Resizing on export causes footage to shift

[benwinter]

See screengrab below. I think I've stumbled onto a bug.

In Export Settings, when I select the video size to match the sequence settings, everything is fine. (The man's head is between the letters)

But if in Export Settings I try to change the video size to anything other than the native sequence settings, the video underneath shifts in the export.

I believe it is a bug having to do with a warp stabilized clip in a nested sequence.

The sequence I'm trying to export is 4096x1728, and the clip in question is warp stabilized within a nested sequence of 8192x4320. If I disable the warp stabilizer effect on the clip, everything works as intended.

Can anyone reproduce this problem?

Frankly this bug makes me very worried because now I don't have confidence that what I'm seeing in the timeline is getting exported exactly right.

[SAFEHARBOR11]

Just my opinion, but I think you'll be happier if you just apply Warp Stabilizer only to source clip, then EXPORT that clip to a good intermediate codec, then continue working with the new stabilized clip that no longer has Warp applied. Bug or no bug, I just feel that is a better, safer workflow. If one really understands the amount of work Warp is having to do to fix the clip, and then we're adding Nesting and maybe other effects and layers and such...and then scaling the output as well...I would just expect potential issues, whether this is a bug or not. It's just asking too much, too many ways for the sizing and scaling processes to go sideways in this workflow.

This come from many years of working with Premiere and dealing with various workflow issues from time to time...I got in the habit in certain situations of doing things in steps. Like if using a Video DeNoiser, which took a tremendous amount of time to render (must faster these days with GPU help), I would run DeNoiser overnight to export a NEW, de-noised clip, then do the rest of my editing using the new source.

In many situations when "compositing" layers in Premiere, it can be advantageous to export then continue with new clip. Actually can be pretty quick and smooth if you get used to that workflow.

EDIT: will just add, if your source footage is shaky, why not fix it BEFORE you start editing? Just start with a GOOD clip and avoid the headaches is what I'm saying.

Thanks

Jeff

[Ann Bens]

I do the same if something is acting weird or takes enormous amount of time I export the clip with the particular effect to an intermediate format.

[benwinter]

Jeff,

I've done the rendering thing before, unfortunately it's just not feasible with this workflow. When you're working with 8K footage, just a few seconds of footage can take 5 minutes to render out. When an edit is in flux, it's a mess to deal with rendered clips that can't be slipped. We shot it specifically to be able to apply warp stabilizer and then be able to choose a new framing in 4K, and so we're doing this with a majority of clips in our timeline. (Fun fact, Fincher used this exact workflow for Mind Hunter, he even applied warp stabilizer to tripod pans because he wanted all camera moves to be perfect) I expect it would be an easy bug fix if it's not just my machine acting up. An easier workaround we've found is to export at full sequence resolution, and then re-encode the file to the desired resolution. Still, it's not expected behavior and should be fixed. It seems the problem is not actually with Premiere, but with the export engine.

The lesson of the day I think, is that if you want to be sure you're getting what you see, leave the "match sequence settings" box checked next to resolution when exporting.

[SAFEHARBOR11]

"leave the match sequence settings box checked next to resolution when exporting."

Yes, that might be one solution. Export at sequence resolution and that is the "Master" video, then from that Master clip you can more quickly export other formats and sizes since the "heavy lifting" was all rendered and now it's just a "simple" transcode.

Thanks

Jeff

[SAFEHARBOR11]

Curious though - I've tried to apply Warp Stabilizer to 4K clips in HD sequence and it won't let me, wants me to do it at native resolution, so not clear on how you are applying it in that odd sequence size if clip is 8K. Also not getting how Warp is being used to reframe shots. I do that with Motion and keyframing. Lost me.

Thanks

Jeff

[benwinter]

SAFEHARBOR11  wrote

Curious though - I've tried to apply Warp Stabilizer to 4K clips in HD sequence and it won't let me, wants me to do it at native resolution, so not clear on how you are applying it in that odd sequence size if clip is 8K. Also not getting how Warp is being used to reframe shots. I do that with Motion and keyframing. Lost me.

Thanks

Jeff

You have to nest the clip (that's why the warp stabilizer warning banner says "fix by nesting") and then change that nested sequence settings to match the native resolution of the clip. In this case, that's 8K. The working timeline is 4K, so then you have to scale and resize the 8K sequence within the 4K timeline.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Ben,

You have to nest the clip (that's why the warp stabilizer warning banner says "fix by nesting") and then change that nested sequence settings to match the native resolution of the clip.

FWIW, 13.1.3 no longer requires you to nest the clip.

I think Rodney may be onto something when it comes to Warp Stabilizer scaling up your clip and throwing off the alignment with the text. There are ways to avoid additional scaling in WS, however, those may or may not work for your case.

I think some of the suggestions on this thread regarding preprocessing the clip are very good.

Regards,
Kevin

[benwinter]

Kevin-Monahan  wrote

Ben,

You have to nest the clip (that's why the warp stabilizer warning banner says "fix by nesting") and then change that nested sequence settings to match the native resolution of the clip.

FWIW, 13.1.3 no longer requires you to nest the clip.

I think Rodney may be onto something when it comes to Warp Stabilizer scaling up your clip and throwing off the alignment with the text. There are ways to avoid additional scaling in WS, however, those may or may not work for your case.

I think some of the suggestions on this thread regarding preprocessing the clip are very good.

Regards,
Kevin

I'm not sure this is getting at the real problem here. Everything in the timeline works fine; WS scales the clip fine, the program monitor window looks fine. It's when it gets put into the export settings window that things start to go wonky when changing output settings.

Anyway, I just updated to 13.1.3 and the new functionality of WS is a huge improvement. The status of this issue may be different now. I'm looking forward to testing it. Thanks.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Which version are you working with?

Kevin

[rodneyb56060189]

thank you for discovering the bug and also for the solution ( export match settings ). I am worried that what I see is not what I get so this sort of thing fascinates me.

If I remember right, when you warp stabilize ( which is not something I do very often but via tutorials have seen the results ) it sorta blows up the image a tiny bit ( throwing out the pixels on the borders of your frame to make a nice stabilized clip ? ). If it does that and caches it then it makes sense to me that it will be slightly different than the original footage. Mixing up a bunch of other stuff on top of that ( like your nice letters around his head ), if it didn't come out the way I expected, I'd sorta rethink the whole 'process' a little bit.. like shoot with a wheeled head or at least a fluid head, and avoid the hand held stabilization to begin with ( as safe harbor implied ).

I think it's a miracle that you get a good export with 'same as source' chosen. How cool is that ?? !!!

Let me know if you discover other bugs later on...

[benwinter]

rodneyb56060189  wrote

thank you for discovering the bug and also for the solution ( export match settings ). I am worried that what I see is not what I get so this sort of thing fascinates me.

If I remember right, when you warp stabilize ( which is not something I do very often but via tutorials have seen the results ) it sorta blows up the image a tiny bit ( throwing out the pixels on the borders of your frame to make a nice stabilized clip ? ). If it does that and caches it then it makes sense to me that it will be slightly different than the original footage. Mixing up a bunch of other stuff on top of that ( like your nice letters around his head ), if it didn't come out the way I expected, I'd sorta rethink the whole 'process' a little bit.. like shoot with a wheeled head or at least a fluid head, and avoid the hand held stabilization to begin with ( as safe harbor implied ).

I think it's a miracle that you get a good export with 'same as source' chosen. How cool is that ?? !!!

Let me know if you discover other bugs later on...

I don't find many, but it's definitely good info to know! I wonder too a lot about achieving WYSIWYG in output, and I think even if the bug is fixed, I may just stick to matching sequence settings on initial export and then re-encoding that file to my preferred formats.

Shooting handheld was the creative decision. Like I said many pros use it excessively in 6K and 8K and then reframe in 4K. The workflow is actually fairly common. I encourage you to watch this very cool video about the post process David Fincher uses on Mindhunter and how warp stabilizer is used even on fluid tripod shots. The Beauty of Large Format 8K on Vimeo

In this case warp stabilizer is being used to smooth out the rough edges of the movement, not replicate a tripod. It's a powerful tool and it would be a bit silly to rethink an entire shooting approach simply because of an export bug!

[benwinter]

Kevin-Monahan  wrote

Which version are you working with?

Kevin

I'm on 13.1.2

[rodneyb56060189]

I was thinking about dolly shots and Steadicam, and bigger budgets to have that … which is pretty ridiculous for someone like me cause I don't even have friends to help me with a boom mic on a pole and simple stuff.... ( or an AC, etc. ).  I'm all for making things work the way it works and thank god for that !  good luck !

[benwinter]

rodneyb56060189  wrote

I was thinking about dolly shots and Steadicam, and bigger budgets to have that … which is pretty ridiculous for someone like me cause I don't even have friends to help me with a boom mic on a pole and simple stuff.... ( or an AC, etc. ).  I'm all for making things work the way it works and thank god for that !  good luck !

Thanks! We actually did try flying the camera handheld on a gimbal just for kicks during prep...imagine holding 35 pounds of camera out in front of you! Ridiculous!

[rodneyb56060189]

I know.. that's why some people use harnesses and 'arms' that take up a lot of the stress on the arm muscle.. you still have the overall weight but it's distributed like a serious hiking type person...   Here's a used one for about $25,000... he shot a lot of law and order stuff for years with it...

https://steadicamforum.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&controller=topic&id=26245

[benwinter]

Hmm are you sure that's what you meant to link to? That's a Preston FIZ wireless system for controlling lenses with motors.

But yes I know what you're talking about and we did have a mantis and an ez rig to test it with...it's still a lot of camera to try to swing around in front of you. Steadicam op with iso arm was not possible because we needed to fit in tight spaces, and pull the camera off quickly for car mounts and couldn't spend the time to rebalance.