dbp
-
Posts
435 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by dbp
-
-
1 hour ago, dafreaking said:
Isn't it possible to just drop the speed of the clip to 40%?
I tried that, but it doesn't work properly with the proxies. My workaround video above is the best bet, I think.
-
Did you ever do one on the Ursa Mini 4.6k?
-
48 minutes ago, mojo43 said:
I just tried to transcode the proxy footage. I selected all of the footage in my project (700 Gigs) and selected "create proxies" and it took about an hour to queue it in adobe encoder. Is this normal?
I would think, if you selected it all at once. On my current edit, I did each folder at a time, and it took a while for the ones with hundreds of clips.
-
10 hours ago, mojo43 said:
Damn, the proxy workflow doesn't work with interpreted footage. After importing all of my footage, I interpret the footage to 23.976 and then create the proxies, but they don't match. They only come in at the native fps. Bug in Premiere I guess...
I discovered this as well. It's a big deal for my work, but luckily, there's a (mildly annoying) workaround! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0evKZXohM7o&t=774s
I'll add one thing that isn't in the video. It's best to have a dummy job first in the queue in media encoder, because you have to stop the queue since it starts automatically. If it stops on a proxy file, then premiere won't be able to find it and you'll have to manually re-attach it. Having a random other render queued first ensures that none of your proxy renders get cut off mid-render.
-
You are very right, I am learning this fact. This year has been a real eye opening experience in that regard. The guy I worked for didn't post his prices for a long time, and finally did. He pays me maybe a third of the total cost. I know he has to meet and do all that, but that's still way less work than I'm doing.
The guys you are talking about are smart indeed. It's a suckers game being the working grunt.
-
1 hour ago, HelsinkiZim said:
shooting weddings is slave labour.
You simply have to have a passion for filmmaking and journalism to even come close to not feeling abused by transcoding, watching, editing and vfx'ing 20+ hours of footage for less than most people would happily spend on a tv monitor (which they will even take credit cards for, and pay monthly....).
best advice would be to find a new job and do it part-time...
I'm a general freelancer so in theory, I'm *supposed* to be doing all kinds of video work, but lately it's been practically full time weddings from June to Oct, just cause there's no damn time to do anything else once they pile up. I think it's ok if you can command the higher price points, but I definitely fucked up working for the rates I am.
-
-
35 minutes ago, Axel said:
I don't want to sound like a wisenheimer, but I predicted the success of an easy proxy workflow in Premiere since the first rumors of it's implementation. Good for all Premiere users. Allow me to remind you of the days when Premiere supported the proprietary Nvidia Mercury Engine. I could (but I won't) dig out some lengthy threads in which proud Premiere owners (you used to buy it) poured scorn on us FCP people. The mark of a professional NLE, they said, is the ability to edit the native codec. Now it's the other way around. "X" lets you skip intermediates because it's so streamlined, you use proxies mainly for multicam. The mark of a smart editor is that he uses everything that let's him work with less problems.
Grandma Adobe abandons one of her last fortresses. What's next? Tracks?
Yep, I will totally cop to the fact that I used to be firmly in the "edit native" camp, and now I've completely done a 180 hahaha. Ultimately I think having the option of both is key. Smaller projects and faster turnarounds would have me stay with the native files. Not to mention, some camera files cut like butter anyway and don't need proxies (BMPCC Pro Res, C300 .mxf being 2 examples)
-
My computer is kinda old, so that's a big part of the issue. If I had a top of the line machine, it might be fast and smooth enough with the native files that I wouldn't bother with proxies. I mean, I can and have for years gone straight to editing in Premiere, it's just slow. Workable, but slow and annoying.
-
For one wedding? this one ended being 150gb of raw footage, looks like proxies will be an additional 200gb or so. I'll delete em' as soon as this is done.
-
15 minutes ago, mojo43 said:
Doesn't it take a day or two to transcode all of your footage though? I know you can do it in the background, but it still takes a toll on your system when you are editing. I am just not having the same experience. Oh and what codec are you transcoding to?
Takes a fair bit of time, but maybe 4-5 hours total. I'm almost done transcoding this current wedding and I started like 5 hours ago I think. Honestly, it's worth it for the performance. I use one of the presets, 720p cineform.
-
-
Good god, I just tried this for the first time tonight on a new wedding edit. I have a pretty ancient system by current standards (i7 2600k, 16gb ram, geforce GTX570)
Editing a mix of acvhd 1080p and GH4 4k files. Edits were always a chore because they were sluggish, but man it just flies through the proxy edits. Such a better editing experience, and way easier to just focus on the process and be creative. It's really freeing. Toggling back and forth between proxies to full res is really easy as well. It takes more space, and takes time to transcode but way worth it to me. My god this is practically game changing for me, where have you been all my life??
-
It might be, depending on what you need to do. It's becoming a full fledge editor more and more with each passing release.
Honestly, I'd give it a whirl with bmpcc RAW footage to see if it can do everything you need. I definitely liked warp stabilizer in premiere much better than resolve's stabilizer, but that may have changed with newer releases.
-
I'm with you man, that's some good looking stuff!
-
I used to care alot about resolved detail with 1080p cameras because so many of them were barely 720p mush. With 4K, I care way way less and would rather have the other image elements be in place. Dunno what the GH4 actually resolves, but I'm sure it's not a perfect 4K. It's definitely plenty, detail wise, for me.
-
6 hours ago, silvertonesx24 said:
As a former composer, this thread makes me so happy that I did something else...
Musicbed "too expensive" lol
I definitely hear ya, I feel bad for composers. It sucks all around, everyone deserves to be paid for their artistic efforts but unfortunately the people who should be paying (clients) seem to want everything for cheap/nothing. Perhaps I need better clients.
-
-
What I want to do: #1
What I currently do: #3, because I'm too cheap to afford a non shitty Vari-ND. Soon though, soon!!
-
15 hours ago, Axel said:
I shot one wedding with my Pocket. It has a notoriously bad internal mic, utterly useless even for reference audio in most cases. Being a one-man-band and not into wiring anyone (which I did on one occasion, good audio, but too much interference and affected "performances" too much, aside from being a hassle), I was thinking about a "lenshopper" and my usual two Zoom H1's I place or ask people to hold. I researched and found a product from german private inventor Wolfgang Winne, then called Ohrwurm (ear worm), in my case the particularly ugly big headset with the ridiculous dead cats that makes you look like an idiot. I plugged one cable into the phone jack, the other to the mic jack, set the mic level manually to 70% once, done! The microphones have an incredible dynamic range, capturing quiet sounds with no noise and don't clip or distort below 130 dB (that's when it starts to hurt). They are practically dummy head mics that let you record what you hear. I originally planned to get useable reference sound for the Zooms (mono recording), but I didn't use their sound at all.
I'm about to order this mic for the pocket. It's cheap and plugs discreetly into the mic port. Obviously not great for any real sound, but it'll increase the quality of the onboard sound and actually make it usable. Handy for weddings, and one of the reasons why I avoided using the pocket before.
-
-
2 hours ago, Kisaha said:
As mentioned above sound is VERY important, and a few (really good) LED lights.
On this subject, I find the F&V r300 Ring light really handy for dancing when things get dark. The Milk Diffuser add-on is worth it, as well.
-
2 minutes ago, Davey said:
The only wedding I won't touch after that feedback will be where either the bride or groom are professional videographers. They would notice the slight moire on the registrar's tie, the crushed shadows miles away in the corner of the church, the purple fringing in one second of the entire production - and then sue you silly for daring to soil their big day.
I dunno, if anything, I feel like they should get it. It's a chaotic shoot where getting the moment trumps all. Not to mention alot of it is done in horrific mixed lighting/backlit conditions that look like crap on any camera. Even the people that do high end wedding work have tons of footage that looks pretty junky compared to controlled shoots. Only so much you can do, given the conditions.
-
I shoot weddings for a good part of the year. You are right that the C100 II would be a dynamite wedding camera. It looks professional without being huge and heavy to lug around. It's got great battery life, small file sizes, good in low light, nice colours straight out of camera. I use a GH4/2 (which work decently) but I would rather the C100 if I could afford it. It and a used C100 Mk I would be a nice combo.
Most of your valuable audio will be recorded off camera. I'll often use a recorder (Tascam DR-60) to take a feed off of the mixer/DJ board, and pocket recorders with lav mics on the groom and/or officiant. Usually some other recorder or mic in front of a speaker as a backup. Audio backups are key because stuff will mess up with one of your options from time to time.
Weddings are the type of gigs where you will quickly learn that ergonomics, reliability and nice looking footage with minimal hassle are critical.
Premiere CC 2017 proxy workflow is amaaaazing
In: Cameras
Posted
It doesn't. That's the first thing I tried. Annoying, and I hope they fix it. Just wrapped my first wedding/project with the proxy workflow. No weird issues on the render. Only thing was the interpret footage workaround.