Multiple output formats (sequence sizes), same content, workflow

[jmsflms]

Like all of us, I have to output the same content in different formats, I have been copying and pasting the content timelines to different sized sequences. I am now working with platforms that are asking for even more 'unique' format sizes. My little system is no good when there are minor changes to the content (e.g. spelling mistake) as I have to go through all of the timelines etc. It is easy to get muddled up.

(I recently discovered artboards in photoshop where you can view multiple formats all at once. This would be perfect - to view 6 different sequence settings from one timeline)

Does a comparable feature like this exist in Premiere? Is there a workflow? There must be because we are all being asked for 1080x1080/1920x1080/1080x1920 etc etc...

I have tried google but it is hard to communicate what I am asking.

Chat GPT suggests dragging a master 1920x1080 as a next into a (e.g.) 1080x1920 sequence and using auto-reframe, but this results in the initial problems. For example, the nested sequence is attempting to keep the 'footage' visible, but cuts of the words (I would rather the footage is atmospheric/not so important but the WORDS have to be in frame).

ADDITIONAL (outside of just internet publishing) I use a platform called Disguise.One which can project/output say a 1920x1080 onto three separate screens (1920/3=640 therefore 3x 640x1080 sequences that can correspond to each other)... wish I could edit all these things all at the same time

Am i missing something, it feels like Premiere is designed for outputting to single screens but the modern experience is 'phone/TV/random LED sized screen) - there must be a solution?

[jmsflms]

Yea i agree, outputting 10 different formats from same content v difficult. Totally new idea but one time line should host sections of different formats/sizes. Hope someone answers your brilliant question!

[mark_7127]

(obviously my two cents)

The slippery slope is "outputting for 10 different formats" vs "editing for 10 different formats." 

Some of my clients tried other people to "improve efficiency" - they got "outputting for 10 different formats". They experienced the content with "atmosperic footage" and type that doesn't get cut off. They weren't very happy. They went back to content that was cut for the aspect ratio -- cutting that involves changes in edit timing not just repo of footage and type. A 3-line super might need to be on for a different amount of time than a 2-line super. A person entering in 16x9 will be different than 9x16. (the usual aspect ratio issues)

It costs more and takes more time. It depends on getting it out the door as quickly and cheaply as possible. For some clients I evaluate which media buy is the most expensive, most important start there and then lock before moving on. 

But it would be interesting to have some tools with vertical integration when timing doesn't change. Personally I really don't like nesting it gets pretty cumbersome to achieve some simple tasks, so something that doesn't involve nesting would be great.

Imagine a base layer for footage that is full gate 8k, and a base layer for vector-based type. On top of that are "collapsed" adjustment layers -- one for each aspect ratio.

You click on an "view button" for 9x16, it solos the 9x16 output and reveals/expands the collapsed tracks for 9x16 (several adjustment tracks right in on the timeline)  - one for image repo, one for inserting new content and one for adusting the base type layer (and you can add more just for that aspect ratio).

Of course for that to work, adjustmet fx would have to be isolated and not top-down and also work at full resolution not just the current resolution.

[R Neil Haugen]

You are so correct that people forget that timing is different for different aspect ratios.

We "read" differently depending on how wide the text line is. So a two-line horizontal text caption is typically faster than when it's turned into vertical and you're having to do three or four lines of reading.

Sometimes going from horizontal to vertical cuts off important things unless you 'shrink' the image ... but when shrunk to get it all it, some details are too small. So you may need to do a bit of mild zoom & pan, which you didn't with the horizontal one.

All sorts of things pop up. So totally automating isn't typically going to work. Finding a way to make it easier to do though would be so very useful.