Versioning fatigue

I am suffering from versioning fatigue on every project I work on. 1 film quickly turns into 9 slightly different versions. It is very tideous work and client don’t understand why it takes so much time. While I wait for AI to make all my films I would really like a fast an nice workflow that solves this.

But I can not complain without offering a solution. And my solution Is to make each segment connection available in one master bfx. At least top layer gap fx BFX with graphics and logo. That means I get one BFX with all the connected BFX outputs and back clips. Borrowing the principle of object oriented programming I don’t want to have to many instances of the same text in my code I don’t want to have to many instances of one clip in my projects. So if client wants an small adjustment on the logo or text, all versions are updated in a graphical understandable Flame way.

This way I have one place to do all my small changes and I can be confident that every version is updated. The best advantage is that its very flexible. I can still be creative of how I want to do all the connection, how much is linked or how little is linked. It might not bee the ultimate solution but it might be one that is realistic. Its not changing anything massive in flame, but adds something on top on what already there.

What do you think?


I have not seen this before. Connect Segment and Segment Connect outputs in one BFX :confused:

Multiple BFX Outputs but one of them goes somewhere else :thinking:
I like this idea.
I guess you could have a master batch rendering openClips and they would roll out across all edits but I have never done it like this. I didn’t even know it was possible. I am slightly confused.

I think this is a mock-up of how things “could” work. We always work with bfx for finisihing and this would allow users to do their comp and then use a nonlinear way to use graphics for various ratios.

Oh right! Yeah of course.

Well it got me thinking. I do like to do my GFX on the timeline, BFX.

I have had some MONSTER setups that I promoted to batch and had it branch out at the end into multiple different ratio outputs.

OpenClips have really helped me with keeping shots up to date in edits where the shot link has broken due to formatting. I have never considered using Write nodes to make openClips from within a BFX. I have tried write nodes but it annoys me that I can’t render all nodes the way I can in batch.

The next job I have I was going to look deep into source segments rather than just relying on shots segments and OpenClips.

Yes should have been clearer on that. It’s a feature request. Something that would have made my days easier.

I feel you might be able to achieve this with a batch setup and smart replace.

Curious to understand why the open clip method didn’t work @PlaceYourBetts ?

I am falling out of love with gap bfx and bfx. I’m remembering how we used to render into the desktop and look at renders, do diff mattes. I rarely check stuff so thoroughly these days because of bfx. And then when you have to pick up a shit ton of masters to tweak titles it’s a fuck on because youre not familiar with the job. Having one batch titling setup where you keep all the elements could be a lot tidier and easier for tweaks but probably requires a little more thought to setup….

No. OpenClips do work but I do them out of batch. Not tried to do them out of a BFX so that I can use them in another social edit. No reason that wouldn’t work.


anytime I seal with hundrets of versions I do build versioning scripts…

In nuke, its a bit crazy but its the most sane way to handle those crazy versions without staying inflexible to changes in every step of the way.

Its crazy but yea we do need a piece of sofware that lets us do timeline versioning in a node based way… there are just too many assets to render out its getting ridicolous.

Or at least let us nest timelines, thats how I do it for “less than 300 versions” in Resolve.


I’d love Flame to be able to work with nested timelines.
I’d love Flame to be able to do node based versioning.
I’d love Flame to be able to do proper IMF/DCP/DCDM mastering.
I’d love Flame to be able to tag audio metadata as needed on export
I’d love Dolby Atmos support in Flame.
I’d love more customisable export features.

I’d love Flame to become to ultimate finishing system again for all markets, TVCs, Web Content, Episodic & Features.


If the graphics / legal / things that make it a version are all on top of the footage (not integrated or comped somehow) You can use a BFX workflow or a Smart Replace workflow to do this type of versioning.

Make the BFX or Batch with Smart Replace have all of the work that should apply to every version, and add your versioned graphics on top in the timeline.

Am I missing something or maybe it’s just that you want more of a schematic / node view of what’s happening?

I would love it if you could have multiple write nodes in your BFX. One that goes into your current timeline and the others are reformats/versions that go into other timelines.
You could do this atm with openClips but I don’t know if you can 'Render All" the way you can in batch. You have to select each write node, one at a time to render from BFX.

:thinking: Feature Request or am I missing somthing?

1 Like

The overarching idea I think, is to have the graphics connected like segment commections in bfx. You would have a text/gfx level where you can adjust the content of the graphics layout say, for 9:16 and syncing it would change all the gfx in the linked timelineFX.
Nested precomps that feed into TLFX or GapBfx

Make sure to fill a Flame Feedback for a more connected multi-versions BFX with a link to the current thread.

Flame Feedback - Welcome to Flame Feedback!

General Improvement FI-03024

I think versioning could be something very different to the above.

Almost like you have segment/clip A with 4 versions, segment/clip B with 2 versions, segment C with 2 versions, etc;

Then in a batch-like environment you simply link sequences in their order and have an output node at the end. Maybe, like batch, you could open up each sequence as a timeline and turn layers on & off. So you could hve all your graphics nested in the same source sequence but make up your versions depending on what layer is turned on or off.

So you could quickly create masters such as
A1 > B1 > C1
A1> B1 > C2
A1 > B2 > C1
A1 > B2 > C2
A2 > B1 > C1
A3 > B2 > C2
A4 > C1
A4 > C2

Would need to have some kind of Mux functionality for each connection too. Almost like how you add an input to action, but it would be an input/output connection where you could start the clip x amount of frames later and/or finish y amount of frames earlier.

Duration of the output would just be the total duration of the frames you have connected (with a handy display telling you what each output would be).

You’d also need to be able to connect audio too.

In the above scenario, since you are effectively using nested sequences, if you needed to update a shot in the source sequence, it would auto populate through everything.

You could also theoretically use the above with Dolby Vision to line up your HDR & SDR versions at the same time.

Hope the above makes sense

@johnt & @bryanb I will look into the smart replace. But i still think flame could have in built solution for handling everyday problems like versioning.

@finnjaeger What does your scripts do?

@Slabrie I will fill in a flame feedback. :slight_smile:
@PlaceYourBetts thanks. :slight_smile:

@AdamArcher if I understand you right it looks a bit like my solution. But any way to make day easier would be warmly welcome. :slight_smile:

I am suggestion this to help my own workflow that is bfx and gap fx in timelines. But the strong points of this suggestion is that it uses already familiar workflows in flame so this does not need huge changes. Just an add-on for the connect segment workflow. And the main focus of this idea is to do changes in as few places as possible. Both the fact that you can view several versions at one place and you have less sources to change if client wants a change. And they want change :slight_smile: I often use more time checking that every version is updated than actually changing them

One of the weaknesses is how to handle different length to connected segments. But you could probably use how it’s already working today. And also could this mean more render time?

I wish you the best of luck.

Myself, I’m starting to wonder if doing it the old way: rendering on the picture and editing in. Why? Well with big versioning jobs, having elements all over the place makes it hard to collect it all back up and give to client. Also rendering out would allow easy difference matting to qc. Not saying I am doing it like this but it is how we used to do it. And it was solid.


How bout this for versioning

The nicest part of reading this:
“… We didn’t have to chase a lot of crazy, and the visual effects landed in a rational, sane way. We’ve all been just like pinching ourselves.”

Not to be the killjoy, but the reason their called “versions” is because they’re all different. It is beyond rare that all I need to do is reformat the aspect ratio. Every version needs different titles, different repos, Sometimes different shots and different mixes; I do a lot of 9x16’s that use extra footage with top/bottom split screens, etc. There’s a few things that are mentioned here about using connected segments and bfx, but in the long run every version needs complete attention. Sometimes I get a reference, and sometimes it’s just a line on a deliverables sheet that I need to make from scratch. Trying to automate such a process is fruitless. The best one can do is develop a workflow that is the least painful and is always open to adjustment.

1 Like