Please join me in demanding better matte tools in Premiere.

[Jim Curtis]

I was disappointed to see another upgrade announcement with no mention of improving track mattes in Premiere.  The existing one in Pr is lousy - the matte always scales with the layer being matted.  That is unacceptable. 

Pr should have alpha and luma layer mattes like in After Effects.  How hard can this be?  FCP7 had track mattes as a Transfer Mode.  If they could do it, why not Adobe?

I appreciate that Dynamic Link to Ae has gotten a little more stable, but my renders of my DL clips in Pr keep vanishing, and have to be re-rendered every time I re-open a Project.  If it weren't for lousy matte tools, I could stay in Pr to do a vast amount of the work I do.  The text functions in Pr should be more like those in Ae, too, but that's a separate gripe.

I have requested this feature with just about every "upgrade" to Pr since it was called "Adobe Premiere Pro 5.5."  Surely, I can't be the only editor in the world that uses track mattes.

[Ann Bens]

If you nest the clip before adding the track matte effect you can scale to footage without scaling the matte.

Track matte effect can be set to either Alpha or Luma.

I dont use the track matte effect anymore, switched to masks.

[Jim Curtis]

But, then you lose the ability to synchronize keyframes without jumping back and forth.

Masks are helpful for basic shapes, and again, if you scale or reposition the layer, the mask moves with it.  9/10 times, that's not what I want to do.

C'mon, Ann, you're an expert.  Work with me!  You know I'm right. 

[R Neil Haugen]

"You know I'm ... "

Hee hee hee ...

A big kick I get at NAB every year is listening to the ... discussions ... in the aisles about the correct way to do anything in any NLE/grading-app/fx app.

There seems a pattern ... for NLE's, 5 people and there are 4-5 "correct" ways to do something. Ae/fx/grading ... five people, you got 12 "correct" ways to do something ...

Neil

[Ann Bens]

Work with me!  You know I'm right.

We have a saying in Holland: many roads lead to Rome. Many ways to get something done.

But, then you lose the ability to synchronize keyframes without jumping back and forth.

Not if you copy the mask and put that over the the clip in the nest and lower the opacity, so you can see what you are doing.

When done just delete the mask, cut the keyframes and put them on the nest.

How is that for starters.

[Jim Curtis]

Ann, I'll have to get in Pr and try that out, but it sounds like more steps than it would take if only Pr had a better matte function.

Neil Haugen, tell us how to do what I described in Pr - even one way, and I'll take your condescending post under advisement.

[R Neil Haugen]

Jim,

Huh ... sorry, I can't in any way see my post as condescending. Not directly nor any implication of such, and am rather saddened you took it that way.

I hear that bit of comment that I quoted in discussions from so many editors/colorists/fx people ... which is what triggered my comment. Everyone in a discussion will probably use that at some point, and clearly ... from some points of view, everyone in the discussion is right. Because there are more ways to view a "proper" or "useful" or "fast" workflow than there are people in the discussion.

That's the only point of my comment ... and re-reading several times, there's not one bit of dumping on anyone there.

No one is wrong there ... or here. We just work differently because we think differently, use different gear, were trained differently, all sorts of reasons. It's that interplay I love to be around. I always learn from such discussions.

In the main, I agree more with you, I'd prefer better 'track' or garbage matte stuff in PrPro. As Ann and others are better at delineating than I, there are ways to do this in PrPro. The old garbage matte was quicker and easier for my brain. It's not a huge time-difference, but if you need to do them constantly, it would get to be a pain.

As in your comment to MtD a bit ago, most of the time if I've built a comp for something in PrPro, I just export that out when done as a video file to import into PrPro to replace the comp. Then I don't have the glitch or lag or other things that occasionally happen when using the D-L process with Ae/PrPro. I've tended to avoid Ae if at all possible partly because of that. But somethings ... ya gotta go to Ae.

Like ... making mogrts, really ...

Neil

[Jim Curtis]

Neil, sorry if I misunderstood you.  I inferred that you were doubting that the Track Matte in Pr is sub-par and there were five other ways to do track matting that must have eluded me.  I don't think that's the case, because I'm pretty sure I've tried every effect method that seemed relevant.  I still invite anybody to school me if I've overlooked it.

Seems to me that upgrading the existing Track Matte could be pretty simple, and maybe with a checkbox that allows us to scale the matte with the layer being matted.  I almost never want to do that, but I frequently would like to reposition or scale a matted layer, and without having to nest, ideally.

[PierreLouisBeranek]

Yes, a checkbox in the Track Matte effect that allows us to enable/disable "Motion settings affect matte" would be an absolute GODSEND!!!!

Even just today I had to nest several clips because the Track Matte effect is such a piece of garbage!  And no, Jim, I haven't found any other tool that replaces Track Matte either.  God knows I'd use a good alternative if there was one!  (and btw, while Ann's suggested alternative might work, it's utter nonsense.  This thread is about asking for a BETTER workflow, not one that will make us tear out our hair every time we use it because it's such a PITA to use!

[Meg The Dog]

My two cents:

When I switched from FCP-7 to Premiere Pro in 2012, this also threw me off the first couple of times I used it as I was expecting the same results as FCP-7. Then I clean slated my head and tried to think why the behavior is what it is in Premiere Pro - and in doing so, made peace with the effect.

Its name is Track Matte, which would lead you to think that you are, by using it, able to apply an independent matte to a Track. Once you apply it, you would think that anything you do to a clip on your applied track would be constrained within the matte provided by the independent track.

But as you have found out, this is not what happens.

A better (but too unwieldy) name for this effect would be: "Using this effect derives a matte from a selectable source track, and applies that matte to a clip", or Clip Matte from Track.  The key here is "applies that matte to a clip", not "applies that matte to a track".  And so, of course, the matte travels with the clip when motion effects are applied to the clip itself.

Why make the effect work this way? Well its behavior is certainly appropriate based on the way you apply it - you apply it to a single clip, not to the track on which the clip is placed.

Would it be great to have an effect that actually applied the matte to the track and not the clip contained on the track? Yes, but the programmers of Premiere Pro are (perhaps unconsciously) not motivated to move forward on implementing something this because they know they already have After Effects available to do the heavy lifting.

As I say, my two cents -

MtD

[Jim Curtis]

because they know they already have After Effects available to do the heavy lifting.

And as long as Dynamic Link is working perfectly all the time, I wouldn't mind as much.  As I wrote originally, I often have to re-render my DL-ed clips in Pr, because something's not working right.  Also, I have an occasional challenge of dealing with plug-ins that aren't cross-platform.

Say I'm doing a composite of four layers of video.  If I have Lumetri on all four video layers, and do a Replace with Ae Composition, OK, the Lumetri effects get copied into Ae.  But, what if I want to use a third-party transition in Pr that doesn't translate?  Or any transition effect in a Pr track other than a dissolve?  That's a no-go.  Or, what if I need to change the color on a clip in my Ae comp to match a shot in Pr?  A lot of switching back and forth needed.  I'd prefer to stay in Pr.

I use the FilmImpact transitions fairly often, and those don't carry over into Ae.  If I have a multi-layer composite in Pr using those, I can't use Ae to recreates some of them without doing quite a bit of reverse engineering.

[Ann Bens]

I am just offering a way to get the job done as I dont think the matte effect will ever get updated.

But you can always post your request here:

Premiere Pro: Hot (1864 ideas) – Adobe video & audio apps

[PierreLouisBeranek]

I absolutely 100% agree Jim!  The fact you constantly have to nest a clip so you can change any of its motion settings without screwing up your Track Matte effect, thereby being forced you to edit any keyframes out of the context of your main timeline, is a MAJOR PITA.

I find it seriously sad that with every new update, Adobe adds new cupboards to the editing 'kitchen', but fails to fix the most basic of things such as the sink that been leaking for the past 10 years, so to speak.

I also find it sad that so many forum members, and occasionally even Adobe staff themselves, seem to have such a need/tendency to minimize our workflow issues with petty responses, or by stating "Why don't you just to X", rather than adding a voice of support, all the while completely disregarding the fact that solution 'X' they suggest is a horrible workflow option to begin with.

If the folks at Adobe actually used their own software on a daily basis, as pro editors do, nonsense like this would have been fixed ages ago!

If more forum members were concerned with supporting other people's ideas and suggestions rather than massaging their own egos by posting petty small talk that dilutes the issue at hand, maybe our calls for help from Adobe would be better heard.

Hopefully others will have the good sense to add their voice of SUPPORT, as you request Jim, rather than further dilute your important request with petty talk.

[R Neil Haugen]

Pierre,

The engineers are all editors also. The idea that they don't design things as any of us would like because they don't know how to do pro-level editing is just wrong. In product support, look through Kevin Monahan's career ... editor, colorist, some audio & fx work, was a certified trainer for FCP from what, around 3 through 7. Dang good at most of this.

If you go to NAB or IBC, stop in the Adobe booth ... they always have a few engineers & super's for each app, and they're available any time the show's open for talking. I've had many lengthy discussions because as any other user, I don't agree with a lot of the things that have been done, and even of the ones I like, I would probably prefer it work slightly differently. The same that could be said of anyone here. Certainly in a show. I was pretty blunt about the (to me) stupidity when SpeedGrade was EOL'd rather than rebuilt as I felt it should have been. Both on this forum, the Sg forum, over at the Cow and other places. And in person.

They're big boys and girls, they can take the heat.

The engineers of course ​don't​ make the decisions as to what gets fixed/expanded/deleted/added in any version, somewhere in upper management that happens. The engineers do what they're told. As good employees. And some times when someone like me shows up and says what the hay were you thinking ... it's probably something that they may have disagreed with but again ... oh yea, they're staff. They do their job.

For my participation on this forum, the first thing I want to help with is get people ​working​ again as quickly as possible. So the first part is just how to do something with the app ​as it stands now​. Once someone's at least able to work, even if the process is not as slick as we'd all like, ​then​ we can discuss whether it's a stupid process.

And some processes really are stupid. You done anything with closed/open captions? Ah well.

I love the workflow and UI discussions also. But again, my first thought is always just to get the work out. Then there's time for the discussions & opinions on proper UI design, best workflow ... and from many years of pro imaging experience, I go back to base thought of an earlier comment ... if there's five people there's at least eight ideas how it ​should​ be done.

The UserVoice system is actually a huge improvement over the old one they had, it's wired directly into the QC engineer's system and patched in collated form to the upper folks that budget for engineering time. PLEASE post suggestions over there ... those lists are used, and as I've been told by engineer's rolling their eyes ... you can't believe what some folks post for requests there. We need all the ​good​ requests we can get there.

Adobe UserVoice Bug /Feature form: https://adobe-video.uservoice.com/forums/911233-premiere-pro

As to differences ... I had a discussion with an editor who felt rather strongly that ALL things like Lumetri, the Essential Sound Panel, the Libraries ... were a total waste. NO pro editor ​ever​ would use such things and they shouldn't be part of the app. No color, no sound past the "useful" clip & track mixers is needed. Period.

Well ... he's most welcome to his opinion. For him, it's a very strongly supportable position. But we all need to realize there are opinions from working pros that done always align with our own. I agree with Jim probably on most of his matte ideas. I don't agree with the guy about dumping color/sound & such.

I don't think more or less of anyone because of those differences, however. We're all going to see somethings somewhat similar, and many things from entirely different points of view.

So ... again ... ​please​ post your wishes, thoughts, and complaints on the UserVoice. Say 'em here also. Add to the discussions. And allow that others with valid reasons may not agree.

Neil

[PierreLouisBeranek]

Thanks for the very thoughtfully written post Neil!

I agree, it's more than likely a problem with management rather than the programmers themselves.  They just program what they're told to, although I also don't doubt that sometimes they could do what they're told to in a better way.  Quick example: the preset shadow values in the Titler were values no normal person would ever use.  Surely the person responsible for programming that little bit of Premiere back in the day could have inputted reasonable values.  I asked (ok, practically begged!) for this to be fixed back in PP5.5 and a kind programmer listened and fixed it so the default values would be those most likely to be used by editors.  It was a fix that took him less than an hour and required the changing of literally 3 numbers in the code.

I've probably posted more FR and BR than 95% of the people on this forum, so I know about the link you shared, and I agree that it's a MUCH better interface than the lonely, solitary https://www.adobe.com/products/wishform.html, where you never get any feedback from anyone.

The reason I wrote my previous post is because I don't see posts like that of expert Ann Bens as helpful or even appropriate in a thread like this.  Jim asked for voices of support for something that desperately needs to be fixed, something for which I've sent Adobe many FRs as well.  It worries me that if Adobe sees messages like Ann's, that in effect say "there's nothing wrong with the software, the problem is you because you're not yet using this work around that I'm now giving to you here", they'll end thinking that it's a non issue, and continue ignoring the problem for years to come.  Jim did NOT ask for alternative ways to do what he needs to get done.  He asked for help getting Adobe's attention on a serious problem in the software (one that affects me almost every single day btw).  Quite frankly, I find that for an expert like Ann Bens to come along and say "I dont use the track matte effect anymore, switched to masks." all the while providing no support whatsoever for the request to get the track matte effect fixed, is very rude and completely besides the point, no matter what her intention was.

If us users can't even be considerate with regards to each other's pain points in PP, which should Adobe be?  I believe there's strength in numbers, so we should support each others ideas, whenever they actually make sense, rather than try to impose our way of doing something as an excuse for the broken tool not getting fixed.

[R Neil Haugen]

Thanks for that excellent reply.

I remember a few rather direct comments that a former member of this forum made back when the garbage matte was ... displaced. Craig was right, in my view.

Not that I find my view to be of towering importance. It's one of many. I believe you and Jim and Ann all have far more editing skill than myself. More experience also. But reason leads one to accept that multiple ways to accomplish similar tasks are not only nice but necessary.

Yes, a better matte setup has been needed for some time. I would highly doubt Ann would disagree. Many of her comments upon these boards are from a position similar to mine  ... first, what works now.

Then push for better. She's done this many times on other subjects.

But I would not assume that anyone necessarily sees the same needs in the same priorities. And perhaps for Ann, the current operation is entirely satisfactory. I don't know what she would say to that.

I don't see that as either lack of support or being less than professional. Simply professional differences.

Neil

[Kevin-Monahan]

Jim,

Please use User Voice, as Ann suggested.

Thanks!
Kevin

[PierreLouisBeranek]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for chiming in!  I just posted a FR in the User Voice forum as you and Ann suggested: Fix the TRACK MATTE effect with a "Motion Settings Affect Matte" Checkbox! – Adobe video & audio app... 

Would you be so kind to see to it that the Track Matte effect gets some attention from the PP team?

Doing Track Mattes in AE works incredibly well because it works the way it should.  Since the AE team already got it right, I imagine that would help the PP team fix it's own Track Matte effect.  This is one of those effects that pro editors use all the time, and the current matting workflow in PP is, to be perfectly honest, a productivity disaster.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give with getting this finally fixed!

[R Neil Haugen]

Thanks for posting this both on the U-V system and linking back here. I was most happy to both vote & comment.

Neil