In other words, the nested sequence object is a higher-order object (like a clip itself as compared to effects applied to it, cuts, transitions, etc.) and so the user will expect that the nested sequence represents a "wrapping up" of the work done previously. An editor likely finishes a sequence and then says, "This is how I want the sequence to look and behave now I want to simplify and place the whole chunk in a larger timeline." At this point, unless the editor changes some parameter at the nested-sequence level, the editor probably just wants the sequence placed as-is. The point of a nested sequence (among other things) is to simplify use of a sequence of clips. In the case of a nested sequence, though, an un-effected nested sequence should be transparent processing-wise. If I didn't want to change anything, I should undo the effect. The application probably doesn't need to be peering into every effect and using system resource overhead to query: "Are you really changing the video?" The user would understand: I've added an effect, now I need to re-render. In the case of an effect, even if the effect is "neutral" in the sense that no real processing has been applied, I could understand why Premiere would require re-rendering. Richard: Yes, you are correct, and I agree with you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |