<?xml version="1.0"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>Videomaker Community Forums &#187; Topic: Sequences inside of sequences? What advantage</title>
<link>http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/</link>
<description>Videomaker Community Forums &#187; Topic: Sequences inside of sequences? What advantage</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:43:15 +0000</pubDate>

<item>
<title>BruceMol on "Sequences inside of sequences? What advantage"</title>
<link>http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/sequences-inside-of-sequences-what-advantage#post-51880</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>BruceMol</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">51880@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;I think you could go either way for the job you are describing. I've rendered both ways, S in S, and rendered sequences all in one sequence, and didn't find any rendering time advantage. &#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;I use sequence in sequence for experimentation. Where I found sequences in sequences an advantage was when I was designing a screen layout with a bunch of different elements. One of the items was an image of a TV monitor and a 'news clip' playing on that monitor. In one sequence I placed my tv monitor.png, in front of the news reel. I placed that sequence in another sequence that had my newscasters (talking head) and scaled the tv sequence and moved it around until I was happy with the layout. I could have rendered the first sequence out, but I was just getting ideas about if, what I had in mind, would work.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;I've also used S in S for slide shows that appear in movies as effects in the background. Again it's a design thing. I know I want some images changing in the background but I don't know how long I want them there - so I make a slideshow Sequence and add it to my main sequence and trim the time of the slide sequence. It's easy experimentation.&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Weddingmaster on "Sequences inside of sequences? What advantage"</title>
<link>http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/sequences-inside-of-sequences-what-advantage#post-51878</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Weddingmaster</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">51878@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62; Hello All,&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Something I ve pondered over. I learned to edit several versions back vers. 5.5 -PPro3 to make sequences..IE: intro, ceremony, reception, all on their own sequence and then I place all of these into the final sequence and wait hours for it to render? Why not just build my wedding in one sequence and render segments as I go? What advantage do all these sequences have? Thanks for any light on this..&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Harry&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

