What you are proposing is a change to the way the app works. Therefore, a feature request.
Warp is even more intensive than Neat video noise remover. So doing a bunch of clips at once will either take over the machine, or ... take hours. Your choice, of course.
I have no idea how extensive a resource user the old thing in something else was.
It is intensive but only across one core/thread as far as I know.
Again I would argue the effect is actually non-functional as sometimes stabilising just ONE clip and going to do something else in the timeline causes the analysis to fail. I just can't imagine a scenario where the people working on the software observed this and thought 'yeah, that works well'. I'm not asking them to make a queue, I'm asking them to make an effect function in a more than reasonable scenario. Stabilising one clip at a time and being unable to do anything else while it works surely cannot be categorised as it working correctly
You are a suggestion/asking for a queue; that is a feature request, as WS does not work in a queue. It does all the clips in one go. That is not a bug but by design.
I think you misunderstood - my install of Premiere Pro can't actually do any stabilisation all at the same time as all instances fail and resort to the default state as seen when the effect is first applied. If I apply the effect one clip at a time and do absolutely nothing else then it will probably complete - but my guess is that this isn't a way of working that most users would be happy with.
The queue is a suggestion made to fix a problem with the software, not a QOL suggestion rather a fix for a problem with the software.
I think we understood you quite clearly. And Ann and I are quite aware of how the Warp currently operates.
As I have said, Warp is the single biggest effect by far in computing resource requirements. You seem to think of it as "just another effect" ... but in reality, it isn't.
It doesn't take all those resources because of not being thought out, but because it has to 1) figure out what the human involved thinks is movement and 2) rebuild the entire image via size, rotation, and other manipulations, normally including computing entirely new pixel data for even detail areas.
That is simply one Hades of a load of processing. So it is not wise, in practice, to apply it to fifty clips and expect it to process easily in the background in a few minutes.
And you are also right, in that they don't have a process to setup for creating a queue to do that processing in. Which could be done, and would be helpful to probably quite a few users.
But the reality is you want it to do something different than what it currently does. Which is fine, we've no problem with that.
But that, by all the "norms" here, is a feature request. An Idea post.
I've seen you say this in a couple of places, and I am genuinely curious in what way it is more intensive than Neat Video, given that Neat uses near 100% CPU and 100% GPU and Warp is only using 40-50% of the CPU with 0% GPU?
How things are threaded onto different machines is outta my league.
I'm a practical user. I've used Warp and Neat many times each. Warp typically takes longer, and essentially nothing else processes while Warp is going through the system.
And Warp has two specific processes in order:
Analyzation, which is totally a CPU process.
Creation of the new frames, which involves both CPU and GPU.
During the analyzation process, you naturally don't see GPU use.
During the creation phase, you do.
The way it specifically needs and/or uses the hardware bits is something a dev could answer that I of course can't. But while Warp may not show as using up your entire system hardware, try running anything else while it is computing.
You'll get either very slow computing or a failed Warp process.
Some things have heavy specific demands, plus a need for exact processing order. I know you can't necessarily multithread a process where there are a ton of lineal computations involved. If too many are dependent on a linked sequential result, you can only use so many cores and processors.
Interesting, the software being able to pause the process or at least queue intelligently while I'm away from the PC would make a lot of sense. I'm currently wasting large amounts of time babysitting the Warp Stabilizer one clip at a time. Even if the analysis has to auto re-start when the CPU somehow becomes overloaded, this would be vastly better than the way it currently operates. It is mad to me that as a user you also receive no warning the Premiere Pro is incapable of stabilizing more than one clip at a time you just set them off, come back, and nothing has actually completed.
There's a post from 2018 on these forums with this issue being discussed with replies on it as recent as 2023. People need this 'feature' to be implemented (and I am still reluctant to call it a request for a feature). Someone has created a paid plugin which can queue warp stabilizer effects, so surely Adobe's team are more than capable.
/t5/premiere-pro-ideas/warp-stabilizer-unreliable-and-cannot-be-trusted-to-run-in-the-background-on-multiple-clips/idc-p/15110048#M1900612 hours ago12 hours ago
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
LATEST
An official queue for effects that require analysis in Premiere Pro would be a huge time saver. There is an Extension (Batch Analysis for Warp Stabilizer) on Adobe Exchange that provides a queue for Warp Stabilizer effects that require analyis. There are other effects like morph cut, though that also require analysis. A generic Premiere Pro queue for all analysis effects would help a lot.
14
Replies
AdChoices