporal smoothing that slows it down horribly much.

    Thanks for helping!

  • I belive that it is the curves that I added with a plugin and the temporal smoothing that slows it down horribly much.

    Me too. I can't see how Encore might help unless you are trying to burn a disc right away from the timeline. Just that.

  • It happened to me as I tried to do a custom export in Premiere pro, setting MPEG2 Blu-ray encode. Seeing Premiere took forever, I stopped and tried import project from Encore. Surprised to me that Encore did the trick. My answer is for " I just wanted the easiest workflow and edit native ". I am not an expert and had just 3month experience working with Premiere. Try it for yourself and google is your friend.

    I wrote these above one day ago, thinking it might become an entertainment for all the " pro filmmaker " so I put it off , kind of waiting if Alfaerik get done rendering with his project. But today readign an article from a well- known web page, I thought I would share it here, similar to what I had discovered about Encore.
    http://www.studio1productions.com/blog/?p=117

  • Sorry @tinbeo but I still don't see how your find about direct export from Premiere being faster than background render in AME is connected to Encore.

    Nice find though, that might help Alfaerik render it out faster (probably next time)

    But you make a presumption that it would be faster to render anything in Encore than in Premiere, based on your experience with exporting MPEG-2 that you have not provided any details about except

    I think Encore would be faster because it would encode automatic default setting.

    Make an experiment in which you set your export settings to be exactly the same in Pr and in En, and then start your stopwatch.

    And let's leave Encore out of this talk for a moment.

  • I don't need you to remind me from that page "I recommend you run your own tests on your computer. Try to use a clip that is 5 to 10 minutes in length. Try exporting to the different video formats that you usually export to and test to see..."

    Neither I need you understood what I wrote is" But you make a presumption that it would be faster to render anything in Encore than in Premiere"

    Again base on Alfaerick that 96 minutes is just a family movie and took so long to render, I suggested him to try encore. Don't ask me to do the work for you. -:) I already explained.