• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
1

apply effects to tracks

Explorer ,
Jun 14, 2024 Jun 14, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello,

There's a thread that's many years old asking if it is possible to apply effects to tracks. There are many answers, none of which are correct. The correct answer is that it is not possible to apply an effects to a track.

We can apply effects to Adjustment Layers, but we can't constrain the Adjustment Layer to specific tracks. Adjustment Layers affect all tracks below. This then necessitates nesting sequences, which massively slows down the creative process. Since we can't see/edit the clips in nested sequences, we're flying blind.

 

I can't stress enough how Premiere consistently fails to provide an efficient workflow. Basically everything in Premiere takes ten times longer than in Sony Vegas. The only reason I am using Premiere is because Vegas has very poor support for formats. I/O in Vegas is absymal. But workflow in Premiere is abysmal.

 

Now I am anticipating responses from hardcore Premiere fans, asking questions like "Why would you want that?" and making statements like "Premiere is a professional application that is industry proven". Those are not helpful. All I can say is that unless you have used many different programs and can appreciate their strengths and weaknesses, you can't make an objective assessment. Bottom line, the ability to apply an effect to a single track is an incredibly useful feature that saves many, many hours of tedium and effort.

So, my feature request is the ability to apply an effect to a single, entire track. This would massively simplify my process, obviating the need for cumbersome nesting. An easy implementation of this would be to simply allow Photoshop-style clipping to the Adjustment Layer.

But apparently that feature has been discussed before. Again, there are very old threads, more than ten years old, requesting this basic feature.

 

I am super cynical about this, since users have made these requests many times over the years and nothing has ever been done, I don't expect anything to happen now. But it would be GREAT if I were proven wrong.

Prove me wrong. Do something about the severe limitation discussed here and elsewhere. Find a way to make it possible to apply an effect to a single entire track, without resorting to nesting.

 

Thanks

 

Aaron

Idea No status
TOPICS
Effects

Views

113

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
5 Comments
LEGEND ,
Jun 14, 2024 Jun 14, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

First, lose the assumptions. They don't help anything or anyone in a public forum like this. And yes, I was happy to upvote the idea as of course it would be useful.

 

But understand, there are several million daily users of PrPro. No two of us actually work alike. One of the fascinating things of visiting with others here and over a decade of NAB shows and several MAX, the odd SMPTE event, is really getting to know how completely different we all do work.

 

One of my pet peeves with "Adobe" was the stuuuuuuupid decision to EOL SpeedGrade a number of years back. Lumetri can be made to do a lot more than most users realize, but still it's got limitations.

 

So I've long requested some changes to the color correction tools, and to the way they interact with panels like my Tangent Elements panel. And in numerous in-person discussions, the devs have said yep, they understand why I want them, and for a certain subset of users, that they'd be handy ... but being as so small a percentage of the overall user base would actually do anything with those changes, don't count on them happening ... ever.

 

Which I find a bummer, but also ... understandable.

 

I hope the effects applied to tracks does get to the priority list.

 

I also wish the audio Track Mixer could have stack presets ... and the same for the video tracks.

 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 14, 2024 Jun 14, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Respectfully, the number of people who use something is not a measure of its usefulness. Hegemony is not an indicator of effectiveness.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 14, 2024 Jun 14, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

When designing a product for sale, analyzing the number of people who will use different things, features, or aspects of that product, is a huge, natural, and required part of making a successful product. Both for the company and for their customers. So yes, prioritizing design and production must occur, as no one, no company, can do everything that might be 'nice' for any individual user.

 

I cannot see any rational basis for thinking otherwise. I've had my own company in professional imaging for 40+ years. We would never have survived, let alone paid our employees and fed our own kids, if we hadn't studied our users and potential users, for what enough wanted that we could provide that. And put our priorities into those things that could make us a living.

 

So although it frustrates me the PrPro devs don't make some of the changes I would personally like, I totally understand and accept the reasoning provided. Everything has limits. Assigning 3-4 engineers to work on something for six months that would make Neil and maybe 50 others (out of the several million daily users) would be plain stupid.

 

The second phrase of your reply makes no useful sense.

 

Neil

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 15, 2024 Jun 15, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My point is that just because a product has many users, and/or dominates an industry, does not mean that the product is well designed, efficient, effective, etc. Quite often, poorly designed products have large customer bases. This is usually due to factors unrelated to design, such as network effects, anti-competitive business practices, and so on.

Fundamentally, capitalism is not a meritocracy. It usually isn't concerned with making the best product or providing the best service. Its goal is to generate value for investors and executives. To do so, all sorts of compromises are made. Appeal to the lowest common denominator in the customer base is a common strategy. The design isn't intended to be the best it can be, but rather to capture the largest possible user base.

I'm not a FCP user, but I remember well the transition to FCP X, and all of the ire this generated among professionals. That's a clear example of a company throwing its existing user base under the bus, all in pursuit of a different, larger user base. And what happened? Many FCP users defected to Premiere. Not because they wanted to, but because they were forced to by Apple.

But it doesn't have to be this way. As many have mentioned here, Vegas is far more intuitive and efficient than Premiere. It's entirely possible to serve multiple user bases with the same product, without making compromises that alienate anyone. But doing so might be slightly more expensive from a development standpoint. And since profit is all that matters in the end, those slight expenses tip the balance toward mediocre design.

Bottom line is, there are no correlations between the size of a user base or company and the effectiveness of a design. If anything, larger companies tend to be slower and less innovative. This can be put down to profit motive and the attendant risk aversion. The canonical counter-example is Blender, which is not perfect, but manages to consistently provide features that users need. This is possible precisely because it is a very small team, and there is no profit motive involved. The Blender Foundation is devoted to creating the best product possible, without the corrupting influence of money.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 15, 2024 Jun 15, 2024

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

Money doesn't corrupt anything. It has no ethos nor sentience. Period.

 

You want to see absolutely stifled development? Check out a Socialist economy, in reality.

 

Humans are human. Therefore all over the place. Every individual is different from any other, as are groups.

 

You may see the market needs one way, but absolutely no one else on the planet sees anything exactly as you do. Or as I do.

 

So what you may reason you that have good cause to feel as a highly needed item will be of no concern whatever to most others. And vice versa.

 

UI design is one thing that is always a funny discussion to watch. Multiple competitors can claim Absolute Research bears out their point of view. With evidence.

 

Very understandable. For example, I dislike Resolve's UI. Good friends, highly experienced, LOVE it.

 

I don't belittle their reasons, nor do they my preference in general for PrPro.

 

Some I know feel the Apple OS is absolutely the only truly intuitive computer UI. Great for them!

 

I can't hardly open an app on the blame things.

 

So no one claiming that a particular UI or tool choice is obviously better than others can be stating anything other than their thought patterns. Because all humans are different.

 

Please add to the discussion your impressions. We need more and wider points to consider. Always a good thing. Simply expect that a few may agree, and many will not. That's Life.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report