Skip to main content
Participant
October 10, 2025
Question

Loss of work due to bugs

  • October 10, 2025
  • 1 reply
  • 100 views

More of a rant than anything. 

I dont see how Adobe can consider Premier Pro as a premium product. We pay through the nose for a product that is so incredibly buggy and crashy, forcing you to loose hours on projects that you cant get back.

I WISH adobe would consider updating these years old issues, instead of focusing on flash new AI programmes.

Why cant i add time remapping and warp stabilizer on the same clip?

Why does Premier pro crash almost every time i replace a sequence with an after effects composition? 
Why do my Auto saves COMPLETELY WIPE THEM SELVES after its crashed using the legacy exporter?

Sort it out adobe. This is an expensive product and you can't get the basics right.

Very disgruntled and considering switching to Da Vinci at this point... Final Cut would be a better alternative.
 

1 reply

R Neil Haugen
Legend
October 10, 2025

It's always a pain to hit things that bite like that. Your autosave situation is certainly a mess! And I do see that some users have constant issues with Ae comps, which again, would be maddening. Total sympathies on that. 

 

There are others here that actually might help you get those sorted better, as for many shops, they don't have near the crashes you're getting. It would be nice to get you past that!

 

I can answer about Warp and remapping ... Warp is a two-part process, first running the clip to analyze, then from the analyzed data completely re-creating the clip's pixels. It is the most intensive computing process in Premiere, even more demanding of resources than Neat Video Noise reducer. 

 

Time remapping also requires completely re-computing the pixels displayed per frame ... and is also a heavy resource hog.

 

Applying them simultaneously can easily cause processing errors. Which is why one is not supposed to do so.

 

Using Nest, you can apply one, nest the clip, then apply the other, and that normally works.

 

But realistically, given the massive demands of both operations and the limits of any computer's capabilities for doing multiple complex operations that both affect all pixels of a clip even sequentially, it is more practical to do one, do a render & replace to proper DI standards, then you have a 'clean' clip to apply the other to.

 

You can always 'restore unrendered' if you need, but other than that, playback and further application of effects and exports will be much smoother and faster.

Everyone's mileage always varies ...