Rework set / scale to frame size

[Mike_Abbott]

The menu commands 'Scale to Frame size' and 'Set to frame size' must win the award for the most badly named commands in Premiere Pro. I teach PrPro and they are almost guaranteed to generate a look of quizzical incredulity on any new users face when I tell them that the command with 'Scale' in its name doesn't adjust the scale parameter, but the one without 'Scale' in the name does...

It's time to grab the bull by the horns and fix this.

In addition...
Frame sizes ain't what they used to be. 16x9 isn't the one and only. We have social media: Square formats, portrait formats, whatever format you like. These commands need flexibility for different formats.

My suggestion:
These commands are grouped under a 'Transform' sub menu as follows:


'Set to frame size' is broken down into three components, named as follows:

Scale to Fit Frame
Scale to Frame Width
Scale to Frame Height

and, as a fourth sub menu entry...
'Scale to frame size' becomes 'Resample to current size'

...and this works in a slightly different way to the current version: When 'Resample to current size' is selected, the content maintains its current visual size, but is internally resampled to 100% scale - with 100% showing is the Effects Controls > Motion > Scale property.

[theeditdoctor2]

The names are backwards from the logic of what they actually do. Set scales smaller or larger and Scale sets it be the resolution of the timeline throwing away the ability to scale with the clips higher resolution.

[PierreLouisBeranek]

Agreed! Time to replace some Adobe programmers with AI bots that properly understand English!

[Richard M Knight]

The Set and Scale to Frame Size options always causes confusion, I've been using Premiere for a number of years and I can never remember which is which. Do we still need both? I only ever use Set to Frame Size. If both are needed could they be renamed to give some clue to what they do.
See:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/premiere-pro/set-to-frame-size-vs-scale-to-frame-size/td-p/9036658?pa...

[Christopher Noah]

"Scale to Frame Size" is basically only useful when working with proxy files, and then swapping out to full resolution files. With it, we are able to make scale adjustments on clips and adjust the frames how we will want them, and then swap the proxies out with camera raw clips and keep the same framing and scaling.

In my experience, many productions are shooting at higher resolutions than the final video will be rendered in, to allow for zooming in and/or stabilization during editing. It is assumed that we can zoom in (for example up to 200% on a 4k clip in a 2k sequence) without losing image quality.

By rasterizing the image to the resolution of the timeline, it takes away the only use I can think of for "Scale to Frame Size" as a feature. I can not imagine why anyone would use "Scale to Frame Size" as opposed to "Set to Frame Size" with the rasterization happening.

Please change "Scale to Frame Size" so that it keeps the video scale settings the same across multiple resolution source files, but without rasterizing the image to sequence resolution (the way Resolve and Final Cut have done it for years).

[Christopher Noah]

"Scale to Frame Size" is basically only useful when working with proxy files, and then swapping out to full resolution files. With it, we are able to make scale adjustments on clips and adjust the frames how we will want them, and then swap the proxies out with camera raw clips and keep the same framing and scaling.

In my experience, many productions are shooting at higher resolutions than the final video will be rendered in, to allow for zooming in and/or stabilization during editing. It is assumed that we can zoom in (for example up to 200% on a 4k clip in a 2k sequence) without losing image quality.

By rasterizing the image to the resolution of the timeline, it takes away the only use I can think of for "Scale to Frame Size" as a feature. I can not imagine why anyone would use "Scale to Frame Size" as opposed to "Set to Frame Size" with the rasterization happening.

Please change "Scale to Frame Size" so that it keeps the video scale settings the same across multiple resolution source files, but without rasterizing the image to sequence resolution (the way Resolve and Final Cut have done it for years).

[Mike_Abbott]

Great to hear this is 'Under Review'.

[hellopaul4]

It took me a LOOONG time to learn that "Set to Frame Size" actually means "Scale to Frame Size" and "Scale to Frame Size" is just something weird to be avoided.

[Baffy19]

Set to frame size - reduces the frame to the size of the sequence only in proportion to the correct display on the screen. This changes the Scale parameter from 100% to 50%. This option does not cut pixels from the image, allowing you to get a better result if you want to scale this image back to 100%. The image remains in its original quality.
Scale to frame size - reduces the frame in accordance with the size of your sequence, while the Scale value remains unchanged 100%. This means that this parameter cuts out extra pixels from the image, making it from the original resolution in a reduced version. You will not be able to return the image to its original state. This method is used only when there is no need to subsequently enlarge the images for the Zoom effect.

[Baffy19]

I support the author of the article and it is really necessary to release flexible settings for different aspect ratios. Now it is outdated and does not work as we would like to see without self-correction and fitting media into the sequence frame.

[Warren Heaton]

Mike's suggestion is a good one.

I'd rather see it more closely match After Effects with the options being Scale to Sequence, Scale to Sequence Width, and Scale to Sequence Height. So, essentially the same thing, but using "Sequence" instead of "Frame".

In the meantime, I'd like to see Scale to Frame Size renamed to "Scale to Frame Size (Scale value remains 100%) and Set to Frame Size renamed "Set to Frame Size (Scale value changes).

I use both of these and would not like to lose one over the other and I'd find it helpful to have what happens plainly stated.

[Sergio Venturini]

Also, when trying to upscale a sequence already transformed, this vital and confusing setting determines wheter if you are going to spend a weekend correcting scales or not.

[Francis-Crossman]

This is a good suggestion.  I agree this needs work.

[MisterAdvent]

Here I am again, having to touch about 150 still images of varying sizes, because I still don't have a SCALE TO FRAME WIDTH command.

Annoying.

And this is a pro bono project so I can't charge for the hour it takes to do it all.

PLEASE FIX!

[Pierre Louis B.]

@MisterAdvent Do you know about the Excalibur plugin?  It can do what you need instantly.  Check out the Fill Frame gif on the main page here: https://knightsoftheeditingtable.com/excalibur.