Intermediate rendering on CS4

A week ago I started my first project on CS4 with one 2-hr raw material imported from the card. (I am rather experinced on Premiere 6.5.)  Today I finished a rough draft, which is 1 hr long and contains more than 600 clips.  It is incovenient to work with so large project, and I'd like first to render it to 3-5 pieces, then to work with every piece (as it were the original one) separately: to cut it, to add transitions, music, speech etc.  How can I make this intermediate rendering without changing the format?

This is a question you probably want to ask on the Premiere Pro forum.
This forum is specifically for Creative Suite (as a whole) issues.
Good luck!
Craig

Similar Messages

  • How can I make a autocad dwg drawing into a rendering in cs4?

    I'm taking an autocad file of a product into illustrator/photoshop cs4 workflow to create a rendering quality type graphic....
    Is there a good tutorial anywhere, or will anyone be willing to help me through this project??
    So far I have imported a dwg into illustrator, and when the cursor is on the gray lines (I made them that way in autocad), a blue line appears, and "path" shows up... those gray lines are a bit larger than what I think I will need... what is going on?
    That is where I am at.... I need help from here...

    <i don't know what's going on with your file. i get a lot of pdfs from autocad with layers intact. maybe someone else on here knows.>
    I am not sure anything IS wrong with my file. my PDF does have all the layers intact. The problem is getting Illustrator to read those PDF layers...
    1) Pt to mm font conversion:
    Thanks for the font clarification. What exactly is the conversion between pt (which i belive is "points" on the pica system, correct?) and mm?) In Illustrator, if I select a 10pt stroke, it converts it to 3.528 mm. And if I select 3 pt, that's 1.058 mm. However, I went online to some sort of font converter website and it said that 3 pts = 1.0542 mm and 10 pt = 3.5141 mm. So what's the converstion. Btw, here is an interesting website that explains the different font types: http://www.oberonplace.com/dtp/fonts/point.htm
    Even if i set the units to mm, i noticed that the items ins the stroke drop down list are still in "pt". How come Illustrator doesn't have the increments in mm?
    About selecting everything on one layer - if i click the circle it says "click to target, drag to move appearance." what does that mean, what does the appearance refer to besides opacity? And if i click anywhere to the right of that circle, it says "indicates selected art (click to select art)." I assume that the triangle in the upper right hand corner of the layer just means that layer is current)
    2) Pen tool:
    Your tip on using the "join" command while using the pen tool is GREAT. thanks. that totally helps me. and it's control + j on a PC. what is the difference between the pen and the pencil tool? y do u recommend pen over pencil?
    3) pc3 extension
    Can you please tell me more about this? When and where is should the pc3 extension be used? What is difference exactly between Adobe PDF and Adobe PDF.pc3? What are alignments?
    any other tips on how to color quickly and efficiently?

  • Issues rendering Premiere CS4 movie with Media Encoder

    I'm new to this but thought that someone might be able to provide some insight. I have Premiere CS4 and created a movie from a HD video camcorder.
    The imported clips are in the following format:
    Type: MPEG Movie
    Image Size: 1920 x 1080
    Pixel Depth: 32
    Frame Rate: 29.97
    Source Audio Format: 48000 Hz - compressed - Stereo
    Project Audio Format: 48000 Hz - 32 bit floating point - Stereo
    Average Data Rate: 1.3 MB / second
    Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1.0
    Now I'm simply trying to export the movie (Ctrl+M) using Media Encoder. I've been messing around with several different formats, including H264, MPEG and AVI and so far regardless of what output format I pick (even downsize) I'm getting some sort of "tearing" up in my clips. I'm not entirely sure how to describe this but it almost looks like a ghost effect with subjects leaving a ghost image when the scene starts moving around a bit.
    I rendered the same exact clip using Windows Movie Market just for the sake of it and everything looks fine.
    I'm rendering the clip on a Core i7 920 @3.7Ghz with 6GB of RAM so I don't think the speed is an issue as either (HD is a 300GB Velociraptor).
    Any ideas what I am doing wrong
    Thanks,
    Sam

    >Any ideas what I am doing wrong
    Second thing wrong is posting in this forum. People in the Premiere forum will do a better job of offering help This forum is dedicated to helping people with suite-wide issues such as installation.

  • My footage from the Nintendo Entertainment System gets blurry when exported or rendered in CS4.

    Ive tried searching all over for someone with the same problem but with no luck.
    Im running Adobe Premiere CS4 on a Windows Vista.
    Ive trying to edit together a bunch of clips from a Nintendo Entertainment System game. Ive already got all the footage & all the footage looks fine when I veiw it and when I put it in premiere, the problem doesnt come up until I render it or try to export it. This happens no matter what footage I use,no matter what size I make the footage. Ive even tried simply importing a clip into premiere then exporting it and it still gets blurred.
    The clips themselves are .AVI
    Here's a sample of what keeps happening to my footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jVmz2Tr-0
    And here's a sample of what it should look like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=davCKKtgqak
    Please help me

    But thats exactly it. Im not sure what Im doing wrong with MediaInfo. I dont see it telling me what I should be useing anywhere. All it tells me is what I have. I dont see anyway of rendering on it. I see ways to export it but all it does is export the info it already shows me.
    General
    CompleteName                     : C:\Users\Leonardo\Desktop\Super Mario Bros.avi
    Format                           : AVI
    Format/Info                      : Audio Video Interleave
    FileSize/String                  : 438 MiB
    Duration/String                  : 43s 993ms
    OverallBitRate/String            : 83.4 Mbps 
    Video
    ID/String                        : 0
    Format                           : RGB
    CodecID                          : 0x00000000
    CodecID/Info                     : Basic Windows bitmap format. 1, 4 and 8 bpp versions are palettised. 16, 24 and 32bpp contain raw RGB samples
    Duration/String                  : 43s 993ms
    BitRate/String                   : 82.7 Mbps
    Width/String                     : 256 pixels
    Height/String                    : 224 pixels
    DisplayAspectRatio/String        : 1.143
    FrameRate/String                 : 60.100 fps
    BitDepth/String                  : 8 bits
    Bits-(Pixel*Frame)               : 24.000
    StreamSize/String                : 434 MiB (99%) 
    Audio
    ID/String                        : 1
    Format                           : PCM
    Format_Settings_Endianness       : Little
    Format_Settings_Sign             : Signed
    CodecID                          : 1
    CodecID/Hint                     : Microsoft
    Duration/String                  : 43s 992ms
    BitRate_Mode/String              : Constant
    BitRate/String                   : 705.6 Kbps
    Channel(s)/String                : 1 channel
    SamplingRate/String              : 44.1 KHz
    BitDepth/String                  : 16 bits
    StreamSize/String                : 3.70 MiB (1%)
    Interleave_Duration/String       : 17 ms (1.00 video frame) 

  • Rendering in cs4 pro

    I've never rendered in adobe before. I am going to play the video on a large projector, and want the best quality that will hold up on a Windows 7 laptop.
    I want to render at least 3 or 4 because if one doesn't work,then I'll have a back up, so please throw out any suggestions.
    thanks!

    All you have to do is hit file at the top of the screen, go down to "export" and go to media, this will give you some options. Select Windows Media Player from the first drop down on the top. You can fool around with different qualities depending on what kind of quality film you have, and the resolution and what not. Just repeat and you should be good. I know it's not detailed the answer but that's all you really have to do.

  • Nested rendering in CS4

    Hi, I have about a 45 minute sequence made up of about 6 shorter sequences.  All sequences have video effects, mainly color and level corrections, + title overlays.
    The "big" sequence needs to be rendered, of course - but my question is this:
    Can just the "big" sequence, that includes the other sequences be rendered and NOT all the smaller sequences with as superior result.  That is, do I need to render the smaller sequences first, and THEN render the bigger sequence?
    That will be very time consuming.  Any help appreciated!

    Just render the master sequence.  An added bonus will be that if you
    then return to the nested sequence, it will also show as rendered.
    However, going the other way (that is, rendering the nested sequence
    first) doesn't work.  The master sequence won't pick up the rendered
    video from the nested sequence.
    -Jeff

  • Why cant i export after rendering in cs4

    why cant i export after rendering in CS4

    Dude, I'm messing with ya.
    Truth is, there's just no way anyone can help with so little information.  Your questions is akin to someone going to the doctor and asking "Why can't I pee?"  There could be sooooo many reasons for such a symptom.  Without a LOT more information, neither the doctor nor us Premiere users will be any good at providing answers.

  • CS4 NOT capable of sharp displays at all zoom levels

    I must have been asleep, until now, and missed the significance and importance of what follows.
    In post #11 here:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375478?tstart=30
    on 19 March 2009 Chris Cox (Adobe Photoshop Engineer - his title on the old forums) said this, in a discussion regarding sharpness in CS4:
    "You can't have perfectly sharp images at all zoom levels.". Unfortunately, my experience with CS4 since its release late last year has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of this statement.
    What makes this statement so disturbing is that it contradicts an overwhelming amount of the pre- and post-release promotional advertising of CS4 by Adobe, to the effect that the OpenGL features of CS4 enable it to display sharp images at all zoom levels and magnifications. What is surprising is that this assertion has been picked up and regurgitated in commentary by other, sometimes highly experienced, Ps users (some unconnected with, but also some directly connected with, Adobe). I relied upon these representations when making my decision to purchase the upgrade from CS3 to CS4. In fact, they were my principal reason for upgrading. Without them, I would not have upgraded. Set out in numbered paragraphs 1 to 6 below is a small selection only of this material.  
    1. Watch the video "Photoshop CS4: Buy or Die" by Deke McClelland (inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame, according to his bio) on the new features of CS4 in a pre-release commentary to be found here:
    http://fyi.oreilly.com/2008/09/new-dekepod-deke-mcclelland-on.html
    Notice what he says about zooming with Open GL: "every zoom level is a bicubically rendered thing of beauty". That, when viewed with the zooming demonstrated, can only be meant to convey that your image will be "sharp" at all zoom levels. I'm sure he believes it too - Deke is someone who is noted for his outspoken criticism of Photoshop when he believes it to be deserved. It would seem that he must not have experimented and tested to the extent that others posting in this forum have done so.
    2. Here's another Adobe TV video from Deke McClelland:
    http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1021
    In this video Deke discusses the "super smooth" and "very smooth" zooming of CS4 at all zoom levels achieved through the use of OpenGL. From the context of his comments about zooming to odd zoom levels like 33.33% and 52.37%, it is beyond doubt that Deke's use of the word "smooth" is intended to convey "sharp". At the conclusion of his discussion on this topic he says that, as a result of CS4's "smooth and accurate" as distinct from "choppy" (quoted words are his) rendering of images at odd zoom levels (example given in this instance was 46.67%), "I can actually soft proof sharpening as it will render for my output device".
    3. In an article by Philip Andrews at photoshopsupport.com entitled 'What's New In Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Photoshop 11 - An overview of all the new features in Adobe Photoshop CS4',
    see: http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-cs4/what-is-new-in-photoshop-cs4.html
    under the heading 'GPU powered display', this text appears :
    "Smooth Accurate Pan and Zoom functions – Unlike previous versions where certain magnification values produced less than optimal previews on screen, CS4 always presents your image crisply and accurately. Yes, this is irrespective of zoom and rotation settings and available right up to pixel level (3200%)." Now, it would be a brave soul indeed who might try to argue that "crisply and accurately" means anything other than "sharply", and certainly, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, could it be taken to mean "slightly blurry but smooth" - to use the further words of Chris Cox also contained in his post #11 mentioned in the initial link at the beginning of this post.
    4. PhotoshopCAFE has several videos on the new features of CS4. One by Chris Smith here:
    http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs4/vid/CS4Video.htm
    is entitled 'GPU Viewing Options". In it, Chris says, whilst demonstrating zooming an image of a guitar: "as I zoom out or as I zoom in, notice that it looks sharp at any resolution. It used to be in Photoshop we had to be at 25, 50 , 75 (he's wrong about 75) % to get the nice sharp preview but now it shows in every magnification".
    5. Here's another statement about the sharpness of CS4 at odd zoom levels like 33.33%, but inferentially at all zoom levels. It occurs in an Adobe TV video (under the heading 'GPU Accererated Features', starting at 2 min 30 secs into the video) and is made by no less than Bryan O'Neil Hughes, Product Manager on the Photoshop team, found here:
    http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1686
    After demonstrating zooming in and out of a bunch of documents on a desk, commenting about the type in the documents which is readily visible, he says : "everything is nice and clean and sharp".
    6. Finally, consider the Ps CS4 pdf Help file itself (both the original released with 11.0 and the revised edition dated 30 March 2009 following upon the release of the 11.0.1 update). Under the heading 'Smoother panning and zooming' on page 5, it has this to say: "Gracefully navigate to any area of an image with smoother panning and zooming. Maintain clarity as you zoom to invididual pixels, and easily edit at the highest magnification with the new Pixel Grid." The use of the word "clarity" can only mean "sharpness" in this context. Additionally, the link towards the top of page 28 of the Help file (topic of Rotate View Tool) takes you to yet another video by Deke McClelland. Remember, this is Adobe itself telling you to watch this video. 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the video he says: "Every single zoom level is fluid and smooth, meaning that Photoshop displays all pixels properly in all views which ensures more accurate still, video and 3D images as well as better painting, text and shapes.". Not much doubt that he is here talking about sharpness.
    So, as you may have concluded, I'm pretty upset about this situation. I have participated in another forum (which raised the lack of sharp rendering by CS4 on several occasions) trying to work with Adobe to overcome what I initially thought may have been only a problem with my aging (but nevertheless, just-complying) system or outdated drivers. But that exercise did not result in any sharpness issue fix, nor was one incorporated in the 11.0.1 update to CS4. And in this forum, I now read that quite a few, perhaps even many, others, with systems whose specifications not only match but well and truly exceed the minimum system requirements for OpenGL compliance with CS4, also continue to experience sharpness problems. It's no surprise, of course, given the admission we now have from Chris Cox. It seems that CS4 is incapable of producing the sharp displays at all zoom levels it was alleged to achieve. Furthermore, it is now abundently clear that, with respect to the issue of sharpness, it is irrelevant whether or not your system meets the advertised minimum OpenGL specifications required for CS4, because the OpenGl features of CS4 simply cannot produce the goods. What makes this state of affairs even more galling is that, unlike CS3 and earlier releases of Photoshop, CS4 with OpenGL activated does not even always produce sharp displays at 12.5, 25, and 50% magnifications (as one example only, see posts #4 and #13 in the initial link at the beginning of this post). It is no answer to say, and it is ridiculous to suggest (as some have done in this forum), that one should turn off OpenGL if one wishes to emulate the sharp display of images formerly available.

    Thanks, Andrew, for bringing this up.  I have seen comments and questions in different forums from several CS4 users who have had doubts about the new OpenGL display functionality and how it affects apparent sharpness at different zoom levels.  I think part of the interest/doubt has been created by the over-the-top hype that has been associated with the feature as you documented very well.
    I have been curious about it myself and honestly I didn't notice it at first but then as I read people's comments I looked a little closer and there is indeed a difference at different zoom levels.  After studying the situation a bit, here are some preliminary conclusions (and I look forward to comments and corrections):
    The "old", non-OpenGL way of display was using nearest-neighbor interpolation.
    I am using observation to come to this conclusion, using comparison of images down-sampled with nearest-neighbor and comparing them to what I see in PS with OpenGL turned off.  They look similar, if not the same.
    The "new", OpenGL way of display is using bilinear interpolation.
    I am using observation as well as some inference: The PS OpenGL preferences have an option to "force" bilinear interpolation because some graphics cards need to be told to force the use of shaders to perform the required interpolation.  This infers that the interpolation is bilinear.
    Nothing is truly "accurate" at less than 100%, regardless of the interpolation used.
    Thomas Knoll, Jeff Schewe, and others have been telling us that for a long time, particularly as a reason for not showing sharpening at less than 100% in ACR (We still want it though ).  It is just the nature of the beast of re-sampling an image from discrete pixels to discrete pixels.
    The "rule of thumb" commonly used for the "old", non-OpenGL display method to use 25%, 50%, etc. for "accurate" display was not really accurate.
    Those zoom percentages just turned out to be less bad than some of the other percentages and provided a way to achieve a sort of standard for comparing things.  Example: "If my output sharpening looks like "this" at 50% then it will look close to "that" in the actual print.
    The "new", OpenGL interpolation is certainly different and arguably better than the old interpolation method.
    This is mainly because the more sophisticated interpolation prevents drop-outs that occurred from the old nearest-neighbor approach (see my grid samples below).  With nearest-neighbor, certain details that fall into "bad" areas of the interpolated image will be eliminated.  With bilinear, those details will still be visible but with less sharpness than other details.  Accuracy with both the nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolations will vary with zoom percentage and where the detail falls within the image.
    Since the OpenGL interpolation is different, users may need to develop new "rules of thumb" for zoom percentages they prefer when making certain judgements about an image (sharpening, for example).
    Note that anything below 100% is still not "accurate", just as it was not "accurate" before.
    As Andrew pointed out, the hype around the new OpenGL bilinear interpolation went a little overboard in a few cases and has probably led to some incorrect expectations from users.
    The reason that some users seem to notice the sharpness differences with different zooms using OpenGL and some do not (or are not bothered by it) I believe is related to the different ways that users are accustomed to using Photoshop and the resolution/size of their monitors.
    Those people who regularly work with images with fine details (pine tree needles, for example) and/or fine/extreme levels of sharpening are going to see the differences more than people who don't.  To some extent, I see this similar to people who battle with moire: they are going to have this problem more frequently if they regularly shoot screen doors and people in fine-lined shirts.   Resolution of the monitor used may also be a factor.  The size of the monitor in itself is not a factor directly but it may influence how the user uses the zoom and that may in turn have an impact on whether they notice the difference in sharpness or not.  CRT vs LCD may also play a role in noticeability.
    The notion that the new OpenGL/bilinear interpolation is sharp except at integer zoom percentages is incorrect.
    I mention this because I have seen at last one thread implying this and an Adobe employee participated who seemed to back it up.  I do not believe this is correct.  There are some integer zoom percentages that will appear less sharp than others.  It doesn't have anything to do with integers - it has to do with the interaction of the interpolation, the size of the detail, and how that detail falls into the new, interpolated pixel grid.
    Overall conclusion:
    The bilinear interpolation used in the new OpenGL display is better than the old, non-OpenGL nearest-neighbor method but it is not perfect.  I suspect actually, that there is no "perfect" way of "accurately" producing discrete pixels at less than 100%.  It is just a matter of using more sophisticated interpolation techniques as computer processing power allows and adapting higher-resolution displays as that technology allows.  When I think about it, that appears to be just what Adobe is doing.
    Some sample comparisons:
    I am attaching some sample comparisons of nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolation.  One is of a simple grid made up of 1 pixel wide lines.  The other is of an image of a squirrel.  You might find them interesting.  In particular, check out the following:
    Make sure you are viewing the Jpegs at 100%, otherwise you are applying interpolation onto interpolation.
    Notice how in the grid, a 50% down-sample using nearest-neighbor produces no grid at all!
    Notice how the 66.67% drops out some lines altogether in the nearest-neighbor version and these same lines appear less sharp than others in the bilinear version.
    Notice how nearest-neighbor favors sharp edges.  It isn't accurate but it's sharp.
    On the squirrel image, note how the image is generally more consistent between zooms for the bilinear versions.  There are differences in sharpness though at different zoom percentages for bilinear, though.  I just didn't include enough samples to show that clearly here.  You can see this yourself by comparing results of zooms a few percentages apart.
    Well, I hope that was somewhat helpful.  Comments and corrections are welcomed.

  • Re: Lightroom 4.3 images do not show in Photoshop cs4

    Running Lightroom 4.3 on Vista, I cant pass processed Canon EOS 6D RAW images to Photoshop CS4. when selecting to edit in CS4, Photoshop runs but no image appears. There is no error message. In Lightroom Photoshop editor preferences it makes no difference whether I select PSD of TIFF. Is thsi because CS4 is passed an incompatible RAW file... if so whyt no error message? Anyone any ideas?

    You need to make sure Lightroom does the rendering (as CS4's ACR isn't compatible with LR4).  When you choose edit in photoshop, do you get a compatibility warning with a prompt allowing you to choose "Render using lightroom" or "Open anyway"?  If so, choose "Render using lightroom".
    If you don't get the prompt, to to Edit menu, Preferences and general tab and click "Reset all warning dialogs". 

  • Color space AE CS5 Versus AE CS4 = !#%%$

    Hello,
    I'm trying to export HD uncompressed 10-bit with color space HDTV (rec.709) clips of VFXs footage that were done on AE CS5.
    My main project file to which I want to integrate them in on AE CS4 which I am using (the AE CS5 render are made by someone else that has it).
    My project file settings is in HDTV (rec.709) 16bit with mostly cineform clips, but with a few other VFXs shot that were renderer in HD uncompressed without problems (using CS4). I plan to them export my main project into HD uncompressed
    We tried to batch of export:
    First one was done in CS5 with HDTV (rec.709) in export settings but the project settings wasn't set to HDTV (rec.709) by the VFXs guy.
    When I imported those clips in my CS4 main project there was difference in color (more golden) and blacks (more crushed).
    You can it with the blacks's difference on the girl's hair and the side planel of the plane and the golden is less ovious on the picture quality but you see it a bit on the woman's face.
    I then proceeded to check color space, and it was imported by default by AE in sRGB IEC611966-2.1.
    I then changed it to HDTV rec.709 using interpret footage; it was a closer match, but not quite.
    I then noticed that all my project's clips, including the HD uncompressed one that I rendered (under CS4) from work done by another VFX artist, were all in HDTV rec.709 YCrCb, but the the imported clips I was trying to match were in HDTV rec.709 only with no YCrCb mention afte them.
    I talked with film's colorist and VFXs artist that worked with those projct file from which all the problematic shots comes (because problem is isolated to project file this person worked on), because we both over our head in color space territory.
    We came up the the possible solution that the project setting might have been altered for quicker workflow and not set rigth again.
    We checked and color space wasn't set in setting; colorsit suggested that if it's not set in settings no mather if you set it in your export settings, AE won't allow it and that's why it might have forced RGB, hence the sRGB IEC611966-2.1. It was in 32bit float instead of 16 bit, so that's ok, we initialy suggestedthat it might have been reduced to 8bit for quicker workflow.
    After this, we proceded to re-render in CS5, bu we found a weird thing that we both don't realy grasp.
    After he did the 2nd render (in CS5 still), he tried importing clips with old ones, to compare them to my unafected originals clips, in my CS4 project that he converted in CS5.  It was worst. He then switched off the "blend color using 1.0 gamma"; which my project file didn't have on in CS4. The files are in 32bit float and color space was HDTV (rec.709), but since it's not embed in HD uncompressed files he set them manualy after importing them.
    The OLD render batch was matching, but not the NEW ones.
    Then he tried importing both render batch in the original project file he exported them from, and it was the NEW batch that now matched.
    He's now doing test in my main project file in CS4 which is were I'd ultimately like it to work in,
    but if anyone could gives us pointer as to why this is happening and how to make it match with no hassly tat would be great help.
    Thank you for your time and interest.
    Frédéric

    You've lost me, honestly, but obviously you seem to be close to the solution. Your colorist is mistaken, though, about how AE handles color profiles. It doesn't discard or enforce profiles, it really seems you just forgot to carry them somewhere. Also, since these are different machines, maybe a specific profile was not available. eitehr it was never installed or it is blocked due to permission issues...
    Mylenium

  • CS4: Complex Eastern languages (Arabic, Punjabi, Tamil, Urdu) render incorrectly on Mac?

    Hello,
    I am currently working on a localizing project.
    The project is designed to read XML (in UTF-8) and use the text data to fill the dynamic TextFields placed across the stage.
    The SWF shows English, French, and even Chinese with no problem, but when complex Eastern languages are used, (in my case Arabic, Urdo, Punjabi, and Tamil) i nticed that the translated text is rendered differently from how it is written in the XML file when the movie is tested on CS4/ Mac. When I opened the same SWF on CS4/ XP, the text in these languages rendered more closely to how they are written in the XML file.
    I showed the screen captures of the SWF in Arabic and Punjabi to a native speakers of the languages and they confirmed that the text rendered on CS4/ Mac was indeed wrong but the one rendered from CS4/ XP was right.  Even though I need to confirm with the translators for each languages, I already expect the same thing for other two. The Interesting and important thing here to note is that Flash is showing / using the right fonts for each languages, but the arrangements or location of certain letters are incorrect. Please see the attatched picture (left collumn > Mac).
    It tells me that the text rendering capability for complex Eastern languages might be different on Mac from PC.
    Are there any ohters out there who experienced the same issue?  Is there any solution to this?
    Any input would be very much appreciated.
    Mac OS X 10.5.8
    Flash CS4 Professional Ver 10.0.2
    PC Win XP SP2
    Flash CS4 Professional Ver 10.0.2

  • After effects error code.

    upon opening After Effects i receive this crash error. "After Effects error:Crash in progress. lat logged message was: <11156> <Dynamiclink> <5> C:\Program files (x86)\Common files\adobe\dynamiclink\cs5\dynmiclinkmanager.exe"
    My computer specs:
    Intelcore i5
    4.0 GB RAM
    64-bit OS
    is there any way to fix this?

    Hi.
    Interesting.
    Ok. Firstly, It is important what is Dynamic link to solve this problem.
    What is Dynamic Link?
    Adobe® Dynamic Link gives you tighter-than-ever integration when moving assets between Adobe After Effects® CS5, Adobe Premiere® Pro CS5, and Encore® CS5. An integral part of Adobe Creative Suite® 5 Production Premium and Master Collection software, Dynamic Link enables you to work faster and stay in the creative flow by eliminating intermediate rendering when you make changes to assets — whether you're editing a sequence of clips in Adobe Premiere Pro, changing a composition in After Effects, or refining a project in Encore.
    more -> info  http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/dynamiclink/
    Secondly, plz let me check your system.
    1. Did you install the package of Adobe master collection or Creative Suite Production Premium, or each software separated in AE and Premiere?
    2. Did you uninstall whole package about that ; if you have, including not only CS5 but also previous package or software was related with Adobe AE and Premiere like CS4, CS3?
    3. Also check your any whole local folder like 10.0 folder or user application folder in document about Adobe not deleted by order "uninstall"
    4. Then, after reboot, Just install only AE(or Premiere), Only one of Two! by clicking the content in the window of installing package of Adobe.
    5. Does opening AE(or Premiere) is ok?  -->I wholly believe it won't have any Problem. Just imagine that you got adobe software first.
    6. Then, try to install the other.
    7. If both AE and Premiere are that opening is good, you are able to install the others of your package.
    Good luck!

  • Adobe CS6 Premium Classroom in a book

    Hi,
    Has anyone read the new Classroom in a book, um...book yet?
    I wondered how much new information there would be vs the overlap between it and the CS5 version that I already have.
    Thats it...a short and (hopefully) easy question for a monday morning!
    Pierre

    Hi All,
    Ok, So I completed the CS6 Production Premium Classroom in a book, and found it quite helpfull. From a beginners point of view, it was a great introduction to the possible workflow using all the Production Premium suite applications together. It was not a book on any particular part of the suite - although it did give some input on each.
    Basically, it takes a real life situation of a band promo, supplies a lot of footage and souns clips, then walks you step by step thorugh managing media, managing dynamic link, workinf between applications from importing the first clip, to burning a DVD with menu functions and all.
    Really a good read for those out there that dont know how the apps work together, and maybe want to shave some time off their current workflow - by maybe not rendering intermediate renders, but instead using the dynamic link functions.
    Ok, so thats my sales pitch - I am now onto After Effects CS6 Visual Effects and COmpositing Studio Techniques by Mark Christiansen.
    Now THIS is an interresting book!
    I must admit, I have been looking forward to a book that does not give step by step tutorials, but rather explains the workings behind the program - so that the reader can actually interpret it themselves, and start using the effects etc in ways not "guidlined" by someone else.
    As Rick has mentioned, blindly following tutorials wont help you learn the program and what it can do.
    Having said this, I must shamedly admit that by chapter 2 I am already becoming a little unstuck!
    I will keep at it though, and re read most of the book at least once or twice more, but some of the advice given is a little meyond me. For instance, the book has a chapter on the graph editor. Very good, but it assumes you understand the graph interface quite well already. I have not personally used it yet, having not done too manu serious animations, but know that it will be an invaluable tool in the near future - so, Ill take the chapter apart and try, try, try again!
    When I have completed the book, I will provide some more feedback for those that are interrested.
    (It is Christmas however, and our offices WILL stay open, just not as productive - so forgive me if it takes a week or two to get through the book - there are several factrors working against me at the moment - 1) 89.6 degree temp outside - so hotter in the little office and even worse under the red-heads, 2) a quiet building that we share with other businesses - dark corridors now - makes me tired all the time! 3) The CEO brought in his copy of Starcraft 2 and talked me into buying one as well - never played it before, so I need to learn quickly as we will be having a few rounds next week)
    So, as you can all see, I am *terribly* busy at the moment, but I will give the feedabck as soon as I can!
    Merry Christmas to all - and heres looking to a wonderful New Year for all of us!
    Pierre

  • DV output doesn't seem quite right.

    Hi,
    I don't know why or what I am doing wrong but it seems that when I view my file that was rendered in CS4 (basic DV file 720x480 29.97) and reimport the clip into my editing program (Grass Valley Edius), the footage does not seem to be as pristine as the original DV footage. There is a "film like" look to the frame rate and there also appears to be a cut in overall resolution. I have all output settings to "best" and I tried playing with field, upper and lower, but no combination seems quite right. I know this program can handle a wide variety of formats so I can't believe that simple DV should be a challenge.  As an FYI, to eliminate all variables, I didnt apply any effects to the footage, just inserted a clip into the composition, and rendered it out.
    Any ideas how I can get my DV footage to look exactly like the original?

    merrick611 wrote:
    As a follow up to my prior post, I did find a way in Canopus to convert the original DV file to an uncompressed RGB. I took the uncompressed file into AE, and then output as PNG sequence. Still, the results are not as good as the original DV footage. Incredibly disappointing. I am surprised that you don't hear more people complaining about this since I am sure DV is still widely used.
    I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of DV as a compressed format - it can never look as good as the original. DV uses a very agressive compression that reduces color information and produces a lot of very visible artifacts. Whenever you compress it again, you apply another level of degeneration on top of the existing one. You can't have both - either you don't modify the source footage and allow the programs to work in bypass, re-using the original stream data or you modify the image content, based on the decompressed and reconstructed info, but in turn enforcing a completely new compression pass.
    Mylenium

  • Problem with 720p mp4 import

    I have some source material shot on a Sony T900. These are 720p files in mp4. When I play them in QT or VLC they look very good. When I import them into CS4 I get sections where the video 'blows out': big blocks of the image turn almost white or almost black. Interestingly, it seems that these episodes last for 15 frames.
    I've tried a few different presets (wide screen avi, avchd 720p, hdv 720p30) with the same results.
    I can see the problem both on the timeline and when I export.
    I am wondering if I should convert these clips to AVI (or something) using another program (such as?) first.
    Enlcosed are examples of when it is ok and when it is wacked out.
    Thanks for the help, this is driving me a little crazy.

    I have been following your story too.  It is fustrating when you can play the video fine in its original form but not import it and use it in CS4.
    I have been trying Streamclip on my original mp4 files.  First I tried export to AVI with the following results:  They play fine in VLC and Windows but when I import them into Adobe they play real fast for the first 10 seconds then it goes to still frame for the rest of the clip length.  Very odd.  This is true for a variety of settings I tried.
    Then I tried the export to DV.  This works.  The clips import corrrectly and they also do not require rendering in CS4.   But the clips are in 720x480.  This might end up being the way I go but still looking for a better solution.
    This whole thing started when my AVCHD camera was stolen in Vietnam and all I had was the Sony T900 to shoot the video.

Maybe you are looking for