I have 20 4k clips on the timeline, I made corrections to them and at the end, I want to apply "Warp Stabilizer".
If I do it at the same time for all the clips my iMac is not able to do it.
Often some of the clips are not stabilized and I have to press "analyze" again.
Even worse, sometimes the computer hangs because of the hard work because it tries to apply the "warp stabilizer" effect to all the clips at the same time.
I need to find a way to overcome this issue. The best thing would be if Premiere would apply the effect to the clips sequentially, but I don't know how to do it.
I hope you can suggest a new way to solve this problem, thanks.
Copy link to clipboard
Every clip needs Warp?
I would suggest modifying the shooting process, as a heavy lifterclike Warp is designed to fix problems not be the standard effect on every clip.
That said, you're going to have to do this one at a time.
Who are you to tell someone to modify their shooting style? So what if every clip needs a bit of stabilization? I put 2% on all of my handheld shots not shot with a lens with built in stabilization to smooth them out a bit. I don't ever post here, but this reply was just so rude I had to.
I feel I found this to be a little of a head scratcher. But I feel like R Neil Haugen meant to suggest his method of resolving the issue, in him saying "I would suggest modifying the shooting process,". And thanks for the briliant idea of 2% over non in cam stabilization =P June 2021 too >< lol
I agree with Dave.
For example right now I'm editing ~15 min project with more than 200 segments of which about 100 requires stabilization since it was shot on handheld camera. It would be much more better of course if I could re-shoot all the scenes from that trip with some kind of tripod, but I CAN NOT.
And I was really frustrated las time when I re-edit a large part of the project and on compile step I received a message with about ~40 timecodes for the segments that require "stabilization". I HAD to stabilize it all either way and right now I have only one choice: click "Cancel" an MANUALLY click-click-click all the enlisted segments. It is really painful. Instead there might be third button "Stabilize it ALL and continue". It woult save me a lot of time spent on tremendeously dumm work.
Sorry for bad english and have nice day!
First, my reply that Dave Blair found offensive wasn't at all ... suggesting things that can improve the process is a normal part of any workflow discussion in any field. And as an adult, everyone is welcome to choose what they want to do. Period. And yes, sometimes you can't reshoot, that's generally understood.
Mikhail ... the Warp process as noted in so many places is incredibly resource-demanding. I understand your problem, I've of course had situations like that.
Would it be useful if we could tell Premiere to batch process a selected group of clips in Warp? Most certainly, and if it already isn't a request on their UserVoice system it should be. Feel free to go check there, and whether you upvote one already there or create a new one, post the link back here for others to upvote it.
I found two ... the first is about having clips already analyzed, that somehow lose analyzation during export ...
The second one is about having Warp simply start analyzing when you apply it to a group of clips ...
Now, having either feature would mean of course that when you applied them, you'd pretty much lock up your computer for some perhaps extended period of time.
That said ... at the current time, with that many clips needing Warp ... it's still a one-off process. And yea, that's a pain.
Nick, you did sound like a dick in your initial reply. Who cares how the stabilization issue happened? They came here with a question about what to do in post. We're all just here to be helpful, man.
Everyone is welcome to their own opinions, including workflows. I've never seen two editors who work alike, even when one was mainly the student of another. Which is a fun and fascinating part of working this trade.
As to my original post ... I gave two responses in the first post ... first, that wow, a project built entirely of clips needing stabilization could have been better handled in the shooting. I've got 40+ years of making pro images for a living. Yea, I've got a ton of experience in both stills and now video ... and it's the same in both: the better the image in the original, the better the final product will be ... and the less work needed in post.
As in trying to look "filmic" ... realistically, if you light and shoot a scene as it was done for film, you're about 85% of the way 'there' as noted by quite a number of colorists. If not more. The same with image shakiness. Fixing in post is never as good as fixing it in-camera.
And I gave a direct answer ... no, you can't batch Warp in Premiere, you have to do each one individually.
So ... I offered advice based on 40+ years of making image, and a direct answer to the question raised. The OP as anyone else is welcome to do as needed. And yea, editors who don't shoot their own material are at times stuck working with crap media but ... you still have to make it as good-looking as possible.
Which would also involve suggesting to the DP (if one was used) that maybe they could consider working with stabilizers, tripods, whatever on the next shoot.
In my years of experience, helping both with the immediate issue, and offering advice on eliminating the problem in the future, is a good practice.
b i g b o i, he was suggesting his method of resolving the issue. Which seams to be considered appriciated in communities like this one. It's not a command, it was not an insult, nor was it rude at all. I do like that you try to keep things focused.
The rudeness comes from suggesting that he should have done things differently, when he just wanted someone to help him do the thing he wanted to do, better.
It would be like if someone asked "Does anyone know how to repair the axle of a Yugo? I can't seem to find parts anywhere. Is there a replacement part I can use?" And then someone replies "Why are you trying to fix a Yugo? It's a horrible car. You shouldn't even be driving that car in the first place."
So, no matter how true any of that response is, it does absolutely nothing to answer the guy's question, and is rude to imply he shouldn't even be doing the thing he wants to be doing - maybe the guy has some very specific reason he wants to fix the Yugo. I would disagree that warp stabilize is a last-ditch kind of thing as you suggested (as I mentioned, it can be very useful in applying a very gentle smoothing out of hand-held shots at very small stabilization percentage). But, it isn't even the issue if we disagree if it a great thing to use or not. The reality is he wanted to use it, and just wanted to know how to use it more efficiently.
The above comment is from me, I guess I signed into an old client's account by mistake before I wrote that reply.
Actually, I did directly answer the question ... no, there's no batch stabilization in PrPro. Which would be a useful thing for quite a few users, but the reality is it doesn't exist.
So your comment is actually in error.
I know quite a bit of gimbal work may need some stabilization ... but again, the better your gimbal work, the better off your editing process will be. My gimbal work ... I keep quite simple, and shoot everything several times. Because I'm not that good at it.
I know some people that are awesome with a gimbal. And rarely need to reshoot or stabilize in post. Wish that was me.
Understand, I still don't get the hyper-sensitive thing. It's a job, it ain't Life, and everybody does things diffferently. Learn from the different approaches, and don't get your knickers in a bunch that someone does it differently. Or suggests an alternative.
20 4K clips needs warp stabilizer? Wow thats a lot of work for even a high end machine to manage. And it will be tremendously time consuming even if you were using proxies. May I ask why so many clips need stabilizing? And what cam were they shot on?
I usually shoot short travel clips (20-30 secs) with Nikon D850 without a tripod and all the clips need to be stabilized.
That's why I have a lot of short clips to work with.
My iMac needs about 2/3 minutes for every clip and I don't want to stabilize a clip, wait and then stabilize the other.
What I need is a process that stabilizes all the clips sequentially, not all together.
So I could run this process and just wait for it to finish. In the meantime, I could do other kinds of works and I won't lose precious time running each clip manually.
In my experience there is only one way to "batch stabilize" as I term it.
Edit your sequence with all the clips that go into the edit.
Nest the sequence and then apply the stabilizer to the nested sequence.
The disadvantage to this is you will NOT be able to adjust stabilizer settings per clip as to will affect all clips in the nested sequence.
How long it will take to analyze is anyones guess. Also please note that varying degrees of judder will need fine tuning and this method will not allow you to fine tune per clip unless you somehow managed to shake your camera in the same way for every shot lol.
Best of luck and let me know how it goes
I will try to nest all the clips in the sequence.
After stabilizing the nested clip (containing all the clips in the timeline), how can I separate it into the clips again?
I tried your tip but when I go to the nested clip all the clips are not stabilized
Giovanni how many of the clips in the nest were stabilized. If an effect is dropped on a nested sequence it all affect all clips within it.
Do you mean that the clips are stabilized using the same parameters?
And in this way the system use a king of average stabilizer parameter?
If this is correct I cannot do it because I get clips not correctly stabilized.
Yes as I mentioned previously if you nest and add the stabilizer you will NOT be able to control each clips stabilisations individually. Unfortunately you are going to have to stabilize each clip one by one or next time use a Steadicam type rig.
That's because this was misleading advice. If you nest the clips and then apply stabilization, it will stabilize that clip (the clip containing the nested clips) not the original clips. I wouldn't work this way. Sure, you no longer are clicking stabilize individually, but you now have a huge block of clips all stabilized together that can't be changed at all without re-stabilizing the who thing. Plus, I would think that some strange things might happen at the cut points.
Double click the nest sequence in th project window and it will open up the nest in a timeline I all individual clips inside it.
I usually shoot...without a tripod
You should solve that. Tripods, monopods, stabilizers, gimbals, and lenses with OIS are all better options than post-processing.
Copy link to clipboard
I have trouble seeing a polite, realistic response as "rude". And yea, I've had to modify my own shooting "style" because of reality numerous times.
Warp was built to be a last-ditch salvage operation. It rags the computer resources terribly. It is not the same as in-camera stablization just flipping a switch.
So ... can you use it say for every clip of a 40 clip sequence? Of course. Feel free. But ... it will take a lot of time to apply, and the processing time will be LONG. That's your choice of course. Make any change to any of the clips, that clip needs re-analyzing. (Which is why it's better to Warp and then render/replace that clip immediately ... )
Is stabilizing 40 clips on a sequence a practical or a best-choice option? I don't think it is either, as it does slow down the editing dramatically and introduces all sorts of potential issuers. There are other options out there.
That's just the reality.