Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I'm working with a team of editors who all do things differently. two of them got into a conversation that has been nagging at me. when asked to remove a clip or piece of b-roll from an upper video layer, they slide the opacity down to 0%. this way, if they need to use the clip, or are asked to bring it back, it's still in the same spot.
I could go blue in the face talking about the risk of accidentally sliding the opacity to 1%, using the disable function instead, or even that non-linear non-destructive editing is called non-destructive for a reason, but what I'm really wondering is, does premiere still have to process and render a clip on the timeline if it has 0% opacity?
we've noticed his projects take a little longer to render and everyone was quick to blame the 0% opacity thing. I don't know if that's the case. any insight would be helpful.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
As far as I know, the opacity setting couldn't have any influence on processing time ... because no matter the setting, the clip is still there. Whether 0 or 100%, Premiere still has to track that clip's frames and have them in position.
So what, setting 50% means Premiere works half as much? No, that doesn't work that way.
Neil
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hello Joeyetc.
I would not concur on R Neil's reasoning.
But to sidestep the issue, I will suggest that rather than using opacity, you can use the "enable" function on clips in the timeline to the same effect. Right click on the clip, and uncheck "enable". The clip will be slightly darker in the timeline (maybe that's bad for your purposes?) but still exist in place. This can be done for video or audio clips. (though audio clips will not be included in AAF or other exports).
It is clear these disabled clips do not affect processing requirements from the observation of render bars. (ie. if you have an effect or manipulation of a particular clip that shows render necessary while the clip is enabled, the render indicator will disappear when the clip is disabled).
Not quite what you asked, but perhaps useful for the issue you've raised.
R.