<p>Adobe Premiere has had some new and changed features, including new ways to use nested sequences.  I've not used Premiere in a long time, and I'm wondering what the best way to handle this kind of workflow would be?  There might be very new (December 2014) feature details that affect the approach or even change everything on how you would go about doing it.</p>

<p>I would think this is a common idea: record an evening's activities using multiple cameras and audio sources, with clips having no relation to the natural break up into performance Acts.  That in itself I have OK: set a timeline with actual clock time and load up all the source material.  Breaking that up into Acts is also no problem.</p>

<p>The interesting wrinkle is how to make first-draft videos for individual Acts (with different cuts of the same material, as well), <strong>and then</strong> add new tracks to the Master, then continue editing the Acts videos.</p>

<p>The sticking point is that of adding new tracks.  More video will come in (from other people in attendance), and the continuous audio track will be cleaned up with noise reduction etc.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Added tracks should be lined up on the Master Real-Time timeline, and then be available correctly synched with the various Acts videos, which can then be edited some more to produce a final version.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A detailed walk-through follows in case that's not clear, and to avoid the X-for-Y problem.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Example for Planning Workflow:</strong></p>

<p>My Master Real-Time Timeline contains</p>

<p><code>⋯ blahblah ⋯ [1111112222333333444444555555] ⋯ blahblah ⋯</code></p>

<p>with several tracks.</p>

<p><strong>Step 1</strong>: Copy the labeled range (between the <code>[⋯]</code>) to a new timeline, which I'll call Act7ver1.  Then, edit it</p>

<p><code>iii2223334444445ooo</code></p>

<ul>
<li>adding clips for intro and outtro, and <em>cutting parts out</em> of the original,</li>
<li>choose which tracks to switch between and what times,</li>
<li>add any effects.</li>
</ul>

<p>If this were a nested timeline, it would show up the edited way in the Master as well.  Not what I intend!  I think what works is to use the nested timeline in another empty timeline and edit <em>that</em>, so the nested timeline doesn't change.  So we're OK.</p>

<p><strong>Step 2</strong>: Receive additional video clips and add them to the Master, and add a new audio track that cleans up the original audio.  The Master Timeline doesn't show anything anymore except a string of nested timelines.  <em>How do I get the new material cut at the same places and pushed into the nested timeline?</em>  I think that is the real question, unless it's an X-for-Y situation.</p>

<p><strong>Step 2b</strong>: Revisit Act7ver1.  I'll want to use the new audio track, and decide if I want to cut in any of the new video angles.</p>

<p><strong>Step 3</strong>: Copy the same labeled range(between the <code>[⋯]</code>) again to a new timeline, which for sake of the example I'll call Act7ver<a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%BA%8C" rel="nofollow">二</a>.</p>

<ul>
<li>It will contain the entire unchanged range, not the cut-up version from ver1.</li>
<li>I'll edit it differently, keeping more of the talking between the music, which are exactly those parts cut out of ver1.</li>
<li>Different intro, etc.</li>
</ul>

<p>If the mechanism of editing another use of the nested timeline rather than the nested timeline itself is done properly, this should work just fine.</p>

<p><strong>Step 4</strong>: Some time later, I'll copy a part of the range to a new project.  Since this is a tutorial, I'll switch between the different mic, mix, and edited sound tracks to illustrate the difference.  That is, <strong>all the tracks are available</strong>, not just the normal presentation copy used normally.  I don't expect to be changing the original anymore, but I like to keep the option of having the various uses see the updated version or keep the original, which is a special case of seeing new tracks present and synced.</p>

<p>If I save over the source file, all uses see the new content.</p>

<p>If I "replace clip", and the replacement is not a complete length of the original (the audio is original is 97 minutes, but I only remix one 8 minute act) it won't line up.  Putting the new mix on the Master Real-Time is my solution, especially in light of (4) showing the before/after as part of the script.</p>

<p>So ideally I want the "smart object" I pasted in the first place to see whatever is currently in the Master at the position it refers to, including tracks that were not present before.</p>

<p>What's with the new Nest feature?</p>

<p>I see a new feature highlight discussing source-edit mode and acting like a copy/paste so all the tracks show up.  But I don't know if this is indeed just a cut/paste or a smart object that still allows updates to the definition (of the timeline being nested) to show up in this usage.  It sounds difficult to reconcile changes to what's on the various tracks.  Anyone explored this new feature and have more than a superficial review posted?  (What I've seen just shows that the tracks show up "like a copy/paste" but does not explore changing the referenced timeline or limitations of editing the "pasted" track’s content.)</p>

<p><strong>My Question:</strong></p>

<p>If the existing features don't do this easily, <strong>is it possible to use a script that can generate a new timeline from a marked range, across all tracks that might be present?</strong>  Then it can be re-run just as easily if the Master changes, and I don't need them to automatically follow any changes: I'll push changes explicitly.</p>

<p><strong>The underlying issue</strong> is getting new content into the various projects, synced up at the proper position, even if I have to explicitly grab it while editing the project.  The new track has to line up properly with the clips being used.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-06T14:40:02.497Z
I have made a minor edit just to highlight your question, and reopened. If I have misunderstood, please let me know.
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-06T19:36:14.947Z
I just kind of figure if I can't read it, others will give up too, so it's best to work on it. Sorry the close reason was not really right :-)
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-06T19:56:39.367Z
I'd also like to know where I might have more of a discussion on Premiere.  I know that can't be asked as a Q, but maybe in a comment? As this is the only place with traffic and knowledgeable people, I brought it here (after first trying Adobe Community)
JDługosz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-06T19:58:47.157Z
You can use [chat] (which has variable rates of activity) for discussions.
Dr Mayhem
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-07T21:32:17.120Z
You should be prepared to slow down / speed up clips by +/- up to a couple %, if they weren't all recorded with the same camera.  30fps on one camera might match up with 29.5fps on another camera, if their A/V clocksources don't agree on how long a second is.  (I had this problem with audio on a laptop syncing with video from a non-SLR camera, for clips several minutes in length.)
Peter Cordes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-09T07:50:41.007Z
The problem described by @PeterCordes is exactly the reason large broadcast production have timecode jamming - that is, every camera is linked to a single, dedicated decide that 'sets' the time for each and every camera. Also common on feature films - the digital readout on a clapper/slate.
nchpmn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-09T08:00:48.203Z
That's not a problem I'm worried about, @nchpmn.  Modern electronics have clocks at least as accurate as a cheap wristwatch: 4 parts per million error. I would expect a drift by one whole frame to take longer than one day in a continuous take.
JDługosz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-14T18:50:40.740Z
@jdlugosz That wasn't my experience with a Panasonic FZ28 camera and a Dell laptop (haswell CPU, internal analog audio jack).  I assume the camera's clock wasn't calibrated.  So it always runs at the same (wrong) speed.  Probably phone cameras will be better.  (But many / most will make VFR video in low light conditions, so be prepared for that, too).
Peter Cordes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-15T10:08:42.433Z
re VFR: that's probably why Avidemux went through a rewrite to use absolute time codes rather than frame numbers.  If your camera ran at a noticeable wrong speed, the clock would be always wrong too.  It must use a different frequency standard (oscillator) for the shooting... perhaps a software loop in the MPU.
JDługosz
<premiere><editing><workflow>
What is best practice to manage “all evening” recording to allow improvements to propagate into different videos using it?
JDługosz
# What is best practice to manage “all evening” recording to allow improvements to propagate into different videos using it?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-03-05)

Adobe Premiere has had some new and changed features, including new ways to use nested sequences. I've not used Premiere in a long time, and I'm wondering what the best way to handle this kind of workflow would be? There might be very new (December 2014) feature details that affect the approach or even change everything on how you would go about doing it.

I would think this is a common idea: record an evening's activities using multiple cameras and audio sources, with clips having no relation to the natural break up into performance Acts. That in itself I have OK: set a timeline with actual clock time and load up all the source material. Breaking that up into Acts is also no problem.

The interesting wrinkle is how to make first-draft videos for individual Acts (with different cuts of the same material, as well), **and then** add new tracks to the Master, then continue editing the Acts videos.

The sticking point is that of adding new tracks. More video will come in (from other people in attendance), and the continuous audio track will be cleaned up with noise reduction etc.

> Added tracks should be lined up on the Master Real-Time timeline, and then be available correctly synched with the various Acts videos, which can then be edited some more to produce a final version.

A detailed walk-through follows in case that's not clear, and to avoid the X-for-Y problem.

---

**Example for Planning Workflow:**

My Master Real-Time Timeline contains

`⋯ blahblah ⋯ [1111112222333333444444555555] ⋯ blahblah ⋯`

with several tracks.

**Step 1**: Copy the labeled range (between the `[⋯]`) to a new timeline, which I'll call Act7ver1. Then, edit it

`iii2223334444445ooo`

* adding clips for intro and outtro, and *cutting parts out* of the original,
* choose which tracks to switch between and what times,
* add any effects.

If this were a nested timeline, it would show up the edited way in the Master as well. Not what I intend! I think what works is to use the nested timeline in another empty timeline and edit *that*, so the nested timeline doesn't change. So we're OK.

**Step 2**: Receive additional video clips and add them to the Master, and add a new audio track that cleans up the original audio. The Master Timeline doesn't show anything anymore except a string of nested timelines. *How do I get the new material cut at the same places and pushed into the nested timeline?* I think that is the real question, unless it's an X-for-Y situation.

**Step 2b**: Revisit Act7ver1. I'll want to use the new audio track, and decide if I want to cut in any of the new video angles.

**Step 3**: Copy the same labeled range(between the `[⋯]`) again to a new timeline, which for sake of the example I'll call Act7ver[二](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%BA%8C).

* It will contain the entire unchanged range, not the cut-up version from ver1.
* I'll edit it differently, keeping more of the talking between the music, which are exactly those parts cut out of ver1.
* Different intro, etc.

If the mechanism of editing another use of the nested timeline rather than the nested timeline itself is done properly, this should work just fine.

**Step 4**: Some time later, I'll copy a part of the range to a new project. Since this is a tutorial, I'll switch between the different mic, mix, and edited sound tracks to illustrate the difference. That is, **all the tracks are available**, not just the normal presentation copy used normally. I don't expect to be changing the original anymore, but I like to keep the option of having the various uses see the updated version or keep the original, which is a special case of seeing new tracks present and synced.

If I save over the source file, all uses see the new content.

If I "replace clip", and the replacement is not a complete length of the original (the audio is original is 97 minutes, but I only remix one 8 minute act) it won't line up. Putting the new mix on the Master Real-Time is my solution, especially in light of (4) showing the before/after as part of the script.

So ideally I want the "smart object" I pasted in the first place to see whatever is currently in the Master at the position it refers to, including tracks that were not present before.

What's with the new Nest feature?

I see a new feature highlight discussing source-edit mode and acting like a copy/paste so all the tracks show up. But I don't know if this is indeed just a cut/paste or a smart object that still allows updates to the definition (of the timeline being nested) to show up in this usage. It sounds difficult to reconcile changes to what's on the various tracks. Anyone explored this new feature and have more than a superficial review posted? (What I've seen just shows that the tracks show up "like a copy/paste" but does not explore changing the referenced timeline or limitations of editing the "pasted" track’s content.)

**My Question:**

If the existing features don't do this easily, **is it possible to use a script that can generate a new timeline from a marked range, across all tracks that might be present?** Then it can be re-run just as easily if the Master changes, and I don't need them to automatically follow any changes: I'll push changes explicitly.

**The underlying issue** is getting new content into the various projects, synced up at the proper position, even if I have to explicitly grab it while editing the project. The new track has to line up properly with the clips being used.

**Tags:** premiere, editing, workflow

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I have made a minor edit just to highlight your question, and reopened. If I have misunderstood, please let me know.  
> **username_1**: I just kind of figure if I can't read it, others will give up too, so it's best to work on it. Sorry the close reason was not really right :-)  
> **username_0**: I'd also like to know where I might have more of a discussion on Premiere.  I know that can't be asked as a Q, but maybe in a comment? As this is the only place with traffic and knowledgeable people, I brought it here (after first trying Adobe Community)  
> **username_1**: You can use [chat] (which has variable rates of activity) for discussions.  
> **username_2**: You should be prepared to slow down / speed up clips by +/- up to a couple %, if they weren't all recorded with the same camera.  30fps on one camera might match up with 29.5fps on another camera, if their A/V clocksources don't agree on how long a second is.  (I had this problem with audio on a laptop syncing with video from a non-SLR camera, for clips several minutes in length.)  
> **username_3**: The problem described by @PeterCordes is exactly the reason large broadcast production have timecode jamming - that is, every camera is linked to a single, dedicated decide that 'sets' the time for each and every camera. Also common on feature films - the digital readout on a clapper/slate.  
> **username_0**: That's not a problem I'm worried about, @username_3.  Modern electronics have clocks at least as accurate as a cheap wristwatch: 4 parts per million error. I would expect a drift by one whole frame to take longer than one day in a continuous take.  
> **username_2**: @jdlugosz That wasn't my experience with a Panasonic FZ28 camera and a Dell laptop (haswell CPU, internal analog audio jack).  I assume the camera's clock wasn't calibrated.  So it always runs at the same (wrong) speed.  Probably phone cameras will be better.  (But many / most will make VFR video in low light conditions, so be prepared for that, too).  
> **username_0**: re VFR: that's probably why Avidemux went through a rewrite to use absolute time codes rather than frame numbers.  If your camera ran at a noticeable wrong speed, the clock would be always wrong too.  It must use a different frequency standard (oscillator) for the shooting... perhaps a software loop in the MPU.  

---

## 0 answers

