Variable frame rate video with Premiere Pro

[rmshro0]

Variable frame rate video comes from many places these days: phones, live streamed video recordings.

Adobe Premiere is a supposedly production level piece of software that cost a good chunk of change.

How is it 2012 and Adobe does not still have an answer to this problem?  After trying to editing/convert/mux/edit variable frame rate videos for the past 5 hours I am just exhausted.  No amount of conversion apps, etc have saved us and THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TOO.

We have spent thousands on Adobe software packages over the last decade, probably 10s of thousands, and the only answer I find consistently is to switch to Vegas.

Surely, SURELY someone at Adobe with real insight into the issue can help answer the question of whether users moving into different medium should find a place elsewhere in the software ecosystem...

Message was edited by: Kevin Monahan

Reason: to make article more searchable

Title changed.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Hi PZombley,

Please file your feature request. The more feature requests we have, the more likely the request will be filled. No request gets counted otherwise, no matter how many times you post here (or how long your post is). Here is the link.

Thank you,

Kevin

[PZombley]

Yeah, my post was rather long...sorry about that.

Anyway, good call. I have submitted my feature request as you suggested. Let's cross our fingers!

[excited_Genie16B8]

1) VFR has become more popular

Not among professionals, the target market for Premiere Pro.

2) There are plenty of times where even the most high end professional will need to edit with the lowest common denominator.

And there are already tools to handle proper conversion for those rare instances.

3) The argument that you should use "consumer" editing solutions to work with VFR because your high-end professional editing software can't do it is absurd.

Not if it works.

4) There's no reason that a company with a structure such as Adobe can't find a support solution.

I don't believe they can't, I do believe they shouldn't. I do believe there are many, many more additions to the program that would benefit the professional market far more than this.

[PZombley]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the feedback. I'd like to respectfully debate your points though, and ask a few questions if I might.

"Not among professionals, the target market for Premiere Pro."

I'm wondering though what you consider a "professional"? Is someone not a professional because they work in the corporate world? Or produce mainly for the web? Is a documentary editor not a professional because they deal with footage from all different sources including VFR that was perhaps shot by others? Perhaps in your professional world you don't see much VFR and that's understandable, but perhaps not all professionals do exactly what you do. In my current professional world I'm seeing a lot more of it, both in my regular job and my freelance side jobs. I could see that there are some professional editing circles that never get VFR, but surely you can also understand that there are professional editing circles that do.

"And there are already tools to handle proper conversion for those rare instances"

Can you point me to a tool that properly handles VFR to CFR conversion? Someone mentioned handbrake, but as you can agree that doesn't support the proper codecs I would need, and it is not an editing program. At best it's a stopgap solution. Of course I could probably use AVID, I know it handles VFR natively and does professional level editing, as does Sony and Lightworks. However my company isn't using those programs so I'm left with APP. I can't speak for FCPX as I haven't used it. I only have one copy of Squeeze that works properly and there are many people that I need to support, QT doesn't do it. Mpeg streamclip used to, but doesn't work on the latest OS's. VLC pretends to but fails miserably. Compressor 7 used to but again isn't compatible with newer OSs. Super is too slow and is hit or miss. Any suggestions you have on reliable tools with support for pro-quality editing codecs would be appreciated.

"Not if it works."

But that's just it. The consumer editing tools don't work for me. Perhaps they support VFR, but they can't handle the editing I need at the level I need it.

"I do believe there are many, many more additions to the program that would benefit the professional market far more than this."

I totally agree that there are many, many more additions to APP that would really benefit editors. They should also fix a lot of things that don't work right or are lacking functionality. That said VFR is one thing that happens to be high on my [sic: "our"] list because it it something I (we) encounter often. I understand that you don't hold it at such a high priority and would find other things more useful. That doesn't make my request any less valid, especially when they've already implemented other features that benefit less people in lesser ways.

Anyway, I again, I appreciate your difference of opinion and I hope to understand where you're coming from better, and if you have any suggestions for VFR to CFR conversion, PLEASE pass them on. Because at the moment for me, APP is useless to the point of being broken where this matter is concerned.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Hi PZombley,

As I wrote before, the only way to affect change in Adobe Premiere Pro is to file a feature request. Have you done so yet? I'm afraid debating these points with users set in their ways might prove to be fruitless for you. Unless you like wasting precious time, that is.

In my opinion, you and others on this thread are right to be upset that variable frame rate video is not supported very well in current versions of Premiere Pro. Since other pro NLEs support these frame rates, then the point is proven. We need to support these frame rates regardless of what device is used to acquire that footage.

I think what needs to happen first is that the application must carry new features to support VFR frame rates for ingest, at a minimum. After that is supported, then we could either use proxies, or transcode in the background.

I will continue to advocate for VFR support to my colleagues. I hope that helps a little, but feature requests are what really sends the important signals. If absolutely everyone on this thread filed a feature request for this one item, it would definitely make a difference.

Have a wonderful weekend!

Thanks,
Kevin

[jasonvp]

Kevin-Monahan wrote:

If absolutely everyone on this thread filed a feature request for this one item, it would definitely make a difference.

Kevin speaks the truth.  Folks, head to the link he posted earlier and fill out a request/feedback form.  We can discuss it all we want in the threads here, but all it'll serve is either frustration of catharsis (depending on your position).  Feedback.  Do it.  Now.

[PZombley]

Hey Kevin,

Yes, I put in my feature request. Here's hoping something good happens soon!

[cvid01]

I put in the same feature request - two years ago! Duh.

[Stan Jones]

My belief from a few years ago is that it helps to resubmit new feature requests with each major release. Kevin, is that still true?

With a popular issue like this one, that may not be necessary, but I'd resubmit as a feature request for CC 2017 even if you submitted previously.

[cvid01]

I gave up on it. Don't use variable frame rates often. When I do - from clients' iphone - use Handbrake. No biggy.

On a side note, maybe it's time to start a new thread. This one is getting old and large.

[R Neil Haugen]

I'm always intrigued the way people react to the bug/feature form thing. To be expected, considering we're all ... oh yea, humans! Ha.

The bug/request forms are all tabulated, and distributed to the managerial types that make the decisions as to budgeted time/projects for the engineering staff. They use their internal road-map for "the future" (which is as is oft noted, never shared outside of Staff, and even perhaps limited among that group), the things the staff members want to add/fix/remove (they all are editor types with their own ideas), the noted bug list the engineers are already working on, and the list of issues raised & requested by users via the form.

Out of all that, the manager types come to a decision where the budget is going. I think that's pretty close to the process.

So ... "our" requests & complaints are noted, but ... largely by the numbers of reports an issue generates. And I've been told by those who have seen the reports, that it would be a surprise to many users to see what actually gets to the top of the bug/feature form list. As in, they were rather puzzled themselves, as a user/editor and familiar with many of the pro users.

I have been part of a successful group pushing for a feature that got added primarily because of requests. And of course, many of the things I've requested haven't made it. That's ... Life.

I just wish the idiots turning in bug/feature forms that don't agree with us wise sages would simply stop interfering!

Neil

[Kevin-Monahan]

Stan Jones

My belief from a few years ago is that it helps to resubmit new feature requests with each major release. Kevin, is that still true?

No, we've got your individual request. It's a better strategy to get everyone in your circle of colleagues to file the same request—as I'm trying to get the folks on this post to do. 😉

Regards,
Kevin

[Kevin-Monahan]

I put in the same feature request - two years ago! Duh.

Thanks for doing that!

Regards,
Kevin

[DavidLevy]

Thanks Kevin,

I made a feature request for VFR support since it's a new year.

Really... it'd be great if this scenario played out so that both clips dropped into a timeline had the exact same lengths after being interpreted properly:

Two recordings of one scene shot for the exact same amount of time (let's assume for illustration sake).

One recording is CFR.

The other recording is VFR.

Both filmed same time from start to finish, two different cameras or sources.

Both.. should end up being same length in timeline.

But due to how Adobe PP currently handles VFR.. this is not possible.

I would like to know and read suggestions on how, technical wise, a feature like this could work?

What kind of algorithm or process, could fill in or remove frames of VFR to conform to a CFR set frame rate without losing content's relative action time? There's no word AFAIK for what I'm trying to say so I'll try to explain it.

You see, even if you know the exact duration of the file, if you fill or remove frames to conform it to a CFR format, an artifact could be that.. let's say it's a video of a pitcher throwing a baseball.. on the conformed VFR (camera 2) compared to the CFR (camera 1) the pitcher may line up on both videos with the release of the pitch at the same time.. BUT.. when the catcher catches it... due to filling in or removing frames.. the ball being caught might be dsync'd between both footages at that point... and eventually as the empire yells strike at the end of the video.. the video footages appear sync'd again being that they both are at the end of the footage...

Think of it as a slinky effect.

[ravenise]

Thank you Keven.  A simple solution would be to implement a simple frameserver built into Premiere that interpreted VFR footage as CFR before dropping it into the sequence. Framesevers typically act as a middle man to serve timeline footage between two programs. For example, a frameserve plugin for Premiere allows the importing complete timelines (with effects and all) into programs like TMPGEnc Xpress, or Sony Vegas, which allows them to encode and edit the final product.  The plugin exports a temporary file onto the computer which can be imported by the aforementioned programs.  Lets say native VFR support in Premiere & After Effects Timecode sequences requires the revamping of multiple features, like effects.  A very simple solution is to implement a built in Frameserver to feed Premiere & After Effects VFR footage as CFR footage, directly into the currently existing Sequence Timebase system.  Since Sony Vegas, TMPGEnc Xpress, and any video player like VLC or Windows Media Player can properly playback VFR footage in realtime with no problem and no resource issues, a simple frameserver could do the exact same thing for those who choose to work with VFR footage... no need to revamp the entire suite for this process.  This could be done by Adobe or possibly a third party.

[Kevin-Monahan]

HI Ravenise,

Thanks for the feedback. Can you please file that in the form of a feature request here?

Thanks!
Kevin

[DavidLevy]

Please read my response:

Re: Variable frame rate video with Premiere Pro

It's not how it works in all industries related to moving pictures. Mainly the video game streaming industry.

[R Neil Haugen]

I don't do much in VFR ... only a little bit, when I actually use my Samsung S7's 'camera', which is rare for anything I'll actually edit. Those are mostly "family shapshots" just in video form.

So ... my use isn't even an issue here. It's not for my routine use of PrPro I "speak". It's for the greater editing community as I see it at this point in 2016.

First, I want to be clear: your knowledge of so many technical things far exceeds mine. Your knowledge of editing alone far exceeds mine. I always read your posts diligently ... and typically re-read them several times, trying to ingest as much of the detailed information you post as I can. I learn from you ... and value the gift enormously. You are one of the finest resources on these Adobe forums in so many ways.

What IS an issue at this point, is that there are two very large and very professional industries, one based on gaming and a similar but even more massive one based on general streaming content. The gaming industry uses streaming, of course, but not all streaming use is gaming by any stretch. The amount of streamed "original content" now far exceeds the "studio-broadcast" content.

When I've watched the international gaming competitions that my sons have requested I do with them ... what I've seen are say two teams, one in a studio in Korea, the other in a studio in Japan or the US or somewhere ... the play-by-play and color announcers (just like US sports b-casts) are maybe in Australia, and the whole thing is streamed live around the world, to large audiences and often very much for paid viewers only. After the b-cast, the entire "program" is re-edited for streaming-on-demand. I see no difference anywhere in that scenario from say broadcasting the NFL or NBA games in the US, and re-streaming them around the world.

Except, of course, for the fact that they did this while linking three to four studios on different continents ... live.

The studios used are clearly high-end pro gear and   staffed by highly trained/skilled/experienced operators. They handle what is inherently a difficult technical setup working from two, three, or even 4 continents simultaneously. And do it flawlessly. Both the contestant teams and the commentators and such get paid one heck of a lot more ... full-time at this ... than I do. (Some of the prize money ranks with US Pro golf tournaments ... wowza!)

I have no apology whatever for considering any comment saying the streaming industry isn't "professional" as showing a sadly dated and totally obsolete concept of pro video work as of this point in time. It wasn't so really even a couple years ago, but ... that has thoroughly, completely, and irrevocably changed. I'm 63 ... and view this with amazement. But it really is here, it's huge, it's professional ... and ... it's the future.

Talking with some "streamers" at NAB ... their "native" home is VFR. Every "deliverable" they ever do is VFR, and they've no use for standard CFR codecs, as those are not welcome on any internet system anywhere in the world. It's very easy to find "streamers" at NAB ... a great percentage of the floor-space of the tradeshow is of course taken by streaming content makers, streaming satellite/cable operators, and of course ... all the "stuff" of hardware and software to run their streaming content through and over.

Within a couple booths of the big Adobe booth at NAB were a couple streaming-based companies hawking their gear & software.

And virtually all in the streaming industry think the assumption that they should shoot & edit in CFR, then re-code to transmit, then ... when re-editing, re-code to CFR just to go back to VFR for re-transmitting ... is downright silly. When talking politely. They can be pithier about that in conversations of course.

And I can't see where they're wrong. I'm not a tech wiz in this area ... but I know enough of tech to know that what's impossible/difficult/silly to try or work within at one point can suddenly become normal, easy, and ... doesn't everybody do it like this? And that in a short time. There's been several generations ​ of that in my working life.

Neil

[Garrett_C]

I'm so embarrassed by this, every single competitor on the market supports this basic feature but Adobe has staunchly - for years - refused, for no tangible reason on Earth, it's just flat out embarrassing.

How many years have people been requesting something a FreeWare from a turgid corner supports? A street merchant of a program supports? The king has no clothes, and I am embarrassed for Adobe, frankly.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Hi Garrett C,

I'm so embarrassed by this, every single competitor on the market supports this basic feature but Adobe has staunchly - for years - refused, for no tangible reason on Earth, it's just flat out embarrassing.

It's not that "we refuse," we just don't have the tech in place yet. It's not a trivial problem to solve, so please file feature requests here. Sorry, it's taking so long to solve.

Regards,

Kevin

[Garrett_C]

Preliminary 36 minute video shows Cinema FV-5 Lite(free version) putting out rather large files at 720p but it works in PP beautifully, I'll have to do a full normal recording with lighting and background to test it out further.

[schoeps]

Vegas handles this just fine and now is supported by MAGIX, I cant believe that CC still does not support iPhone video. Very sad. Pro or not, even Windows Movie Maker supports editing with sync.

[schoeps]

If you change the file extension to "dif" it seems to work OK. You'll need the Quicktime Codecs installed. Im getting jumpy video previews, but the audio seems to stay synced.

[HarleyTDavis]

THE ONLY WAY TO REMOVE THIS PROBLEM IS TO INGEST VIDEO EVERY TIME, or PERMANENTLY SET EQUIPMENT TO KEEP STABILIZATION OFF AND USE STEADYCAM OR TRIPOD RIGS.

For fast paced workflows like breaking news, body stabilizers, tripods, and steadycams rule.  They prevent the frame drop that occurs with in camera stabilization routines.  On camera techniques require lenses with floating mechanisms that produce a wider image than the main area of the sensor, and a frameserver deck that stabilizes the feed.  THis means a 1080p sensor is really 720p with a stabilized lens\deck.

For more consistent environments like tvseries, or a shop that handles all kinds of video, INGESTING to a common format allows you to keep consistent output, and removes most problems.

True professionals in the EDITING field understand this.  The term Editor doesn't mean the same thing.  Professional Editor implies that you attended a collegiate program and got a degree in this area of study, or you have been in the business for an extended period, and understand the technical details associated with the work.  The artistry is independant of that.  Anybody can be an editor.  But only those who've studied it and understand the details can be called professionals.  If you call yourself one and don't follow professional convention, running into issues and then asking everybody else why, you don't understand the details and are not a professional who can PROFESS it.  If you took the project as a job and listed yourself as a professional, you can be sued for false representation and breach of contract.  Be very careful guys.

Premiere is designed primarily for the Professional field.  It can be used by those who aren't professionals by the above standards as it is very simple to use.  But it usually comes with AME or Prelude for a reason.  It doesn't INGEST VIDEO.  IT EDITS VIDEO that's been INGESTED.

A consistent workflow produces consistent results.  Adjusting the time within each step can yield subtle artistic differences, but the results will be predictable scheduling and fewer headaches.  Ingest your video.

For most apple formats, use free quicktime to reformat to a standard sized version of the video.  No sync problems.

For other formats (made by other products) use handbrake, compressor, AME, or Prelude to reformat the video.  Prelude and AME can work together to make 2 formats, a proxy and an output main file for use when the edit decisions are made, for higher quality output.  Just make sure you are REFORMATTING the video completely, to a fixed frame rate and set frame blending or another method if available so that it reframes the video to the full length, matching the frames to the audio.

[DavidLevy]

I appreciate you diving into the video gaming footage situation testing out things and posting back,

but I read a comment you made a while back that I wanted to address.

The one where you try to re-define the word professionalism concerning editors.

https://www.google.com/search?q=professional&oq=professional

(of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime.

Creating your own definition based on your own principles/beliefs/thoughts doesn't help anyone nor make a valid point in your argument as it's a fallacy called equivocation.

For example of how the definition of professional, applies.

Seller's on Fiverr who sell their labor to edit videos. For the one's who's main source of income or occupation is just that... they are professionals whether anyone likes that or not. Skills and education may not be the same, as someone working in a Mercedes ingest van or editing for multi-million dollar projects, but it does not somehow make them "less professional". Less "skilled" or "educated" or "experienced" yes maybe.

Ever since Adobe opened up the Subscription plans, Adobe products became affordable for all manner of students, hobbyists, and "less" skilled professionals alike. This opened the flood gates for what you should allude to being POSSIBLY "less skilled" or "less experienced" editors. And by doing the subscription plans, guess what.. I'm willing to bet that is now the LARGEST user base of Adobe Products. There's not hundreds of thousands of highly skilled highly industry experienced editors on this planet in the context that I refereed to (ingest vans or ACE's that are also I.A.T.S.E. members). To add to that, some of the most talented people I know are under contract with companies that are subcontracted with Marvel and others and won't/can't work for anyone else. These few people, are not Adobe premiere's primary user base anymore.. not by a long shot. So this whole idea of "I'm more entitled than you" attitude on the forums is not constructive and is completely fallacious.

In my opinion it's only people like us who HAVE THE TIME to bother posting on these forums, let alone read them, who make such passionate replies. So what does that say about us? Maybe too much spare time on our hands? Maybe we should be gathering more experience instead of bickering back and forth about the merits of "professionalism" (speaking generally) and how that somehow illogically influences the OP subject of Adobe supporting VFR.

If Adobe encouraged subscription users via the Cloud App to visit these forums and teach about the feature requests page, maybe we'd see more feature requests being made. And more constructive NEW blood on these forums.

And until that happens the people visiting this thread will likely be, like me, those who searched on Google for "VFR in Premiere Pro" or some combination or deviant of that keyword phrase. Just hoping to find solutions.