animan Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Im a bit confused, as editing 4k in a 1080 timeline the big advantage is cropping and being able to stabilize and keep a good 1080 quality but..In premiere you need to nest the clip to warp stabilize as the frame size is different, but then warp stabilizer will automatically scale to a certain percentage, but isnt scaling the nested clip cropping a 1080 version and therefore not making use of the high quality 4k 'master' clip?I had been working in a 4k timeline and downsizing at export but it seems this is much more processor intensive as all the effects and timeline processing need to work in 4k..I guess a workaround is not to let warp stabilizer autoscale and manually scale the nested clip? Any thoughts about the correct workflow appreciated!EDIT: No, manually scaling the nested sequence and turning off auto scaling in the timeline doesnt work, will leave you with black borders, now Im really confused! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 The only way I can see is to manually change the sequence settings of the nested clip to 4k dimensions, and apply the warp stabiliser there, seems like a super impractical workflow though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 OK, another reply to myself but just made some tests and in fact render times seem to be dramatically quicker with the exact same clip and effect using a native 4k timeline compared to a 1080 one with the clip downscaled 50%..Im wondering why many people are recommending working in a 1080 timeline?Curious about other peoples experiences in any case.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 The reason alot of people use a 1080 timeline is because that is the delivery dimensions. If you're working with graphics, or any other footage mixed in that is 1080, or if you are wanting to crop in 2x on 4K.If you're going to only be using 4K footage with no 2x crop, then yeah a 4K timeline is smooth in Premiere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 Thanks but maybe i wasnt clear, its not what i meant, i am interested (like most i guess?) in using 4k material and all its benefits to produce 1080 video..but what im seeing with premiere is that editing / rendering performance seems to be faster in a 4k timeline, you can still use 1080 footage or graphics double size or crop 4k to half size as you know the final output will be half size.. On top of that theres the warp stabilizer issues mentioned above.I guess the final export might be slower but Im much more interested in the editing performance..Wondering if anyone else is experiencing the same? (Im using Premiere Pro CC 2014 and a Macbook pro 2014) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Im surprised nobodys interested in the topic, everybody moved to FCPX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgharding Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 work in 4k timeline, It's more efficient and better for final output. Warp at 4k, grade at 4K do it all at 4K, just do your final render 1080p with the maximum render quality box ticked, and render at maximum bit depth ticked.you can still zoom to reframe and so on. thats the way to win animan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Thanks! Makes sense, Im surprised that render times etc seem to be quicker too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I tried both out on Premiere CC, and they both run the same speeds. What kind of graphics card to you have? Are you using Mercury Playback? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 standard basic Intel pro graphics card, yep I have the mercury playback engine GPU Acceleration on..Maybe it depends which kind of effects youre trying to render but for me some that I tried out like Magic Bullet Looks and Filmconvert were rendering over twice quicker in a native 4K timeline, at first i thought maybe because of scaling (the 1080 timeline clips were scaled to 50% and the 4k timeline ones were at 100%) but even scaling the 4K clips a bit gave me the same render times..I just tried some simple non accelerated / 32 bit effects, strangely a channel blur went slightly faster on the 1080 timeline but a compound blur was again twice faster to render on the 4K timeline.. Warp stabilizer is unfortunately 5 times slower than a nested clip on the 1080 timeline, but as mentioned above once you nest it youre going to be cropping in to a 1080 version of the clip to compensate for the stabilisation which is probably not what you want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhessel Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As long as your computer can handle it I would always recommend to work with your footage at its highest captured resolution and down scale at the end for delivery. It is easy to downscale after the fact to any resolution, not so easy to update the entire project if you later decide you want to output to 4K... animan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 That makes a lot of sense, the surprising part for me is that it seems like the other way is anyway harder for the computer to handle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'm pretty sure the issue here is that the Intel Graphics do not have CUDA. Therefore Mercury Playback is not going to technically work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 work in 4k timeline, It's more efficient and better for final output. Warp at 4k, grade at 4K do it all at 4K, just do your final render 1080p with the maximum render quality box ticked, and render at maximum bit depth ticked.you can still zoom to reframe and so on. thats the way to win I was curious about this myself. I just did a test and it looks like zooming in 200% on a 4K timeline/rendering at 1080 is softer than keeping 4K footage 100% on a 1080 timeline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'm pretty sure the issue here is that the Intel Graphics do not have CUDA. Therefore Mercury Playback is not going to technically work.hmm, mercury playback should work with either CUDA or OpenCL used by the intel cards i think..http://www.dslrfilmnoob.com/2014/04/26/opencl-vs-cuda-adobe-premiere-cc-rendering-test/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 hmm, mercury playback should work with either CUDA or OpenCL used by the intel cards i think..http://www.dslrfilmnoob.com/2014/04/26/opencl-vs-cuda-adobe-premiere-cc-rendering-test/Ahh okay, I thought only AMD cards had Open CL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Check it out. It's not a ton of difference, but you can definitely tell the HD timeline render is sharper. These are zoomed in 400%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Hey Aaron, could you try the render test with MB Looks, filmconvert or just compound blur out of curiosity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronChicago Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Add contrast, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Check it out. It's not a ton of difference, but you can definitely tell the HD timeline render is sharper. These are zoomed in 400%.did you by any chance have filmconvert or something similar on the clip when you tried this?I just tried and got the same result as you but realised filmconvert was on the clip and maybe making it softer somehow due to the 'filmsize' setting.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.