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.

[HarleyTDavis]

Start with bad video in premiere sequence, right click clip in timeline, turn on Frame Blending, render preview, playback is fixed.

Eds cookies, your explanation leaves something to be desired.  Did you use AME or the go pro software?  Both use a queue.  Name the software before you describe and import or in the same sentence at least.

Method 2:

Using AME, you can render out, and check the frame blending box.  This will fix missing frames and render a movie for use.

[edscookies]

i imported the videos into the goPro editing software

[HarleyTDavis]

Well, that's one way to go.

Not everybody has a gopro, and there are many on this forum with the same problem with VFR.  The go pro import is the way to go for a go pro (start there and output an h264 or the like), and it should handle the problem just fine.  Major props, Bro.  Nicely done.

another way:

If you turn on frame blending in the clip on the timeline, then render out the previews, it will also fix the playback.  I prefer doing a log and transport to my edit formats, which solves the problem right away, and gives me a break.  At the same time, I can play with the audio on it's own.  I can sync audio tracks for matching multi cam, mix down a 5.1 for use as the main, and finish the prep work.  After all that, editing takes about a day, and I output to a full format, then send to encoders for compression to delivery formats.

If you're like me, and you work on not just a laptop, but an old laptop, the log and transport being done external while you work on the audio is a godsend.  I'm a one man, one-stop shop, and I've only just started my professional work.  Old equipment still hanging around, but I'm looking into the newer stuff.

[Nikisgr8]

Same problem with me..I recorded Star Wars Battlefront gameplay..framerate varies from 80-100 fps..recorded with Nvidia Shadowplay.. I bring it in After effects for few texts and edits..render it..op file has audio out of sync..its due to Adobe products unable to handle variable frame rate..sad .

[nw42]

PPro needs a valid time code to operate and such streams don't have a frame rate or time code just multiplexed A/V data blocks... (same for all other professional NLE/Transcoder solutions I know of...)

You just have to convert such streams to a valid video format - as suggested via Handbrake/ AVIDEMUX or the like...

[Nikisgr8]

Yeah I know handbrake is an option..but if Sony Vegas can handle it without handbrake..why can't adobe ??

[nw42]

that's a good question

I know that the AVID systems are also picky about files without constant framerate...

[R Neil Haugen]

The answer is that until 'recently' the only things that produced variable frame-rate video were cell phones, tablets, and computer-screen capturing programs. NONE of which were used in standard professional workflows, period. Note, this is Premiere Pro, with heavy emphasis on the last three letters. I think even Elements might handle VFR, though my memory on that isn't guaranteed.

But over the last couple years, there have been many changes ... including, as the example I cite from having watched my 17-year old son's programs of interest on the 'net' ... international computer game competitions. Massive events, one competing team in one country, the other team in a different country, "filmed" live with cameras cutting from shots of one team or individual to screen-grabs of the game as it progresses, to shots of the play-by-play & color announcers, all streamed live to millions of viewers and recorded to be played back at will for pay.

With prize money for the teams in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now ... what about that production is less professional than covering a pro golf tournament? To me, a live production of that magnitude spread over multiple continents is amazingly demanding of the professional skills of those putting it on. But it's a new use of pro skill-sets. And Adobe's pro video supervisors haven't seen this as enough of a Need to budget for building the coding to handle it. So ... file bug/feature-request forms. THOSE actually do something for new features like this ...

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Neil

[Jim_Simon]

Massive events, one competing team in one country, the other team in a different country, "filmed" live with cameras cutting from shots of one team or individual to screen-grabs of the game as it progresses, to shots of the play-by-play & color announcers, all streamed live to millions of viewers and recorded to be played back at will for pay.

A production that large is almost certainly running the game captures through hardware which 'converts' it to a standardized, constant frame rate.  That's just how the "pro's" do it.

[R Neil Haugen]

I watched a "how we put this together" bit with Son #2 a few months back. The original capture is clearly VFR, and they'd prefer to stay in VFR as the bandwidth could be kept lower ... but for parts of what they do, they do HAVE to convert after-the-fact to CFR. They find it a total pain and in the main, useless as for most things & gear they run on VFR works just as well with less bandwidth for the compression. At least, that's what they seemed to imply.

So ... yes, you're right they probably do ... and yet, they probably do not want to be doing this.

Neil

[Nikisgr8]

hiding limitation of a software saying that's how Pro's do it is not a good thing for community..its a software for everyone not just "pro's" : ) .

[R Neil Haugen]

Huh? This is designed by a company for a market ... which is the way most products are made whether software, cars, musical instruments, or house paint. And this one has always put the higher priority on the things needed by a specific set of editors ... those working a professional clientele. Adobe makes Premiere Elements for those NOT working in video in a professional situation, where the needs and uses are VERY different. Pick your choice ...

Neil

[Zakkaru]

Premiere Elements does not include any of the bells & whistles of that make Premiere Pro a wonderful creative tool - not even close, and is a pretty sad alternative for those of us who want the greater creative freedom offered by a more robust program.

Regardless of what the "pros" say, Adobe's market is changing - and they should be prepared to update their product for the needs of the business and the needs of their customers. This isn't money you get into your pocket, this is money Adobe won't get if they don't start making an effort to cater to a new, and extremely large, portion of editors that WANT to use their software.

The same funds that add great features like HDR support and UltraHD. Unless professionals use another sort of currency I am unaware of?

No amount of passing the buck and stating that Premiere Pro is a "pro tool" is going to change that. I could understand that logic when the end user was required to spend $2000+ for new iterations of the program, but at a $50 per months price point, that is a really pathetic excuse to not add a highly sought after feature.

Logic: Make the price point hobbyist friendly, yet give them the shaft when they request features that are not in line with "professional" methodology. It makes no sense and is an absolute trash attitude that everyone seems to enjoy slinging around on these forums.

This isn't the 1980's anymore, get with the times Adobe.

[jasonvp]

J. Simon wrote:

A production that large is almost certainly running the game captures through hardware which 'converts' it to a standardized, constant frame rate.  That's just how the "pro's" do it.

We don't need to focus on Neil's example as the only "gaming" use for professional video editing software.  As I stated before: the only difference between an amateur and a professional is: the pro gets paid.  That's it.  With that, there's an industry worth millions upon millions of dollars annually, and that's YouTube gaming videos.  We've all seen one example: the most popular gaming video producer is making upwards of 3-4 million dollars annually.  One guy.  All alone with his computer, his video games, and his capture software.

Adobe (via Kevin) has stated that they want to be more engaged with this (new?) community.  That's great.  A first huge step in that is to make Pr be able to properly ingest VFR, because that's the footage folks are going to be trying to feed it.  Forcing people to transcode prior is a time waster, and will encourage those folks to look at other software (like Sony's product).

Ultimately Jim, it's a market you don't agree with.  That's fine.  But your opinion on that doesn't matter.  The market is here, it's worth millions of dollars annually, and is going to continue to grow.  It's a potential revenue source for Adobe if they want it to be.  Get over it, and yourself.  Or get out of the way, because you're just going to get bulldozed by it.

[Jim_Simon]

the only difference between an amateur and a professional is: the pro gets paid.  That's it

I would disagree.  In addition to getting paid, I believe there is also a set of quality standards that goes into being called a "professional", and I think the gaming market will forever fail on that qualification.

My opinion on that aside, Adobe will likely add the capability if and when it makes good business sense for them to do so.  I have no idea what programming challenges are involved in trying to program something as complex as PP to properly handle something as non-standard as VFR video.  But I can say there are a LOT of other things I'd much rather see them spend their limited resources on, so I continue to argue against it.

[jasonvp]

J. Simon wrote:

I would disagree.  In addition to getting paid, I believe there is also a set of quality standards that goes into being called a "professional", and I think the gaming market will forever fail on that qualification.

But this isn't one opinion vs another Jim.  It's fact: if you get paid for a service, you're a professional.  Period.  In every single skill, there are some pros that are "better" than others.  What defines "better" is opinion.  In your opinion, the gaming editors will never be good enough based on whatever standards you're using.  But they're still getting paid.  And I'll bet that the very successful ones are making way more money a year than you are.

This is a money-rich market that Adobe would be foolish to ignore.

[R Neil Haugen]

Love the discussion actually.

I think it's a big enough market Adobe is missing out on cash, and it should be very worth their while to add some engineers/coders to add in VFR support. But then ... there are some changes within PrPro and SpeedGrade both, especially for the current markets, that don't seem like they should be that big to do BUT would make a very big difference in the appeal of the programs within the pre-identified market niche. I think they've missed a lot of sales there, but ... they do tend to proceed cautiously most of the time.

And none of us outside understand what the thinking is within the belly of the beas ... um ... yea.

The programs are seemingly 80% 'there' ... and we want the other 20% ...

Neil

[HarleyTDavis]

VFR introduces problems in the timeline.  This section moves this fast but this section moves that fast... ...you'd be constantly changing render settings, playback modes etc.  And what's this BS about bandwidth?  Bandwidth is not the concern with VFR source to a competent pro.  VFR is produced by image stabilization, exposure compensation, or frame drop from overtaxed processors.  Bandwidth?  You handle that with COMPRESSION algorithms.  I would stick with CFR and a Variable BIT RATE to keep bandwidth tight.  I usually set a slightly higher than DVD bitrate for max and about 3mb for low, with a target at about 8mb\s for 1080p video at 24fps in h.264.  It runs without buffering on most connections even with a low end router (54mb\s max wifi).  If your bandwidth is less than that, you don't make enough to cover costs in this score (20 year period).  Time to grow up and play with the big kids or try a different game.  If you're at 4k, and you have heavier VFR problems, you need to make a steadycam, google on a DIY or HOMEBREW with STEADYCAM, build a rig for your camera to reduce VFR.  Then turn on frame blending in PrPRO, and use it in Media encoder.  It will "Fake" the extra frames for you.  IF you're in 3d gfx style video for gaming, better to work constant, but allow for VFR in compression.  IT WILL TAKE FOREVER, but you can minimize the bandwidth in Media Encoder on export.  VFR is not for your working environment when in post.  Timecodes and framenumbers... ...think about what would happen to them.  What standard would you use to number everything when the number of frames isn't static?  You'd never be sure of where exactly you were at in the output compared to your working data.  It leaves too many questions for a working environment.  You want non-standard working environments, don't go to standards based workflows and software based on it.  No disrespect or offense intended.  From experience with VFR I know it's a problem.  That's why I always pass client supplied video through an upconversion to less compression, with CFR and frameblends.  I think you just want to do less work with less precise results, and more problems with numbering; a service call nightmare.  Let's not.  I'm happy with CFR in my working mode, and occaisional VFR in my input, and once in a great while, in my output.  These sound like questions from complete noobs (in the best way), so welcome to video editing, and keep it up.  Glad you're asking about this, happy to clarify why VFR is only an input and output format, not a WORKING one.  If you want an environment for VFR in work environment, BLENDER will do the job.  It's remarkably complex to learn. but it's designed to give you control over every aspect of the video input, working playback, and output from one program.  It's made for the kind of GAMING design some guys do often.  Adobe is a broad platform, with several different programs that each have different focus.  AE might be another program for VFR, but don't quote me on that.  It works for rendering clips with advanced settings, it's designed for more advanced work.  Premiere is for standard non-linear video, not advanced workflows that require varying the playback speeds and working speeds.  Premiere assumes a standard working speed.  AE allows you to select the standard, but you can vary from it during your work.  I hope this was helpful.  The whole bandwidth thing made me laugh.  That's funny.

[rmshro0]

I posted this question 2+ years ago and it has nearly 58,000 views and we still don't have a consensus that it's a legitimate problem, let alone a solution from Adobe that does not involve getting third party applications involved.

I would like to point out, despite some opinions to the contrary, that Sony Vegas is a "professional" application and it supports variable frame rates without issue. Still.

[jasonvp]

rmshro0 wrote:

I posted this question 2+ years ago and it has nearly 58,000 views and we still don't have a consensus that it's a legitimate problem, let alone a solution from Adobe that does not involve getting third party applications involved.

If it hasn't been addressed by Adobe yet, it means they haven't received enough requests to do so via their online form.  The forum isn't the place to affect that change, their Bug/Change form is.  I submitted mine a year or two ago.  Others need to do the same before Adobe can even prioritize it.

[R Neil Haugen]

jasonvp ... yep, that's the Adobe Bible ... use the bug/feature-request form to get your wishes tabulated and delivered to those who set budgets ...

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Neil

[smallwonderny]

Stupid Windows Movie Maker can handle variable frame rate video, but Premiere Pro can't. It's ridiculous. And anyone saying "PP shouldn't have to handle variable frame rate video" because you should have fancier equipment needs to get their head out of their buttocks. Professional videographers use the iPhone to film music videos and more, so get with it. For what we pay, PP should add a plugin. My work-around now is to go edit in Windows Movie Maker.

[R Neil Haugen]

Again ... complaining may feel fine but accomplishes nothing. Use the bug/feature-request form, as that is what gets to the upper managers who set the budgets for engineering time ... and yes, this is something it would be nice to see change.

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Neil

[smallwonderny]

Done! Thank you!

[R Neil Haugen]

And thank you ...

Neil