Why do i still need to render if in prores422lt?

i was wondering why i still need to render in a timeline that is 422LT and the clip i just dropped in is also 422LT? is it because the clip isn't the same dimensions as the timeline? for example my timeline is 1920, but the clip i am dropping in is from a screenshot that is 1680x1050. the front bumpers and titles are already dropped in and they are at 1920, and when i drop in the smaller clip with the same codec, it shows as red.

The best thing to do is to screen capture in the frame resolution of your program. Watch the frame rate on the delivered SnapzPro media. The frame rate is usually screwy and has to be fixed in Cinema Tools.

Similar Messages

Still need to render after using Compressor 4...

Hi there.
Having a small problem figuring out why I still need to render a video clip after using Compresor 4.
I am able to add the fiile to Compressor 4 successfully.
I select "Apple ProRes-422" as my codec
I chose a destination and click submit.
It takes the file - and does its thing and places it in the correct folder.
When I go to Final Cut Express (4.0.1)- and "Import" the file - I see the long red line at the top and it says my clip is unrendered...
It seemed so straight forward when I looked at the YouTube videos...
I am currently on Lion...
Thanks,
SparkyCanada

That would explain it...
Thanks!
SparkyCanada

With iCloud Photos why do we still need Photo Stream

After installing Yosemite I set up iCloud photos on my iMac, phones and iPads and it works fine. Why do I still need or have selections for Photo Stream? Wouldn't that go away?

I had exported all of my photos from iPhoto and then used the Photos app on iCloud.com to upload them. At this time, only JPEGs are able to be uploaded via iCloud.com. I had a few PNGs in my collection, which I email to myself and using one of my iCloud Photo Library enabled devices saved the photo which uploads it to iCloud Photo Library that way.
Some decisions have to be made on how you export from iPhoto/Aperture and thus which photo versions you'll be copying to iCloud Photo Library. Uploading photos to iCloud Photo Library using iCloud.com does not upload a version that contains non-destructive edits. For example, let's say using iPhoto you did a crop and changed contrast. You then export the Current version of the photo and upload the file to iCloud.com. You cannot then use your iPhone and select Revert to original to get rid of that crop and contrast change you performed in iPhoto. The file you uploaded with the edits WAS the original in this case. You can make additional edits to the photo on your iPhone or iPad and Revert those changes however.
Now, if you like the way your photos currently are in your library and those are the versions you want to work with going forward, then in iPhoto choose Export and change Kind to Current. Then, upload those.
If you want to upload clean, unedited, start from scratch photos, then change Kind to Original when you export from iPhoto and upload those.
The other option is to just wait until the Photos app comes out for the Mac which will more than likely be able to upload all of the nondestructive edits done in iPhoto. In my case, I chose to upload unedited originals. Hope this helps. Sorry for rambling.

Match question--Why do I still need local storage?

I signed up for Match so I would no longer have to worry about onsite storage for my 18,000 song library. But after five days of loading, when I disconnect onsite storage, I can't access my library. What am I doing wrong here?

When I try to delete a song in my iTunes library that has already been uploaded via Match to the cloud, I get a dialog box asking if you are sure want to delete it. Under that, there is a little check box that says "Also delete this song from iCloud?". When I tried it worked (for me) exactly how I'd expect. I was able to re-download the song as long as I left the check box unchecked. So, if this is true, you could *theoretically* get rid of what's stored on your disk. But keeping your library in only one place, be it a hard drive or the cloud, is never a really bad idea. And since Match is a new, buggy, unproven service, it's a huge risk.
Plus, once a song is downloaded, it takes up space and you'll just need to get rid of it again.
And if you have anything besides music in your iTunes library, it won't be backed up to the cloud, so you'll still need the disk storage for that.
"Stream" was the wrong word to use, but I can understand why they chose it.
BTW, the second time iTunes Match looks through your library is significantly quicker. My 14,423 songs take about 5 minutes and run in the background.
Hope that helps answer some of your questions.
-- Stephanie

HT5312 I'm just trying to buy some things on the App Store and they ask me about those stupid Apple ID security questions I mean why do we still need to answer them if we forgot the answer do I wasted 15$ ****** for nothing I mean the money is still

Someone bought me a itunes gift card and it doesn't work cause this stupid Apple ID ask me to answer the questions I mean hello I'm the only one using it why do I need to answer these question?

I agree completely; email applications on the Mac lag (and I agree with the OP's frustration with responses as well).
I also have settled on Mail with Mail ActOn and MailTags; this functionality should be incorporated into the OS. I actually like using Outlook in Win 7 better; it's super easy to connect files, contacts, email and other stuff right from one application. And Win 7 has better preview and tagging built in, better than QuickLook. On the server side we desparately need gmail to use tags, but I don't see that happening. I still prefer the labeling scheme it has over Apple's mail, however. But I also find that it confuses many users (labels vs folders).
There are also other applications that integrate email functionality, like SOHO Organizer, or Contactizer. Good, but not the email holy grail.
I'd like to see communications built into the Finder or system, which badly needs an overhaul. It hasn't changed much since the 90's and shows it. Communication, whether it be email, tweets, social media posts, sharing, etc, is such an integral function of all work you do on a computer it should be better, um, integrated into all applications. You should be able to send data from any application to others in a variety of formats without having to go into an email application. Sure, you can now do this to a certain extent with either built-in menu items or services, but it's clunky. For example, when you write something you can either "save" and write to disk somewhere, or "export" in a different format, or maybe "email." All of those choices should at least be part of one dialog; it's just as likely you want to email, post, share or tweet what you just wrote, so just having a "save" dialog is way outmoded.
So, yeah, somebody get on this.
Rob

(Why) do we still need primatives?

I think the answer, sadly, is that we do, if only for things like array indexing and tracking looping iterations, not to mention conformity with existing API. What else?
There are at least 2 reasons to get rid of primatives, as I see it:
1. Using primitives you must make a compile time decision about what range of values and how much accuracy (rounding errors & such) those using your code in the future will need. By abstracting with with BigInteger and BigDecimal you don't have to limit yourself.
2. primitives and primitive arrays are such a special case, since they are not objects (ok, a primitive array is an object, but with no methods)
Thoughts?

puckstopper31 wrote:
sabre150 wrote:
I'm always surprised when people think we can get rid of primitives. Just try writing a high performance matrix inversion or FFT or other mathematically intensive algorithm without them. If Java had no primitive 'int' and 'double' I would have to go back to using C++ and I would hate that.
Rather than get rid of primitives I would like to add to them. I would like double complex, float complex, unsigned int, unsigned long and unsigned byte but the mere suggestion of including these in the Java language puts some people into apoplexy. They start crossing themselves and they tell me to wash my mouth out with soap in much the same way as when I suggest adding operator overloading.
In a few years when computers are 100 times as fast and have 100 times as much memory then I might consider doing without primitives but not yet.and yet you claim to hate C++ but that is (very nearly) what you would be turning Java into. Inconsistency is a sure sign of insanity.
Kidding just kidding.Although you are kidding it does have some truth. C++ is a great language and I made a living out of it for years. For some reason, some people seem to think that C++ can be an alternative to Java for those people who want to change Java. This is not the case. When I first used C++ it was so much better than C and FORTRAN but the limitations and the complexity it exhibited made people ask for changes. Some of the purists resisted the changes arguing that C++ was designed that way and that if you didn't like some of the features then you should go back to C or FORTRAN or PL/M . The argument does not seem to have changed - just the base Language. Languages evolve as people get experience of using them and find the warts that they exhibit. These warts need to be removed and the only question seems to be which warts are necessary and which would just be nice to remove. Some C++ warts were removed but the removal sometimes adds more problems (C++ templates are a prime example but I would not get rid of them). Java is an advance on C++ but should not be static.
Java has evolved since I first met it as 1.02 and for the most part I like the new evolved features. I still have reservations about the need for 'closures' but just because I don't see the need does not mean that there is no need for them. I just don't use them but maybe I will when I understand the best place to use them. I don't want Java to be static and not evolve because though Java is a good language and has brilliant libraries it is not perfect.
I find it really weird that the youngsters here seem to be the conservatives and I, probably being the oldest regular contributor to these forums, am the revolutionary.

Added HP ePrint printer to Cloud Print so why do I still need my PC running?

I added the email address of my HP LaserJet Pro M1536dnf Multifunction Printer to Cloud Print, so why do I need to have my PC running when I print to it? It doesn't seem to work if the PC isn't on.

Hello Iria,
I'm sorry to hear you are encountering difficulties when trying to print via Cloud Print. I'm presuming that you mean Google Cloud Print.
To better understand the issue would you please provide me with some further information:
1) How is your printer setup (USB cable, Ethernet, or wirelessly)?
2) What operating system are you running?
3) What type of device are you trying to print from when the computer is off?
I have also included links to the Google Cloud Print Support Section.
https://support.google.com/cloudprint/?rd=1
Happytohelp01
Regards,
Happytohelp01
Please click on the Thumbs Up on the right to say “Thanks” for helping!
Please click “Accept as Solution ” on the post that solves your issue to help others find the solution.
I work on behalf of HP

Sequence and Capture Settings Match, Still Need To Render

I am capturing my video footage through a AJA Kona board using the SDI input. I have set my capture setting in FCP to 525 29.97 DV, and have set my sequence setting to match, also 525 29.97 DV. Yet when I overwrite the footage to the the sequence it needs to be rendered. I was under the impression that if the sequence and capture settings match I would not have to render. Is this not true?

The orginal footage is not DV, it is DVCPRO 25. I am capturing in the DV setting because of the length of the footage. The DVCPRO deck doesn't have a firewire output.

Paid plans: Why do I still need credits?

How come I need skype credit if I purchased a world plan. And can I speak English and have the other party hear me in Spanish ??

Hi and welcome to the Skype Community,
Please check on the subscription details your Skype web account page at www.skype.com/go/myaccount for which destinations are covered. Keep in mind that for some countries only landline numbers are included, while for others landline and mobile numbers can be called.
Follow the latest Skype Community News
↓ Did my reply answer your question? Accept it as a solution to help others, Thanks. ↓

Do you still need EJB when you can do it all with JSF/JSC?

I think EJBs make J2EE unnecessarily complex for 80% of small to mid or even some large scale applications. When you can separate the logic and view using JSF and Servlets, and still do transactions (using JSC DataProviders), why do you still need EJBs? I have heard nightmares with EJBs deployment and how its complex to move them over from test to production servers.
Are EJBs getting obsolete and not worth learning? Afterall, in the Microsoft world, there is nothing like EJB and all they got is ASP.NET (similar to JSF) -- along with its associated data classes and .NEt framework. I am sure they also promote separating logic from presentation.
I think JSF is the best thing Java world has got to compete with Microsoft on developer productivity for small to medium size applications.
Message was edited by:
Sabir

J2EE EJB's are far from being a holy grial capable of solving any situation. They are complex, difficult to learn and code, but we need to be fair and tell the whole story.
EJB's are part of the J2EE technology and offer infrastructure needed in complex applications. I.E., you mention
"When you can separate the logic and view using JSF and Servlets, and still do transactions (using JSC DataProviders)"
but these are only database level transactions. The J2EE app servers can handle global (and distributed) transactions involving different operations over different databases and transactions ruled by non-database software. Just imagine the complexity of handling a "rollback" of this kind. Put that in .NET pipe and try to smoke it.
J2EE EJB Entity Beans were the black sheep of the family. They were oriented to easily handle fine operations (i.e. update a specific record of information) but on the other hand present a poor performance in operations over large sets of data. You can do some optimizations but..... Now the story is a bit different with JavaEE 5 and the Java Persistence API -inspired on Hibernate-.
The bottom line is (as you mention in your post): J2EE/JavaEE are not needed by most of small or mid sized apps. However, I would strongly encourage you to have a look at the JavaEE 5 technology. The fact that portions of the JavaEE technology do not have a counterpart in .NET does not mean that they are not worth to (at least) have a look at them.
Best regards
Antonio

My membership is activated, why I still need to provide a serial number??

My membership is activated, why I still need to provide a serial number??

A chat session where an agent may remotely look inside your computer may help
Creative Cloud chat support (all Creative Cloud customer service issues)
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/global/service-ccm.html
Cancel http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/return-cancel-or-change-order.html

Why have I still not been sent my product serial number? It's been hours now and I need to have my license now.

why have I still not been sent my product serial number? It's been hours now and I need to have my license now.

you're allowed a 30 day trial while waiting (at least one business day) for adobe to process your payment.

Always need to render - even music tracks, why?

I'm sure this has been covered before but while I can find lots of discussion I can't find an actual answer searching the forums..."FCP Workflows" doesn't deal specifically with this media.
Trying to edit Photo JPEG video 1280x720, 30fps together with JPEG stills of about 2.7kx2.0k pixels. The Sequence settings were set by FCP to match the 1280x720 video media- Photo JPEG compressor. Render settings are the default for that sequence. Every time I do anything to the stills- they need rendering. Any filter, dissolves etc, this is very frustrating. I never remember this being an issue before. All the media is on fast internal drives and plays fine. EXTERNAL VIDEO is OFF.
Even worse on this and other jobs editing HDV all the music I import has to be rendered in the timeline regardless of it's format, AIFF or MP3. What am I doing wrong?
Season greetings to all FCP users!
Message was edited by: GUSSS

I've tried importing AIFF audio as well and it still needs rendering. Its 44Khz/16bit
When using AIFF in FCP, it needs to be 48khz, 16 bit. 44.1khz is CD audio and is not compatible with FCP without rendering.
I suppose one way or the other it all has to be converted to 48khz sample rate. I thought FCP did that on the fly?
That's what rendering is; converting to the proper format for your Sequence. To avoid rendering and rerendering, convert PRIOR to importing.
-DH

Need to render my song all the time, why?

What in my settings are wrong if I need to render the song (AIFF) as soon as I do an edit, I didn't use to before...Thanks

Wrong forum. Try Final Cut Studio. Need to give them the settings you're using.

Why does some video need to be rendered in FCE 4 before I can work on it?

I've been trying to get a handle on FCE 4 because it's very different than iMovie '08. I have a bunch of content in iMovie that I'd like to mess with in FCE 4, so I exported from iMovie as FCE XML and imported in FCE. There is some video that I re-encoded to Quicktime from ASF and it seems to need to be rendered before it will show up in the Canvas in FCE 4. FCE shows this content as DV/DVCPRO - NTSC under "Compressor" in the browser. Other stuff that was taken off my Sony HDR-SR7 is available in FCE 4 without any problems. This shows up as Apple Intermediate Coded in the browser.
What's the deal with rendering anyway? Why does FCE need to "render" video to add things like effects when iMovie can add effects, etc at will with no "rendering" required?

FCE can do certain effects on the fly without rendering. Some more elaborate transitions, like 3D wipes, require too much processor time to do them in real time. My understanding is that Macs with greater on-board processing power do more of these effects in real time, while slower machines must render.
iMovie can do these effects on the fly because it's working with far less information. Think of iMovie works in the DV format while FCE works in the DV/DVCPRO-NTSC format. It's too subtle a name difference but the reality is quite different. It's like editing still pictures in compressed, lossy JPEG format vs. uncompressed TIFF format. Think about how long it takes your computer to open a photo of say, 8x10" 300 dpi in TIFF vs. that same file in JPEG. Well, that's what FCE has to do. It's working in the video equivalent of TIFF -- 30 frames per second. So there's a greater demand on your processor by a factor of 10. You can see this in action in Quicktime. Save a raw video import 720x480 in .dv and then in DV/DVCPRO-NTSC format and then play it back. The .dv will probably play smoothly while the DV/DVCPRO-NTSC (.mov) will hang up on play-back. It's just too much for your process to display all of those full resolution images so rapidly. And if you look at the two images side-by-side (particularly titles) you'll see how sharp and clear the .mov file is compared to the compressed .dv file.
Hope this helps.

Why do i still need to render if in prores422lt?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for