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.

[the_wine_snob]

Greg,

Very well-stated. We have seen much of that information, and some of us have sort of parroted some of it.

I will very likely link to this thread, and point out your response in it, when I encounter the "why has Adobe not included ____ ?" questions elsewhere.

Thank you for taking the time to articulate the situation.

Hunt

[DavidLevy]

Yes you are right, this thread was contentious starting from the first posts to even me joining and saying something because of the contention to make even worse lol.

But yea I'm glad a staff member made a comment concerning VFR content.

Warp Stabilizer... hats off to all the math and hard work everyone did to get that in there.

I'm assuming the wishlist of features is still being looked at for PP in CS7?

If so I'm suggesting that PP (probably the easiest and most professional NLE out there to use) allow support to the point for VFR content that you'll pull in more streamers...

in fact if you market to streamers that use eg Twitch.TV (assuming your marginal returns and IRR justify the VFR support addition) you'll probably pull in more happy lifelong customers.

Some ideas...

I assume implementing this wouldn't be too hard if you use a frame filling algorithm to pad the video for commonly dropped frames that usually plague online streaming. And since the audio track (although many times slightly delayed after video) is usually the most stable, maybe a slider (left-right) sync option once the video has the frame fill algorithm applied (to make the VFR essentially CFR) would then be step number 2.

Just an idea.

Hopefully someone with Adobe runs with it.

FYI as a reminder to everyone… the last thing you should do is transcode your VFR content just to use in an NLE that will be re-rendered again. Doing so will degrade your content and take up WAY too much of your time that could be better spent in your NLE like PP, Avid, Vegas, etc. All of which do not currently support (at the time of this post) VFR content with dropped frames effectively. But hopefully as they notice the live streaming trend expanding they may just add such support. Fingers crossed!

See my previous post on how to convert VFR flv files to Adobe supported MP4 files.

[excited_Genie16B8]

I think there are better options here.  For starters, don't try editing streamed video, meaning recorded on the other end.  Something must be generating the video that's being streamed, and that will almost certainly be constant frame rate and have less compression.  It's better to edit that original than the streamed result.

Secondly stream only at the frame rate of that original.

[DavidLevy]

You are not being real world here Jim and you're continuing to be contentious.

Yes in the IDEAL world of course one would have an uncompressed feed to a local machine for later editing.

But that is EXTRODINARILY costly in terms of storage space, processing, and time.

In the majority of REAL WORLD streamers, they have one computer which is not too great (usually under the $4000 range), one capture card and web camera,

and have limited bandwidth.

And alot of times the streamer doesn't use NLE's but have a friend edit their streams for them for YouTube content.

Regardless of the streamers technical abilities, the capture device goes straight to Xsplit, OBS, AmaRecTV, FFsplit, etc which are the tools that use CPU to transcode the capture to a stream-able signal which usually can NOT go over 4000KBs as doing so will not allow many viewers the ability to watch as the bandwidth would be too high for their connection.

Streaming workflows for majority of streamers IS NO WHERE NEAR the same workflows as professional production studios....

so that notion of applying the same practice methods needs to be thrown out the window right now. It's not the same and just because it is lower scale in terms of money and equipment does not mean it should be scoffed at.

It is cost effective to simply take the live stream output and edit it for YouTube when ready as the quality loss is usually not noticeably so long as it only goes through one generation of transcoding for final render. It takes incredibly LESS storage space and noticeably LESS CPU resources to work with. At a cost of video quality which only really matters to videophile gear heads which are in an ENTIRELY different market… Live Streams and videos from live streams have COMPLETELY different expectations on them then what’s expected from a professionally done movie. I’m stating a lot of what should be obvious…

Also a lot of the time Streams cannot be set at the captured frame rate.

So do us a favor Jim Simon as you are obviously not an expert on live streaming…. Stop saying what we should and shouldn’t be doing concerning live stream editing until you get some real experience in that field.

As that is the only situation in which you could be helpful here…. Which is if you had real world live streaming experience and practical editing workflows for such. Good day.

[Guest]

I recently recorded gameplay from my xbox, when i open this recording using windows media player it states that the video is 3 hours 30 minutes long, which is correct, when i then import this into premiere pro, premiere pro changes it to be 5 hours and 44 minutes long, when i then play this back it plays in slow motion and audio and video start to desync, i thought it may just be the source editor playing up so i made a clip and put it into the timeline and it still had the same outcome. The speed/duration are still on 100% so im not sure what to do, anyone have any idea as to what this is, or why it is happening?I recently recorded gameplay from my xbox, when i open this recording using windows media player it states that the video is 3 hours 30 minutes long, which is correct, when i then import this into premiere pro, premiere pro changes it to be 5 hours and 44 minutes long, when i then play this back it plays in slow motion and audio and video start to desync, i thought it may just be the source editor playing up so i made a clip and put it into the timeline and it still had the same outcome. The speed/duration are still on 100% so im not sure what to do, anyone have any idea as to what this is, or why it is happening? The frame rate is variable but so are other gameplay clips i have used, and they have been fine, why is it this clip decides to do this?

and is there any way around it?

[DavidLevy]

That's happened to me before, so long as the variable framerate file is SOMEWHAT stable (eg stays around 29.97 or 59.94 or whatever was set as target framerate) you can re-interpret the footage in premier to the correct frame rate.

It seems adobe thinks it's a 30fps file when maybe it's actually a 60fps file... you were the one recording so you should have an idea or be able to trace back your steps to find out what your target frame rate was. Once you re-interpret to the target frame rate in Adobe, you'll have to chop up the clip, de-link audio, and slide the audio tracks around into sync. Unfortunately I don't know of a plugin for PP that will fix variable frame rate video files that have framedrop outs.. especially drastic ones. Best of luck, it's hard to fix but do-able.

[excited_Genie16B8]

one capture card and web camera,

There's the problem right there.  If you intend any editing at all, don't use a web cam, use a video camera that records video compatible with your edit system (in this case, PP).

The point being, don't expect the software to accommodate every possible video signal.  I think Adobe engineers would go mad trying to build that in.  Rather, if you intend to use PP, then you should be working within it's capabilities when you generate the content you'll be editing.

That is eminently practical and 'real world'.

So do us a favor Jim Simon as you are obviously not an expert on live streaming

I'll grant you that.  But I have done it on numerous occasions.  And I've had no trouble editing the content sent over the stream.  We use real video cameras, send their output to a switcher, send it's output to an encoder, and it's output over the web.  We record the program out, and sometimes iso record the cameras.  It works, because we do it in a way that works.

Now, you can file your feature request, and maybe someday Adobe will accommodate.  But at this point in time, I do not have a problem editing streamed content, and you do.  Something to keep in mind when you read my posts.

[Swazzlehoff31]

Jim,

Truly no offense, but you should step down from this conversation....

The days of recording the stream on the camera side and editing that are kind of out the door with DSLR streaming and a few other commonly used cameras. At some point in the future that might be an option again, but at this point recording while you stream often times is not an option, so you need a software solution or if you have the budget an external recorder ... like the Ki Pro by Aja.

If you are wondering why it's not an option, just google DSLR - Clean HDMI Streaming and just DSLR Streaming in general... often times when you push record the signal coming out of the camera gets downgraded, and there are a whole mess of other strange little issues that you'll find when streaming DSLR's.

The new generation of media creation is all about low cost, speed, best quality possible in that order. Webcams, YouTube, DSLR's and all of that is easily the fastest growing market in the world right now generating millions of dollars. Professional software has to rise to meet that demand or professionals like us are simply going to hitch our horse to a different stable.

[gregb98056542]

Swazzlehoff31,

I agree, we should not be discounting anybody's needs.  There are many reasons why a professional may need the ability to work with variable frame rate video.  However, we do have to focus on other issues while deciding on what features to implement.  We have to look at the most common workflows so that we can provide the best service to the largest number of customers we can.  If this is an up-and-coming need, submit those bug reports.  The more of these reports we have, the more likely we are to allocate resources to providing a solution.

To be clear - we understand your needs.  The more push we have from people like you, people in our forums, and especially people who submit feature request, the more likely we are to implement features for this type of video files.

On another note, if this thread becomes any more contentious with the "use real tools" type of conversation, I will have to look into locking this thread.  I do not want to do that because I think this is a useful and interesting conversation. Please don't make me interrupt it.

[MD_Optofonik]

I have noticed there are a lot of folks here who are involved in old-school editing and offer a lot of good advice on the subject. A good number of them probably have no need to look outside the environment that has provided them with a living for a large portion of their career and, quite frankly, may have no desire to do so. As a result, there is the potential to "not keep up with the times"; again, they have no need to because their client base is firmly entrenched in more tradition means of production. If, in the past, they have been able to offer good advice that was relevant it could be difficult for them to understand how the same advice that was relevant and well received in the past may not be as relevant (nor well received) to the most current production standards and practices. Times change and not everyone changes with them so perhaps it's best to let certain comments go unnoticed and unremarked upon.

The above also applies to Adobe. Premiere has existed on the fringes of certain levels of the NLE world for most of it's life while becoming a sort of "official" NLE for cottage industry production (especially before FCP). Premiere's engineers could be as unaware of how contemporary production is accomplished at certain levels as some of their users. They are playing catch up and unfortunately for them they appear out of the loop on certain subjects and, with a few exceptions, not many players have the need or desire to offer Adobe the kind of insight the big dogs get. Why would an editor waste time talking to Adobe when they already have an ongoing dialog with another company (whose name we dare not speak)? Put another way, if the only people filling out "feature request forms" are people unfamiliar with current production trends at a "certain" level Adobe can never get a real picture of what they need to do to become relevant to the sort users whom they would like to court. It's a closed loop.

The other side of this coin is a similar closed loop involving those who are trying to reinvent the wheel under the mistaken perception they they are on the cutting edge of something that has already been incorporated into current production standards and practices. They can sometimes be as inflexible as their critics; believing themselves to be leading a vanguard that will soon follow. Again, not having access to those who are working at a certain level creates an environment in a vacuum. Sometimes working in isolation does lead to interesting ways of doing things and creative solutions to vexing technical challenges but, more often than not, it leads to contention between the old guard and the new. It becomes a lose lose for both sides. The "old guard" refuses to considere a change to the status quo that could lead to an increase in marketable skill set and the "new guard" dismisses the more experienced as ignorant of "trends" at the expense of the benefits of developing a relationship with a potential mentor.

As someone who has worked on set at both ends of the spectrum (anywhere from $180,000,000 to $180,000 budgets), I can attest to the fact that just about every form of capture is coming into play in the current production environment and everyone in every department is expected to do their homework, learn the new techniques, get fully on-board with the program, and keep their opinions to themselves, or retire. It may seem harsh but that's the way it is. No one on set or anywhere else in the production process wants to suffer a constant litany of negative grumbling from anyone about how everyone in "the business" are lowering their standards, and things would be so much better and would go more smoothly if only we could stop using (insert so called inferior device or technique) and go back to using (insert so called superior device or technique) that was once common, etc. Let a producer or someone else above the line overhear such grumbling and watch how quickly the back of the call sheet changes.

Having said that, the advice I have gotten from some of the "old-school" folks here has been and will continue to be of great value to me and much appreciated. It's all a matter of context on one hand and understanding on the other.

[elctr0]

This is really a relief knowing that you consider all feature & fixes demanded by users

Keep good work, Thanks

rmshro0​ Try GoPro studio that comes with GoPro App Desktop. I haven't tried it yet but I'm going to to my next project. I have same issue with my PS4 videos & previously I used to fix it 1 by 1 by QT Pro doing a save as (self-contained video). I don't like to use similar app like Handbrake because it recompress the video & that reduces quality

[excited_Genie16B8]

it's a valid point and you have made this point repeatedly, despite the OP and many other pointing out how little relevance it has in this particular conversation.

I think it's very relevant.

At this point in time, PP has trouble with variable frame rate video.  Sooo....either don't record variable frame rate video, or use another tool that can handle that video, either for editing or for conversion.  That it took 4 months for someone to post a process for conversion isn't my fault.  I don't use VFR video, so didn't have a conversion method to recommend.

[Harm_Millaard]

Nonetheless, I am required to produce professional videos from these materials for my clients

How do you create professional videos from toys? Like creating a professional painting and having only a kinder garten drawing to start with.

[rmshro0]

Harm Millaard wrote:

Nonetheless, I am required to produce professional videos from these materials for my clients

How do you create professional videos from toys? Like creating a professional painting and having only a kinder garten drawing to start with.

As the original starter of this thread - how is this guy still allowed on the forums with commentary like this?  If anyone from the staff group is actually paying attention, you should pay attention to how those of us with thousands of dollars invested in your product are being treated on the official support site.

[gregb98056542]

Like I said before, this type of response from here on out will mean this thread will get locked.  On either side - do not attack the professionality of the users on these forums.  That's the best we can do.

Believe me, the staff is paying attention to all threads, especially ones with 56 replies in them.

On a personal level, I find this thread fascinating and want to keep the discussion going.  I'm learning all new ways these variable frame rate formats are being made these days.

[topfunkycorp]

I'm also finding this discussion fascinating.

I use variable frame rate video from screen capture apps like ScreenFlow. For a screen capture, most of the screen isn't moving most of the time. So if I'm doing a multi-cam sequence with screen capture and live video, I need to use the frame rate of the live video (29.97). If I were able to use variable frame rate video in Premiere, I could use video files straight from ScreenFlow.

As is, I need to re-compress all my ScreenFlow videos such that every frame is a keyframe. The downside is that I end up with huge files where a smaller one would do.

http://www.telestream.net/screenflow/

[DavidLevy]

Yea please keep this thread alive so more can contribute.

To answer the statement made a few posts back:

Topic: Producing professional content with consumer to pro-consumer products outputing content at variable framerates.

Research that should be done before writing off the need for variable frame rate support:

The trends and future of entertainment are pushing harder toward instant feedback and instant consumer interaction (see Xbox One integration with NFL for instant consumer feedback and interaction) and so live streaming TV shows is happening more often (I'm even in the middle of producing one in fact). Because of bandwidth limitations of consumers... variable frame rates are most cost effective for everyone involved in that platform.

Another benefit is the drastic storage space savings. If I can record a 1 hour partially live show every week in 1080p (soon to be 4K standard in maybe 2 to 5 years depending on economies of scale and market response for UHD TVs) along with all the other projects I'm working on.. I'd much rather minimize my storage demands by working with live lossy captures as much as possible. Content can trump quality almost always up to a point and so I prefer pumping out content fast to my audience as they want it... instead of taking a lot of time and resources to get it out later for them.

So yea editing CFR RAW footage gives a lot of editing leeway and is very forgiving to work with from the get go.... but damn.... I don't want to store all that footage as an independant producer on my budget... no f*ing way.

What would be nice.... would be newer broadcast format algorythms for lossy that is on par with lossless quality and uber low bandwidth requirements in comparison with today's tech so end consumers can view with greater ease. But that may not happen any time soon except for closed units like the XBOX ONE, PLAYSTATION 4, etc

In the mean time... what I'm doing is recording both decent quality CFR and also working with the left over variable frame rate footage from livestreams to Twitch.TV.

I'm working on a show where fans can influence and interact with the cast THROUGH twitch.TV while the show is recording ... and later the twitch.tv live stream footage is edited into the show for cohesion before the actual full show is released. This is a somewhat new approach I'm taking with my indie shows and I think a lot more producers are going to hop on the band wagon because of the real connection the audience can have with the show via the LIVE INTERACTION platform.. stage 1 recording <-- live interaction with audience ... stage 2 final release <-- with content not seen / heard during stage 1 live stream session. I'll publish press releases via davidaelevy.com if anyone is interested.

So if Adobe included variable frame rate support.. it would entice people in my situation to use their product.

And considering this thread has kept consumers from leaving Adobe (thank you for the shout out, I appreciate that)... maybe Adobe would consider making it easier for us because my solution is not time effective and not perfect.

Live streaming is the new thing to do... so let's all do the right thing.. give people what they want.

edit:

on another note... remember how so many photographers hated the new digital camera age emergence because it would mean more competition and less demand for their services (and the art of film developing) ?

And now making a good living as a photographer is NOTHING (from my own experience) like it used to be before the last 10 years. If people want a okay to decent headshot.. they can just use their cell phone now. That... (stating the obvious to make a point) ...  wasn't the case 10 years ago....

And cameras, computers, technology and software is becoming SOO much more accessible... more people can contribute different takes on ideas, new platforms, new markets, new demands.

So what I'm trying to say to the negative nancies... embrace/adjust for change... be nible and agile... stay hip... be open to new ideas...

because the imo live streamer and indie producer is not a peasant to be spit at.. and neither are their modest tools. Neither is the director who shot a whole movie on an iphone and gets national attention and awards and new business opportunities because of it.... just saying... a rigid (not adapting to consumer need) product.. imo is a product that will eventually die... (unless it's something like toliet paper.. or water...).. well you get my point anyway I hope.

added a quick thought

[John T Smith]

>What would be nice.... would be newer broadcast format algorythms

See note on H.265 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1142160

[DavidLevy]

Thank you, Yea I read the press releases on H.265 and read through the main site a very long time ago, it's an increadible technology! But from what I understood end user implementation won't happen for a long while. All major OS would have to implement it in updates or at the very least in future OS releases as well as applicable hardware vendors. It's a little different than say just one software developer adding in a feature... we're talking global implementation across hundreds of platforms.. that will probably take a great deal of time. But the codec definately looks future proof for at least 10 years with what it can handle, very cool stuff! Imagine streaming a live 8K broadcast to everyone's TV walls of the future.... dayum.. awesomeness!

[Steven L. Gotz]

I have been following this conversation with interest and I have yet to see an answer to what I am curious about, so I figured it was probably time to ask.

I use a screen capture utility that uses a constant bit rate and I understand that the file size can get quite large. And while I also understand that capturing video at a lower frame rate for slow moving action and a higher frame rate for more action makes a lot of sense, exactly how should a frame based editing program treat the video?

If the video frame rate is all over the map, should Premiere Pro create a timeline using the maximum frame rate and then fill in the other frames with duplicates of the ones before and/or after them?

What would be optimum? You see, I can't figure out exactly what you are asking for. I haven't seen a detailed feature request explaining how to work with variable rates, just outrage that Premiere Pro doesn't work with variable rates.

Can someone explain exactly what they want Adobe to do?

If there is such an explanation and I missed it, I apologize. Just point me to it and I will stay out of the fray.

[DavidLevy]

Hi Steven,

There are at least 2 entirely separate issues I think you're addressing there (eg your speaking of a different capture situation).

But in my opinion the original issue was how to make the best with an already existing variable frame rate video file from streaming type media recording and how to make it work in Adobe. Which a very crude work around was given.

So that aside,

To answer your question about how should a NLE treat the video? (I assume you're alluding to VFR videos)

Honestly I don't know what is best... but I have some ideas to offer.

Should Adobe fill the frame to hit target frame rate?

Yes and no.... I think there should be an interpretive option to do so that uses intelligent algorithms to interpret the footage frame rate flux and fill with frames that either compensate and/or intelligently apply differences instead of just "filling' the frames based on previous and next image. Doing a basic fill might cause choppiness... not sure how that would look.

What would be optimum?

…. You know how Twixtor is the BEST slow mo plugin on the market (IMHO) right now? Whatever magic they do to make those frame gaps smooth.. the same process or modified process should be used for various detail levels of VFR stabilization.

No, there was no in-depth explanation.. yet... because I was personally just asking Adobe to make life easier for OP and myself and people in same situation. Apart from originally being outraged at the lack of consideration the OP was receiving which is why I signed up on the forums in the first place to say something about it. But back on topic, any step saved is more time better spent elsewhere. So if adobe can add support for VFR and VFR fla it would be good. The fancy swanky idea of making VFR to CFR conversion on par with Twixtor.. well that would just steal the show.

Hope this helps paint a more complete picture and answers part of your questions.

[Steven L. Gotz]

The twixtor comparison helped. Thanks. So the answer is not just to duplicate the frames, but to use advanced frame blending between them. Got it. Makes sense.

I have not spent any time playing with Time Warp or Time Remapping so I don't know how good they are and if they could be the basis for which Adobe attacks the problem.

However, a quick thought: if the spatial movement of a video can be dealt with by the image stabilization tool called Warp Stabilizer, then perhaps the same concept applied to temporal stabilization could be achieved.

I understand some of Jim's concerns, in that he and I both have a lot of requests for other features we would like to see first, and if Adobe spends time on something we never use, we lose out. As long ime users, we get a little protective of "our" software. I am certain you understand.

However, I suggest that someone, perhaps you because you seem to have a good grasp on the situation, create a well worded feature request and start a new thread encouraging people to copy and paste it into the official Adobe feature request page. As pointed out in this thread, Adobe does its best to respond to feature requests based in part on the volume of requests.

However, personally, I would prefer you didn't.

But thanks again for the explanation.

[DavidLevy]

I'm not going to spam Adobe with requests... I won't do that... and neither should any one other person of themselves and.. IF that's what it takes to get things done here then the system is broken.

But points have been made that are valid, Jim was already rebuked by a few not just me, I think that says something about any "concerns" from that corner you're aligning yourself with. And doing something for the live stream community I believe would be a good idea for Adobe. The flash program they made for live streaming, " Flash Media Live Encoder"... no one I know into livestreaming likes it.. at all.. and that's well near 100+ different live streamers I've talked to on just twitch.tv alone.

Personally I really enjoyed Swazzel and MD Optofonik posts and they bring up some important issues... Adapt or lose money. Adobe has this obvious trend of making something for nearly everything and a few of those products need improvement (eg Flash Media Live Encoder)... and it's even more weird how Adobe would make a live streaming program but then not have those live stream files compatible with Adobe's leading NLE??? the two are connected... so to me this thread is about bringing AWARENESS to the FVR/fla issue and Live Streaming and also about being a real human being providing real working solutions instead of being a troll. I still see it rampant here in these forums, and much of it from the most active posters... the forum culture here doesn't match the level of customer service and positive vibe Adobe has been known for.  I mean crying out load Adobe made the entire CS6 suite available for same price as a night out at the movies with a date every month. That's excellent... so why isn't that same level of excellence expected/conducted by this forums most active posters? It's a terrible fallacy in logic in forums where activity is interpreted as quality membership... as a big board owner I can tell you it is NOT.. and the trolling is why forums have been on the decline as opposed to how things were years past. I'm going way off topic but it needs to be written here.. as leading members of a COMMUNITY... those members should act like leaders... and when they step out of line... the mighty moderator karate chop needs to happen.. So many mods are afraid to correct their most active members because they are afraid to lose them... wrong... just like children... people need correction when they step out of line (as my personal enraged insult at Jim, sorry about that Jim... but I still don't like you... yet) ESPECIALLY when they are leaders of a community. Sure they may leave for a few days pissed that they were told no.. just like a kid throws a tantrum.. but because they invested so much time in the community already.. the chances are UBER high they will come right back. Adobe... fix up your forums... it's in dire need of some improved culture. I'm glad this thread was cleaned up though.. so kudos there.

Re: How is it possible Premiere still cannot handle variable frame rate video?

[Steven L. Gotz]

I have been on these forums for a long time. Even longer than it says in my profile because I changed my user name after a technical problem. In any case, I remember when there were no Adobe employees around at all. At least not outed ones. They hid in the shadows. There is nothing much "official" about these forums. Oh, we get the employees hanging out nowadays but these forums are still moderated by unpaid volunteers.

These forums were started by users, as I recall, and merely hosted by Adobe.

I doubt that anything other than getting rid of personal insults and profanity is in the moderator's charter. To warn a user against irritating others is probably not on their radar at all. As insulting as you might consider Jim or Harm to be at times, it is professional, not personal insults they write and those can be tough to moderate. Although I imagine they have to be censored once in a while as do I. It happens.

Harm and Jim are two of the most helpful people I have ever seen around here. I don't always agree with what they say is important, but it is tough to beat them when it comes to technical competence. If they are a little prejudiced against video from sources other than cameras, or audio from less than decent microphones, it is something that they feel strongly about. Perhaps what some people consider important needs to be taken into consideration by those who do not agree but it should not stop anyone from making their requests of Adobe.

I don't believe that gathering a crowd and convincing them to back your play is spamming in any way. More like crowd sourcing. Get enough people to agree and you will find that actions speak louder than forum posts. Greg said it himself. The more people who submit requests, the more attention the situation gets.

As for trolling. Keep in mind that the only way to "earn" points around here is for people to declare your posts helpful, or correct. You can't buy points, and I would know if people were padding them. It just isn't necessary. These guys have lots and lots of points, indicating that a lot of people are grateful to have them around. Me included. I learn from them all the time.

Do I care that I am slowly approaching my third + sign. Not really. I like having my posts marked correct, but only because it is positive feedback. Heck, I troll these boards for questions that I do not know the answer to just to see if I can figure out the answer. That is as much my hobby as video or photography. Figuring out how to do things is what I do for entertainment. The fact that it helps others is merely a side effect at times.

Just understand that there are some topics that generate some disagreements and let it go. This appears to be one of those topics.

[excited_Genie16B8]

sorry about that Jim... but I still don't like you

No worries.  I do have a tendency to skip the "How can I solve this problem?" track and tend much more towards a "How can I get the job done?" mindset.

Looking back over the thread, I stand by everything I said.  You guys are doing things in a manner than does not work well with PP.  It's one thing to want Adobe to accommodate, and maybe one day they will.  But for now, some other option may be required, including doing things in a way that does work with PP - meaning do not use VFR video.

It's advice pretty much guaranteed to work, if followed.