frame accurate visualization of continuous thumbnails??

[aaronfross]

Hello,

Frankly I am not a fan of the Premiere UX, it takes me ten times longer to do anything in Premiere vs. Vegas. The only reason I am using Premiere is that it has better support for formats and rendering.

That being said, I want to do something that should be brain-dead simple but apparently is not possible. I just want to zoom in the Timeline to see and edit individual frames, with their thumbnails visible.

The only way I can figure out to zoom in far enough to see individual frames is to enable Show Audio Time Units. But then I can't see timecode. Video edits are still constrained to whole frames, so although I don't know what frame I'm editing to, at least I know that I'm not landing in between frames.

In order to edit effectively by dragging clip edges in the Timeline, I need to see Continuous Video Thumbnails. OK, that seems fine, as long as I'm zoomed in far enough, I only get one thumbnail per frame.

But the big problem is that Continuous Video Thumbnails are wildly inaccurate. They are just wrong. I am looking at a Program monitor that displays a certain image, but that image is not shown on the clip thumbnail. It's showing a completely different frame.

Premiere is just such a long list of dysfunctional UX issues, it boggles the mind. I have worked as a professional editor, going all the way back to the days of A/B linear editing with CMX, and the Premiere UX is just a nightmare to deal with.

So, does anyone have any suggestions? How can I do the following:

1. Zoom in enough to see individual frames

2. See actual timecode in the timeline

3. See frame-accurate thumbnails

[Peru Bob]

I've moved this to the Ideas section o the Premiere Pro forum, the place for feature requests.

[R Neil Haugen]

Just ... intrigued. First, you do understand there video sequences are always complete video frames, that there is no possibility for a partial frame? You cannot split the video into smaller than the framerate of the sequence.

So there are 24 frames per second of 24fps sequences. One complete frame every 1/24th of a second. You cannot have one frame shown for say, half a frame ... 1/48th of a second. To do that, you would have to have a framerate at that speed.

And in Premiere, you have the option to have the timeline in either frames or audio samples, but you don't like that the timeline in audio sample mode moves in ... audio samples? I simply don't understand the point. You can switch back and forth at need, use the format you need at the moment.

The playhead/CTI is as with all NLE's, a point in time ... but you can't have it in-between two butted clips, as it's always attached to the next frame beyond it. You can see what the CTI is 'connected' to by zooming out enough, there's a little blue flag at the top that shows that frame it's connected to.

That's all just reality no matter whether PrPro, Resolve, or Avid.

[aaronfross]

Neil,

This may come as a shock, but sub-frame video editing is possible in Vegas. If you turn off Snap to Frames, you can move the video in arbitrary increments. When the sequence is rendered, you'll likely have problems such as frame blending when you don't want it. Which is probably why other NLEs don't have this feature, to protect users from themselves.

Having said that, this is absolutely NOT what I am trying to do. As I tried to explain, I want to see individual whole frame thumbnails. I want to zoom in very tight, so that an entire thumbnail is visible for each and every frame. I'm dealing with super precise alignment with a music track, and I need to see the video thumbnail and the audio waveform, both large enough to actually do the work I need to do.

The only way to zoom in tight enough is to enable Show Audio Time Units. But then I can't see timecode in the timeline, and I can't snap the play head to whole frames.

On top of that, when zoomed in sufficiently tight to do what I need, the Continuous Video Thumbnails are borked. Totally inaccurate.

Shameful, really.

[PaulMurphy]

Hi Aaron,

I understand your frustration with the differences between Premiere Pro and Vegas Pro. It's important to recognize that each NLE has its own strengths and learning to adapt can be a humbling experience. I've had similar frustrations whenever I'm forced to use NLEs other than Premiere Pro.

It sounds like editing with a visual display of each frame is important to your workflow, but this feature was phased out of Premiere Pro years ago. Many editors have adapted and don't miss it in their current workflows.

Adobe has taken on many feature requests from editors of other NLEs, making it a stronger platform. I highly recommend submitting a feature request.

Here are some things to note about your current workflow with Audio Time Units:

1. Audio Time Units: The only available time ruler displays are Samples and Milliseconds. You can go to Workspaces > Timecode to display the current time in any format you want.
2. Video Files with Audio Time Units: Trimming and tools like the razor snap to the frame, while audio-only files snap to the sample.
3. Step Forward/Backward: Uses samples when Audio Time Units is turned on. Go to Preferences > Step Forward/Back Many and set it to the number of samples equivalent to 1 frame. For example, if your sequence is 48000 samples per second and 30 fps, use 48000/30 = 1600. Holding down Shift and using the left/right arrow keys will move one frame at a time.

I hope this helps!

Cheers,
Paul

[aaronfross]

Thank you Paul, I still have issues.

"You can go to Workspaces > Timecode to display the current time in any format you want."

Where is this exactly? I don't see this in the Windows > Workspaces menu.

"Video Files with Audio Time Units: Trimming and tools like the razor snap to the frame, while audio-only files snap to the sample."

I understand that, but there's no way I can see to actually place the play head on a whole frame if Audio Time Units is enabled.

"Go to Preferences > Step Forward/Back Many and set it to the number of samples equivalent to 1 frame"

That is somewhat helpful, except that of course I have the AUDACITY to use the broadcast frame rate of 59.94. That's not evenly divisible by 48000. I set the value to 801, but that will cause round-off errors. Plus, related to the previous issues, I have no point of reference for whether the play head is on a whole frame or not. Whenever Audio Time Units is enabled, I am flying blind.

As far as submitting feature requests, I am extremely cynical about this. In my 20+ years of experience as a beta tester for Autodesk, I have learned that the only way to get anything done is to have long arguments directly with developers. One needs to be a member of the inner circle in order for anyone to pay attention. I have no reason to believe that Adobe is any better. In fact, all signs point to Adobe being far, far worse in this regard.

[PaulMurphy]

Hi Aaron,

I think using Audio Time Units to visually display frames in your timeline will never be a perfect solution, as it's designed for fine-cutting audio using samples. You can try workarounds, but it won't be ideal.

In answer to your questions:

- The Timecode panel is located in Window > Timecode.
- It won't matter if your sample rate is perfectly divisible by the frame rate; even if it's off by 1 sample, it will advance one frame at a time.

As someone who has trained many experienced editors transitioning from Final Cut 7 and Avid to Premiere Pro over the past 10 years, I’ve been impressed with Adobe's dedication to making the editing experience adaptable for these editors. If this is an important part of your workflow, it might be valuable for other editors too. I recommend making a feature request.

Cheers,
Paul

[PaulMurphy]

I'm always hesitant to suggest crazy workarounds to editors, but in this case, you might find it helpful for your specific workflow.

Whenever I can't get Premiere's time rulers to do exactly what I want them to do (e.g., display bpm instead of fps or samples), I create my own time ruler using markers.

Here's how to do it:
1. Add a 1-second clip to your timeline.
2. Without selecting the clip, add a marker for every frame.
3. Go to the Markers menu and turn off Ripple Sequence Markers and turn on Copy Paste Include Sequence Markers.
4. Use Select All (Cmd/Ctrl+A) and Copy (Cmd/Ctrl+C) and Paste (Cmd/Ctrl+V) until you've added enough markers for your sequence.
5. Turn off Markers > Copy Paste Include Sequence Markers before you start editing.

You can also do this using a Transparent Video clip, adding it to you top-most or bottom-most track and locking the track.

Hope this helps in some way!

Cheers,
Paul

[aaronfross]

"I create my own time ruler using markers."

Yeah, that is crazy. I hope I don't have to go down that rabbit hole, but thanks for that suggestion

[aaronfross]

Thank you again Paul,

"- It won't matter if your sample rate is perfectly divisible by the frame rate; even if it's off by 1 sample, it will advance one frame at a time."

Sorry, I don't understand. One frame is actually 800.800800800... samples. I can't enter that value, I can only enter integers. So it's 801 samples.

Each time I press the key to Step Forward/Back Many, the play head will advance by 801 samples. That is a tiny bit more than one frame. Do that repeatedly, and, logically, a round-off error should occur.

The other issue with all of this is that, again, I can't see frame numbers on the timeline. So there is no way to know if my play head is at the start of a frame increment, or in the middle of a frame. Even if I could advance by exactly one frame in Audio Time Units, I'd still have to start on a whole frame if I wanted to end on a whole frame.

All of this is simply because I can't zoom in enough to see what I'm doing. If we could just zoom in so that a frame took up more than a paltry few pixels on the screen, that would be half the battle. The other half would be making sure that the Continuous Video Thumbnails actually worked correctly, and displayed the actual frame at the current time, rather than some other random frame.

But really, the whole architecture of the Premiere timeline is flawed if we can't zoom in enough to see individual frames. No amount of apologias or rationalization, no expert level of Stockholm syndrome is going to convince me that this is not totally dysfunctional.

[R Neil Haugen]

It's a fascinating ride, learning how everyone works. As we are all, always very different one from another. And you have a process that I've not heard of before, and is pretty interesting.

I think it's also nearly ... unique? ... and so, not that many users would realistically need this. I second Paul though, make an Idea post. I'll be happy to upvote it.

It might even get a lot more interest than many of the colorist-type changes I've been begging for. And, I have had staffers tell me at NAB, while my suggestions would be useful to at least a few users, so few of their several million daily users would probably use some of what I want, that it just isn't realistically make it up high enough on the priority list.

And I do have to accept that. My priorities are not the same as others ... sigh. But again, make an Idea post, I'll upvote. And Paul is massively helpful on workflow things like this.

[aaronfross]

It's true that I do push the limits. I've got a studio devoted to analog video synthesis, creating some work that is pretty darn avant garde and doesn't fit the profile of the corporate video world that Premiere serves. Nevertheless, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to zoom in enough to visualize individual frames in the timeline.

Vegas makes everything 10 times easier and faster. And I'm not saying that because I have only used Vegas. I've used many different systems and applications over the years. Sadly, Vegas has extremely poor support for format. Without decent H.264 and ProRes support, I'd be forced to render to uncompressed and then run everything through Adobe Media Encoder. That is such a pain point in the pipeline that I am effectively forced to use Premiere.

I just wish Premiere wasn't so dumb. Photoshop and After Effects are great. It's just Premiere that is an endless source of grief.

The thread has already been moved to the Ideas section by a moderator, so that's enough. Thanks for your help.