This is where you appear to contradict yourself, shooternz.  If not, you sure confuse the hell out of me.  In your last post, you said that output to an external monitor would require 3rd party hardware - and I agree. (still keeping to the 3-monitor metaphor).  I'm not interested in a 2-monitor soloution. I know how to implement it, and have dismissed it as being unsuitable for my workflow. @J-MS:Sorry did not mean to confuse.  I should have included "two monitor"  setup using standard Graphics cards in my post. This manages a full digital file based workflow but does not suit everyones needs for what ever reason. In your own situation (specific 3 monitor absolute requirement)..there is no solution apart from  3rd party hardware.  ie. the issue for you and those requiring "video signals" to feed extra devices is a graphics card with all the particular connections and some coding from Adobe to utilise them.  Seems like you know that and have that sorted with the hardware you have anyway.   A pro set up and I am well pleased to hear that MPE works with it.  That should encourage others requiring "proper monitoring"  to do likewise. Out of simple curiosity about your workflow J-MS.. how does two GUI monitors fit in and what was the issue with a single GUI monitor when you tried it. Anyway...I am pretty much out on this topic. I do  look foward to developments Adobe may bring with the Color Suite when they release it and this thread is probably contributes  part to its development. ... View more

Shooternz is right - some form of hardware interface will be essential to connect an external monitor. Not necessarily.  If one uses a workflow that is entirely digital file based you have no need of additional interface hardware for editing or monitoring.( apart from investing in high quality digital monitors) If you work fully or partly inside  an analogue realm..you will need the hardware that converts digital > analogue ....and vice versa and that will require 3rd party hardware with that capability.  That hardware exists but how Adobe  will decide to interface with  "old" technology is anyones guess. Adobe / Matrox / Blackmagic ---- history tells us its a path to dissapointment and I am certain  that no one will give up Adobe Mercury advantages for what already exists as "proper monitoring" within Premiere. ... View more

Feature request submitted. We need output to a monitor from adobe projects, not from a Matrox or similar card's codec based projects that compromise system stability. And not by extending the desktop but by sending out an NTSC or PAL signal, as from a video player device such as a Blu-ray player. Tweaking or calibrating the 2nd (or 3rd) monitor is not the issue here. May be CS6 will give us that. That of course requires hardware (plus additional software)... and no matter what magic Adobe does with their software  (CS6) ...Adobe does not make the hardware. Thats where the 3rd parties come in and they already have technology such as KONA Cards that do exactly what they are supposed to and what you want.ie output video signals from digital files. All facilities I use out of house use that technology succesfully but their reasons to use it are different to mine.  My suite workflows are all file based whereas they also have digital tape machines etc to accomodate. Just to clarify  something in my set up.  (Because I was asked in a PM and I see regular reference to " extending the desktop"  and "window" in the thread) I do not EXTEND the desktop or stretch a WINDOW  to cover the second monitor.  The Display setting option  sends the image to the entire second monitor without a WINDOW.  It can not be scaled (minimised/maximised) or altered (dragged/rfepostioned) at all.  It plays at the rez of the sequence. Put another way...none of my Premiere GUI extends onto the second monitor.  It is a default EDIT set up with minor customisation within the single Monitor. Note FWIW: In the Task bar at the bottom of my  WIN 7 screen.  There are always two application windows open when this set up is invoked. 'Premiere - project pathname' and 'Monitor'.  (Premiere sits above the Monitor and they are obviously connected as applications) ... View more

Pete...we are on the same page and I do understand your "test methodology and process" ... and also how you have arrived at your conclussion. I have never tried what you have because I have never seen a need or reason to do so.  ie. I have not experienced the issue of black level variability or jaggies in the situation you describe as your own. Something maybe worth looking at is..Premiere does allow a choice of "Preview" codecs in certain sequence types.  I am not at the studio so I cant check but from memory..P2 was one of them. Also worth noting is that Premiere does have internal pipelines for different parts of the application. eg playing out from the Project Window is lower res than the Program Monitor IMO and I am sure you are aware that Playback res can be set for the GUI monitors.  Never checked to see what impact that has on the second monitor because I am at FULL ..all the time. BTW : Pete - I am sure Jim will NOT be happy that we are discussing this  and diluting his thread!  Seems to me you are looking for a slightly different solution to what he is though. eg the way Premiere manages the media play back. I am only trying to contribute thoughts related to my own experince of Mointoring in Premiere.  I consider it "proper monitoring" but do not exclude the possibilty of improvements that may suit others requirements. ... View more

My set up simply uses the 2nd monitor output from the card This feature request is not geared towards a computer output, but a video output.  HDMI, Composite, Component, S-Video, SDI, whatever VIDEO output is on the card should work for signals that that port can normally handle. With this setup, you would not be able to drag anything over to the video monitor.  It's there strictly for video monitoring.  Windows would not 'manage' the signal in any way.  It would not be a VfW situation.  It would be a pure video signal as you'd get from a piece of video gear. I understand that already...and  know that it will continue to rely on 3rd party hardware just as it does of the moment. ie a card with a pure video output connection such as a Kona card.  How Adobe supports that hardware differently as per your feature request will be worth waiting for.  (Would anyone give up the Mercury advantage for it?) Note: Be interesting to see if the solution as requested comes with the promised Color Correction that Adobe are hinting at for the near future. Premiere does not take advantage of any control surfaces currently either....so they may have a double challenge to undertake. @J-MS.  I never ever feel compromised by a single large GUI and was quite willing to use that as my modus operandi so as I could  enable decent monitoring with Mercury enabled advantages.  Its a no-brainer to me without a degree of compromise.  Maybe too big a compromise for others such as your self but I dont actually understand why 2 GUIs are so vital these days. I do actually have the hardware option of using BM Decklink Card  but the compromise of using a BM codec is a real compromise I was not prepared to deal with. ie lack of  NVidia Cuda Mercury advantage. ( the card gathers dust on the shelf) I have client monitors as well as my own monitor.  Everyone is absolutely satisfied with the consistency across all the monitors and the subsequent follow thru to the monitors at other facilities we utilise. Yeah...it works for me and my clients without question. @Pete Gould Also, at least on my Sony HDMI monitor, the black level is raised when playing from Premiere compared to when playing the file directly from Windows Media Player.  This means that even the most basic color correction cannot be performed using the Premiere playback output because the levels are different from what will be seen when the resulting file is played.  If what we were doing was for high-end broadcast, obviously we'd have higher end hardware with serial digital video outputs, broadcast-grade monitors and the like.  But at the moment we're outputting for the web and not working at a budget level that supports the higher-end hardware - though we ARE using an Adobe-spec'd NVIDIA card.  Despite that fact, it should be a given that what comes out of Premiere as a monitor output must be identical to what the resulting file will look like on playback.  That should really be a no-brainer and the fact that that is NOT currently the case should have everyone's attention at Adobe. Pete...What you have written is not my experience...and my work is for high-end broadcast. Very fussy , demanding advertising clients and facilties that are uncompromisingly perfection driven by professionals! The levels are checked and follow thru my workflow and facilties outside my own.  We make effort  to test and check levels via bars and scopes. Black level issue - Calibrate your Sony maybe is a first step ..or get a better true monitor.  Jaggies...I dont have jaggies and we use the monitor for application and evaluation of graphics. Your second paragraph really identifies the issue you are having. Lack of hi spec monitoring gear.  You want the capability without the investment. It has always been very expensive to achieve calibrated monitoring and that has not changed. What I see in my suite is what I see when broadcast so I totally disagree with your last claim in your last sentence. You also seem to be asking for a output file that matches source in Premiere.  I guess that depends on what the output file is and as you mention web work..I suspect you are talking about encodes and transcodes. (hmmmmm! - high expectation and there are many factors involved - eg QT) Any how.. I look forward with interest to how Adobe responds and see what they come up with. ... View more

Win 7 , CS5.5xx Reluctantly.... I step into this  but in the interest of those that may not know or have yet to discover how to do so...much of what is being discussed (as per the list) is already possible in Premiere. I believe most of the list is covered already ..but I am not saying that there could not be improvements.  I am saying though , that  I am very satisfied with the way my monitoring is set up and I have no issues with consistency thru my workflows and pipelines  ie.Shoot>edit> post prod- cc , cgi & grade >broadcast / display. These workflows have been tested and calibrated (as well as by simply using the eyeometer.) 1. Any graphics card with appropriate capabilities should work. 2. Premiere Pro (and After Effects, Photoshop, Encore) need to tap directly into the video port on that graphics card, be it composite, component, S-video or HDMI. 3. There is to be NO cloning or extending of the desktop.  If Adobe apps are closed, nothing is sent out of the port. 4. For the Thumbnail and Source monitor, a signal matching the clip is to be sent to the video port on the card without alteration.  Ports that cannot handle such a signal will get black.  (i.e. Sending an HD signal to a composite port.) 5. For the Program Monitor, a signal matching the Sequence Properties (resolution, frame rate, field order, PAR, etc.) must be sent to the video port on the card.  All scaling, deinterlacing, frame blending, pulldown insertion, etc. required to conform the footage in the sequence to the sequence settings must be done before sending the signal to the port, so that only a signal matching the sequence is output by the card, regardless of what's actually in the sequence. My set up permits excellent monitoring of sequence, program and source monitor plus the project bin previews. Does not use 3rd party hardware or CODECs. How: I use a two monitor set up using a single monitor for the Premiere GUI! My set up simply uses the 2nd monitor output from the card to a HQ HD monitor ( HP Dream Color or the Samsungs). The output is dedicated to monitoring.  It turns black/dark grey  if not monitoring from Premiere sources.  I can drag panes or windows to it should I choose to do so but monitoring will over lay them.  All monitors and audio are in synch. Different timelines playout as per the sequence settings to the 2nd monitor. My set up is similar to other facilties ( FCP, Flame, Color Resolve) that I regularly work at.  ie. Single monitor GUIs but they always rely on  3rd party hardware as well.  Premiere is  ahead in this respect IMHO but of course those facilties have additional hardware attached requiring different interfaces.. Regards #3. I do not clone or extend the desktop at all nor do I need to. Its a simple Playback setting for any or all sequences in a Pemiere  project. Now this perfectly working solution may not suit those with small monitors that require 2 GUI monitors.  But...I do  find that a single large GUI is far more friendly to the mouse hand and most pros use shortcuts anyway (and also have larger monitor real estate as well). Be interesting to see where Adobe goes with this without 3rd party involvement.  I cant see what they can do without others  being involved. ... View more

Dont totally ignore the CC tools inside of Premiere just to get a prettier GUI form a 3rd party plugin. . Even the Secondaries in PPRO can do a great job. Big advantage of using PPRO CC tools if you have MPE / CUDA etc...is Realtime CC and playback.. ... View more

I regularly take footage (AVCHD, QT, DNxHD) and an EDL into Resolve at a facility I use. From Resolve we go into Flame and finish. Works well. ... View more

You  can export to any path on any drive you wish to. Change your export path and name your export file exactly how you choose. ... View more

A dip to black on a clip on a layer above all others ...should dip ( fade ) every clip below it to black. Never tried it. ... View more

If you apply a fade to the end of the Title Clip only....that will do what you expect. You may need to show us a screen grab of your timeline otherwise. ... View more

The Titler in Premiere has suffered an issue for ever and ever. The Panes float and shift around within the Main Window.   I guess thats why they call them 'pains"! I am over being frustrated by it.  Its become normal for me  to have the Titler open just how it chooses to and then I go and set it up again. ( and again...and again..) "the  pain in the pane is mainly on the pane" ... View more

Does "Enhanced Mercury Playback Engine"mean an enhancement over what we have now with Cs5 xx? I would have to comment that  http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/features._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_features+by+version_sl_new+since+cs5.html is very short on detail in all respects. I am also wondering how much more "Online ( Adobe Air , Flash)  intrusion will be incorporated into this release. ... View more

I did an AAF export today and what it does is export AAF for the entire Sequence!. It reported errors from other sequences. I wanted the ability to export a single (clean and tidy ) sequence within the project. No use to me at all. ... View more

What else can a 15 year old do Be real nice to your uncle. BTW: if I was your uncle..I would tell you to learn to  "walk before you learn to run" You have heaps to learn in PPRO before you need AEFX or any plugins. ... View more

Why not $pring for AEFX? Combination of PPRO and AEFX should suffice for most things Indie. ... View more

What do you call "decent plug-ins"? What are you looking for in particular that you cant do with PPRO CS5? ... View more

You do need to get your terminolgy sorted a little. Sub titles are generally for the purpose of "translating" an audio track in a foriegn language to a familiar language by way of a "sentence" at the bottom of the screen.  These are created in a different workflow if one needs this for a DVD. eg Encore will create them in multiple languages but it also permits the viwer to watch the DVD and choose what ever subtitle it will display. A Title is created in a Titler or Photoshop and applied permanently to a movie in a program such as Premiere PRO. It is very simple actually and you will discover that the Titler has a lot of power to create interesting creative Titles. The basis of it is you create a Title and you place it over the top of any layer in the timeline (as per Bill Hunts reference above) ... View more

Read Post #1 from Harm ... View more

I would predict your feature request will be responded to as  ... We have that in AEFX so why would we bother with it in PPRO. Just like my feature requests for Invertable or featherable garbage mattes. Which I have a regular and particular need for. (Like at this very moment) How about my Feature request for Opacity Key Frames that work as consistently as other KF workflows - ie not automated. Locating a 3rd party solution will be quicker for you. ... View more

Lazy solutions  (presets) can be fine ....especially when you tell the client just after he says he really loves it ..."that took a lot of time and sorry..I will have to charge you a lot for it" ... View more

and yah i'm lazy and i actually dont want to spend time on doing it manually(*even if it takes 2 mins like u say), i'd like it to be a preset.... that is it... yes i've sent int a "new feature" to adobe... and so should everyone... Yeah we should...then all our movies can look exactly the same as the lazy guys movies. ... View more

it would be Red Giant Denoiser or Marcalli shake fixer, whatever it's called ...even these functionalities are in AEFX as standard. ... View more

Yeah, it would be nice if Premiere Pro had some more cool effects. The way I look at it ..Adobe applications(Ppro / Aefx and PS) are a suite of tools when used in combination are incredibly well endowed with FX. (Which ones are "cool" is kind of an individual taste thing)  The first guy to craft and use an effect is always the coolest though! The DL function actually makes all this work together as if PPRo and AEFX are largely combined as a single app. There are not many 3rd party type FX  that  can not be "crafted" ( created)  in these packages. Of course many look for a "single button" solution to fx and that may require a 3rd party plugin. Personally..I try to avoid too many plugins due to the hassle of managing them across computers or projects.  Can be an issue with legacy projects across multiple computers. ... View more

...and we have a WINNER! BTW: why redo the whole project.? Extend the clips or nudge the clips. ... View more

Sorry...cant do a screen shot ( but there is probably one in the Help file). Hunt around in the effects windows when the transition is selected.  It is there. BTW: are you sure your clips are butted against each other without a gap? Also: In latter versions of PPRO...you can slide the transition and the ends of it with the mouse drag. ... View more

Click on the transition and then go to the Transition Window. which will open You have the choices of : Start or End at Cut ..or Centre at Cut ... View more