Inspiring

Answered

Extendscript unsupported/undoc commands are hidden behind 40$, is there a way to get them for free?

Forum|Forum|11 months ago
February 3, 2025
1 reply
1045 views

Hello,

I noticed long time ago a tool that offered informations about unsupported and undocumented commands to use with ExtendScript, here (----- I decided to remove the link to it, to not give it free adversitement, but its essentially an extension that costs 40$ and that is easily found within first results of "qe dom" research on google -----)

Screenshot of it on the market (I hide its name):

Except I still can't and DON'T WANT TO PAY for it.

Anyone know where I can find the full list of undocumented and unsupported commands that this 40$ extension hides?

I tried to find them with certain commands on Visual Code, but I am not even sure how I did it in the past. And it was kind of difficult, not clear.

Thanks

SDK

Correct answer Bruce Bullis

> ...Except I still can't and DON'T WANT TO PAY for it.

Great! Don't! 🙂

The QE DOM is 100% unsupported, and not recommended.

If you're beginning development of new PPro integration, I'd recommend trying UXP extensibility in PPro beta builds.

Sample: https://github.com/AdobeDocs/uxp-premiere-pro-samples/tree/main

Docs: https://developer.adobe.com/premiere-pro/uxp/

Developer Forum: https://forums.creativeclouddeveloper.com/c/uxp-for-premiere-pro/105

Also good: In PPro's UXP DOM, there is no concept of secret or hidden APIs.

Bruce Bullis

Correct answer

Community Manager

> ...Except I still can't and DON'T WANT TO PAY for it.

Great! Don't! 🙂

The QE DOM is 100% unsupported, and not recommended.

If you're beginning development of new PPro integration, I'd recommend trying UXP extensibility in PPro beta builds.

Sample: https://github.com/AdobeDocs/uxp-premiere-pro-samples/tree/main

Docs: https://developer.adobe.com/premiere-pro/uxp/

Developer Forum: https://forums.creativeclouddeveloper.com/c/uxp-for-premiere-pro/105

Also good: In PPro's UXP DOM, there is no concept of secret or hidden APIs.

Bed30321077z973Author

Inspiring

I am not beginning, I have been posting on this forum for a YEAR and half now, lol.

I just sent you an email (answer from last year february 2024),

No I want to be able to Create a sequence from code, can PPRO UXP DOM do that?

If yes and if it can allow me to everyhtign that is "unsupported" then count me in!

If I can't then:

1) I don't understand why (Adobe) Gdon't give us a vilable alternative? I want to take the risk of using something that is not recommanded. Just make me sign something so you take no responsibilty on it haha.I want the info exlaing how to want to add an effect through code. And I want this info to notbe behind some kind of 40$ paywall.

2) I never dared to ask, but.. Why is it not recommanded?

A) - - > If the answer is because it is instable, then I understand the risk I am dev, I deal with errors all my life, I even burnt a pc doing tests (truly). Let me sign a thing saying I take all responsibility and let me learn to do it without having to pay 40 dollars.

B) --> Is it somehow an extension made secretley by an adobe employee as a "side project" to get more money somehow?

Why do we have to pay 40$ to get the same amount of info an extention "available on the OFFICIAL adobe market" have?

I honestly starting to think about this. I mean if this is unsupported, how comes an extention available on the official market mentions qe dom it?

C) --> Is it to prevent competitors froom discovering the codes behind making an editing program and thus avoid creating new competitores? Answer: there are already many other editing tools out there and they are doing well, they don't need qe dom doc to make an editing tool. It only punishes The millions posts here asking for a feature and getting the frustrating response: "This is not supported"
Then users ask: Ok how can I automate adding an effect though code? Answer: You can't officially. So frustrating haha.

D) - - > If it is because it is from a secret strategy plan from Adobe, where you want to prevent users from forgetting about the UI to using more the codes, hence losing the identity of the PPRO, then I can understand (I know this type of discussions exist internally because I read a report where Adobe was talking about how AI can impact the future of adobe products, it's somehow in the same scope of discussions, you don't want users to change "behaviour"? And want to prevent them doing too much automation?).

In that case, let us, RARE users who want to do dev, be able to acces the info the so called "not recommanded" docs, instead of letting us rely on having to pay extra 40 dollars to acces hidden docs?

(Page from an supported extenstion existing on the adobe marketplace of extension, yet it is mentioning somethign we are not supposed to use?)

SO HOW COME AN UNSUPPORTED Feature, is Promoted in the OFFICIAL adobe market?

Is it that bad people learn how to automate everything?

Again everything would be so simple if the official uxp dom etc, gave us the same features as the so called "unsupported" features.

I mean why on earth is it possible to get the speed of a clip from a track, but not possible to change its speed (Setter)? (SetSpeed)

Because there is a risk? Well again I want to take the risk, I am debogging errors on ExtendScript since 1 year and half now. (Ok I paused for a year but still).

Note: Sorry I grew attached to PPRO, this message is only made of passion lol.

Bruce Bullis

Community Manager

>WHY DONT YOU (Adobe) GIVE US ALTERNATIVE

For years, we expanded PPro's ExtendScript API, driven by partner requests; setSpeed() was not requested by enough partners for that work to get prioritized.

> I want to take THE RISK...

You can; Adobe does not support or recommend you taking that risk, with our (shared) customers.

> I WANT TO MAKE A SEQUENCE from scratch with code, want to add an effect with the code.

> And I want this info to be available, not P-A-Y W-A-L-L-L-E-D.

Adobe is neither providing nor hiding that information, and has nothing to do with any paywalls.

Any API information contained within that extension was harvested from the ExtendScript API; we will not provide instructions on how to do so.

PProPanel has shown how to create a sequence from scratch, without QE DOM usage, for years.

>WHY IS IT NOT RECOMMANDED?

Because it was never intended to support user interactions, which can make QE DOM and the application get out of sync.

> Is it somehow an extension made secretley by an adobe employee as a "side project" to get more money somehow?

No. As mentioned, QE DOM information can be 'scraped' from the API. We do not support or recommend this.

> if this is unsupported, how comes an extention available on the official market mentions qe dom it?

It seems someone ignored our very clear guidance, to not do so.

> Is it that bad people learn how to automate everything?

Of course not.

> Again everything would be so simple if the official uxp dom etc, gave us the same features as the

> so called "unsupported" features?

I don't understand that as a question, but in UXP, there is no such thing as QE DOM. And yes, the plan is to expose some (but definitely not ALL) QE DOM functions, in the UXP API. [I believe it's already possible to apply effects, in PPro beta.]

>I mean why on earth is it possible to get the speed of a clip from a track, but not possible to change its speed (Setter)?

Because not enough developers requested that functionality.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded