After Effects vs ????

is AE like the only program that you can get to do graphis like that? does it have any competitor?

i hate using adobe anything. it is not very user friendly. i pick up on most any program's basics after a few hrs. it is impossible to the same with AE. the terms are purposely confusing it seems.

is there no competitor to it??

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

What do you use in place of Photoshop? There are competitors for these programs, but by and large most people use AFX and PS knowing that from job to job they will understand the software they need to work on.

Not saying this is a great thing, just a reality. Lots of people use the same software because lots of people use it. Plus it does the job well.

at the price level - its basically after effects pro or combustion - and if you think AE is hard to get though you shouldnt even look at combustion! plus they each have their own niche so its not really a deal of one OR the other

there are various boris standalone apps and plugins that duplicate many of AE's features. some people like boris stuff, but personally i think is has a really "hobbiest" feel, and its nowhere near as fully featured and powerful as AE - but dont take my word for it, download a demo and see if it suits your style...

IMO, AE is just about the best application in terms of cost/power/ease of use, of all times!

but like i said in your other post. if you expect to do professional graphics, you REALLY NEED to get your head around the adobe products - as they are pretty much the industry standard. im not sure what happened to you to make you hate their stuff so much??? its some of the most straightforward software out there. even some of the dumbest people i know have had illustrator and photoshop (AND AE for that matter) functionally nailed down in just a few days.

if you tell us what problems youre having, maybe we can help you part the clouds...

Quote

is AE like the only program that you can get to do graphis like that?

Like what?

Quote

i hate using adobe anything. it is not very user friendly. i pick up on most any program's basics after a few hrs. it is impossible to the same with AE. the terms are purposely confusing it seems.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm glad it's not user friendly (that's what trained Artists get paid for!). I love sharing tips & tricks on my forums, but I do occasionally get paid for what I know because it is specialized. I have clients that see what I give them and try to reverse-engineer what I have done. They email me to send them the AE source files. They still can't figure it out...they have to hire an Artist. Clients pay us to create something from thin air using computer software. If it's so "A-B-C-Easy-To-Use", everyone would use it and none of us would get paid. If this is the field you want to be in, get some formal Adobe training and it will ALL MAKE SENSE. LEARN the programs from experts. I Will tell you one thing...your stock as an Editor goes up substantially with Adobe knowledge and way down without any Adobe knowledge at all. Who are you gonna hire - a really good Editor that just edits or a really good Editor that knows all the Adobe software? No brainer (99% of the time - especially in smaller markets). Even low-level Editors know how to create basic Alpha Channels in Photoshop (I hope).

After Effects is not for everybody (though some people think you can "pick it up" in a couple of days - lol). To blame all of Adobe for purposely making things hard for you is ludicrous. Maybe it's "Designing" that you have the issue with and not Adobe? The Adobe suite is not the worlds leader in Graphics Software and the Industry Standard for nothing. Seriously...that's the first time I have ever heard anyone say "I hate using anything Adobe".

Quote

is there no competitor to it??

Not in my book. I make a good living with After Effects 7 Pro / Photoshop CS2 / Illustrator CS2 / Final Cut Studio / Cinema 4D. They all work together and I can create pretty much anything my little heart desires. I do everything from web movies to Uncompressed 10-bit 1080i HD - for both video & film so I have no complaints. I have not had a project YET that does not incorporate all of these softwares (well...C4D is a bit specialized).

...my 2¢

- Joey

Quote

even some of the dumbest people i know have had illustrator and photoshop (AND AE for that matter) functionally nailed down in just a few days.

So easy, a caveman can do it, huh wg? Pushing buttons is one thing - anyone can push buttons. Being proficient enough with the software that people will pay for your time is something else

signed, the angry caveman (ugh - duh!)

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Photo shop throws me when there is need for a second pic. no drag drop as far as i know but i know nothing.
the layers seem kinda wierd. i mean i have done a biz card in photo shop but it hurt ta do it.

i use ai ok so thats what i use mose of the time. the export just doesnt make since. i have troed so many times to just turn what i see in to a regular jpeg that opens in preview and not ai, i have never done it. i ususally make what i need then screen shot. or even crazier i will do it in motion or fcp then export still.

it would seem to me that AE would be easier than the above mentioned considering my video background but i tried it out a while back then sat there clickin aimlessly for like an hr. then i figure out that this requires a class 4 sure.

its probly me. other than fcp and motion i really never took a class on anything. it just kills me that everytime you get good at one thing here comes another 3000 page book ya gotta read.

i guess its fun too. i have pushed fcp, LT and motion to a point where i have to learn a new program cause i will never get the graphics i need from what i have.

i wish i hadda taken the other pill.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

ps. where are some video tutorials on this blasted AE?

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

> Photo shop throws me when there is need for a second pic. no drag drop as far as i know but
> i know nothing.

You can drag and drop. The reason you think you can't may be because if you're opening a still image file in Photoshop (TIFF, JPEG etc.), by default the file is single-layered and the layer is locked as a Background. You have to double-click on the layer to unlock it, and then you can use the Arrow tool (V) to drag it to another Photoshop document window.

Even easier, use Select All (APPLE-A) and Copy/Paste (APPLE-C, APPLE-V). That way you don't even need to unlock the single Background layer.

> the layers seem kinda weird.

I found Photoshop very intuitive myself. I'm no expert, but 85 per cent of what little I know, I taught myself. AfterEffects takes the wind out of my sails, though -- I probably won't ever learn it without taking a class.


www.derekmok.com

Quote

Photo shop throws me when there is need for a second pic. no drag drop as far as i know but i know nothing. the layers seem kinda wierd. i mean i have done a biz card in photo shop but it hurt ta do it.

Sure there is "drag & drop"...ALL Adobe software does that. I would not do a business card in PS...mine are done in Illustrator (vector program).

Quote

i use ai ok so thats what i use mose of the time. the export just doesnt make since. i have troed so many times to just turn what i see in to a regular jpeg that opens in preview and not ai, i have never done it. i ususally make what i need then screen shot. or even crazier i will do it in motion or fcp then export still.

File/Export/select "Format"/select "JPEG"/set your quality settings. Depending on what you have your OS using to open JPEGS, that ico will appear on the file. If you want to open it in Preview, Control/Click the JPEG icon and select "Open With/Preview". There ya go. You can open mostly ALL documents in Preview this way if you like.

Quote

it just kills me that everytime you get good at one thing here comes another 3000 page book ya gotta read.

Hey...we've all been there - done that. I've had my share of friggin' manuals (I am teaching myself Cinema 4D - try that when you get the chance). Nothin' worth while is easy...it makes it all that much more gratifying when you collect that check for a project. Your signature is very profound: "Knowledge + Action = Wisdom". You should apply that to your Adobe software situation and you may surprise yourself.

- Joey

PS...if you GOOGLE "After Effects Tutorials", you will find all you need to fry your brain on the first response page.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

This thread has gone on about Adobe products but not one mention of the power found in Motion.

Sure AE is the "industry standard" just like AVID is! Each of the programs mentioned are built with different workflows in mind. I have used AE and Combustion and Motion and they all are useful in different circumstances. Even Shake has it's place inthe compositing world but most everyone has touched AE at some point in time and believes it is the best tool from experience.

Since Motion is Included in Final Cut Studio, you might want to give that a look and see if that will do the things you need to do. Moving images without Keyframes is a BIG timesaver and nothing else can do that except Motion.

Most of the still image creation used in video is building small graphics to move around the screen. Mostly, Motion handles video better than any other keyframing app.

J.Corbett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ps. where are some video tutorials on this
> blasted AE?

Here are but a few:

[forums.creativecow.net]

and

[forums.creativecow.net]


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

jeff, the first thing you need to do is get your head around the uses of the three main adobe products:

illustrator is a vector tool. vector means that its content is created using mathematical equations from coordinate to coordinate. its great for layout (ads, business cards, posters, etc,) and illustration (IF you have time to really learn the bezier pen tool) and its is arguably the BEST typographic tool in the world!

photoshop is a raster tool, raster meaning simply that its content is created on a color value of individual pixels. great for all things still photographic. you can do type in it but like you said - its kind of a pain

after effects takes both illustrator and photoshop content and manipulates it in 4 dimensions (4th dimension being time) and whats even cooler is that it operates on the sub-pixel level!

to defend your point about them being confusing - adobe has been recently giving illustrator raster abilities and giving photoshop vector and type features - which i personally think is a silly endeavour...

jeff, another thing you will learn if you spend time in adobes suite (ill, ps and ae) is that they are all very well integrated. you can build a whole "graphic ensemble" (for lack of a better term) and if you plan and organize well, they will open correctly from one app to the next.

here is an example of an extremely basic day to day adobe use:

lets say that you want to build a lower 3rd for a project and you need 5 different interviewees names applied to it. you can use illustrator to build a correctly sized work area and draw the background graphic on the first layer then put each of the 5 names into sequential layers above it.

then, you can open that illustrator file in photoshop and your file will still be correctly proportioned and all layers will be intact and in correct order. here you can add a drop shadow to each of the names and maybe say a painterly effect to the background graphic.

then, you can import that photoshop file into after effects (as a composition) and it will automatically build a new composition containing all your layers with effects you applied intact.
next, set your opacity keyframes to have the names fade in and out at the right times (only having to do it ONCE because you can copy and paste keyframes from one layer to another very EASILY IN AE!) then all you have to do is duplicate your comp 4 times and delete all but the background and name you want in each sequential comp. then send each comp to the render que. then you set your render settings to work with your fcp sequence (simply pull down to lossless with alpha) then hit render and go get a cup of coffee.

when you get back to your desk, you will have all 5 of your lower thirds all rendered and ready for immediate import into fcp.

like i said, this is a very rudimentary example. and there are about a million ways that you can use the tools together to achieve just about anything you want!

and like joey says, get a decent 3d app like cinema 4d and in time, you'll be equipped to give digitaljuice a run for their money!

i watched some creative cow tuts and it does what i am looking to do. wow even

but would i be correct to say that even if i had AE that i would still have to use photo shop to generate parts?

or

is it that AE is just like motion in the way that i can generate shapes and text in the program itself?

i mean i dont want the trial if its industry standard i nee to just get it.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

remember joey - i said "functionally nailed down" not "creatively adept"

i used to teach the adobe tools and flash at the local community college. one of the challenges there is that they have "open enrollment" which means that pretty much ANYONE can enroll.

so i had to structure the instruction such that someone with zero knowledge could get their heads around the workflow as easilly as possible. aside from a couple of folks who had serious learning disorders, i could get pretty much anyone up and functionally working in any of the apps in about 9 classroom hours (half that for the sharper folks).

yeah jeff, youre getting it.

think of ae the way you think about fcp. its a place to bring in and compile external content into new content - NOT a place to generate content from nothing.

just to further my (already droning on) point here. ive said this before and i still stand by it.
- "i could live without the FCP tools - but i'd DIE without the adobe products"

J.Corbett....

After Effects has no competitor to what it does best. It is a motion graphics program for animation. It works perfectly well with Photoshop and Illustrator.
Its crap at compositing and green screen etc but its not made for that. (Thats Shake)
It does not properly interpret logarithmic colorspaces but again, thats what Shake is for.

A good thing with After Effects is that you can simply drag a layered photoshop file into the program and start animating the layers separately.

Its basically as easy as it gets in terms of motion graphics. (I dont count motion)

Motion is the amateur verison of After Effects. Easier to use but very limited.

As someone pointed out, its not just about pressing buttons. To master After Effects you need to understand the basics behing AE's 3D space as well as Expressions. (similar to Action Script)

Best place to start:
Creative cow.

Good luck.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

would you say it is better to take a class on the adobe creative suite or wouls i be ok just going for adobe AE?

i mean i figure that if i learn AE then that would teach me a lot about the rest of thier products.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

no, no, no! a class in AE is not going to give you much on the other apps.

i highly suggest adobe's "classroom in a book" series of books.

Quote

Its crap at compositing and green screen etc but its not made for that.

Disagree. AE is a COMPOSITING PROGRAM that handles greenscreen compositing, Motion Tracking, Stabilization & a he11 of a lot more very nicely (the faster your machine / more RAM you have to 3 Gigs, the better it performs).

Shake is Shake...a node-based program that is in a diferent class than AE...and also happens to be at the end of it's life. What does that tell you.

JC,

DO NOT take a Creative Suite class. You don't need all that. Just AE / Photoshop / Illustrator and how they all relate to each other in a Broadcast environment.

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

i need a one week class do you guys have any suggestions. i dont like the book reading stuff. i like to have someone there that i can ask " what da hell is this and why?" lol

i take a class once a year over the last 3 yrs, so this AE, PS, AI thing comes right on time.maybe if i came to la some of my good buddies here can give me a class over a week on the basics of the 3.

by the way i hope that shake will be around nxt month so i can buy it. febuary - april are upgrade months for me.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

"Disagree. AE is a COMPOSITING PROGRAM that handles greenscreen compositing, Motion Tracking, Stabilization & a he11 of a lot more very nicely (the faster your machine / more RAM you have to 3 Gigs, the better it performs). "

AE is not a compositing program just like Final cut is not an animation program.
Three reasons for this.

1) AE is unable to work in floating bit depths. Any compositing or green screening you do is limited to the color space of the application. So if you are working in a logarithmic colorspace you are basically screwed in lack of better words.

2) Motion tracking. A big part of compositing is tracking. The tracking function that comes with AE is not close to being professional. The fact that you even mentioned that just proves that you have never tried shake or flame..

3) The tools for compositing & greenscreen that comes with AE are very very limited and are by no means at a professional level. AE has prebuilt "effects" that are called "lumakey" and "keylight" etc with a few sliders on it. There is very little room to do any proper adjustments.
In a real compositing program (like Shake) you can work in any color space, you have many more advanced options in your functions. But more importantly, if you need to do more adjustments you can simply alter the excisting nodes (effects) in any way you want by plugging in new nodes to your existing ones.

Try doing that in after effects.


"Shake is Shake...a node-based program that is in a diferent class than AE...and also happens to be at the end of it's life. What does that tell you."

Thats outragous. Apple stopped giving tech support for Shake because they are not competent enough to handle it. That is also why they are offering to sell the source code - to enable post houses to do it themselves. Thats why its at the end of its life. Not because there is anything else even close to that price range that can compete.

If you honeestly think that AE is even in the same ballpark as Shake when it comes to compositing, tracking greenscreen etc then you are just ignorant. After effects does 2D animation like no other program. Thats its strength, not compositing.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

J Corbett.

In terms of taking classes etc I would recommend you start with Photoshop/Illustrator and then move on to AE.

You can take a layered photoshop file into AE and then start moving the layers around individually inside AE.
Thats why its a good idea to start with photoshop.
That way you can design and do your layout in Photoshop and then animate it in AE.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Quote

If you honeestly think that AE is even in the same ballpark as Shake when it comes to compositing, tracking greenscreen etc then you are just ignorant.

Johan,

I am not comparing AE to shake so "Read more / post less" before insulting me. You even quoted what I said...I said that Shake is in a different class than AE so step back & take a deep breath

You are trying to tell me that what I have been doing for 11 years in After Effects for Broadcast TV is not compositing? I beg to differ bigtime - that is just your "opinion". Enjoy your Shake (which is a great program, BTW - never said different)...I will continue to COMPOSITE / GREENSCREEN / MOTION TRACK and a million other things in After Effects for a LONG TIME TO COME and put food in front of my family doing it.

Quote

You can take a layered photoshop file into AE and then start moving the layers around individually inside AE. Thats why its a good idea to start with photoshop. That way you can design and do your layout in Photoshop and then animate it in AE.

That's right...in an AE COMPOSITION.

Peace

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Joe.

I am sorry if I sounded rude.

However this has nothing to do with "opinions".
Its fact not preference.

After effects may be able to do some low-level compositing but in all honestly it is really poor at those tasks. And the tracking is without a doubt one of After Effects weakest points.

I'm not saing you cant composite and green screen etc in After Effects. It is possible.
What I am saying is that you will not get the same results as in a compositing program.
Its just not possible for many situations.

This can be compared to doing animation in Final Cut.
There are people that do it and it does work to some extent - sort of.
The guy who had my job before me used to animate stuff in Final Cut.
What took him 2-3 days in FCP takes me 1-2 hours in After Effects.

This goes for AE and Shake as well.
You mentioned that you have worked with AE for 10 years which would make you an expert.
I would highly recommend that you try out Shake. You will save a lot of time and you will produce much better results.
If you understand the basic maths behind what you do in AE, which I am sure you do, learning Shake will be easy.

I used to do all my compositing in AE before learning Shake and now there is no way in hell I will ever do any compositing in AE. I still do my 2D animation in AE because it is the best software to do that with.
Shake, on the other hand is not good at all for 2D animating.

I have been very busy but I am about to post some tutorials on tracking on the Shake forum soon so have a look at that and you will know what I mean.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Johan.

I sent you a PM to discuss this in private (yes, Mr H., I did), but you have answered me in public, so be it.

Calling me "ignorant" for no reason goes beyond "sounding rude"...that was rude. Nobody bashed you or your opinion in this thread (and your PREFERENCE of Shake is your OPINION). Not cool, Johan.

Quote

Johan Polhem said: I used to do all my compositing in AE before learning Shake and now there is no way in hell I will ever do any compositing in AE.

How can you DO THAT when "AE is not even a compositing program" according to you??? You have to get your stories straight if you are going to come at people like you have come at me.

I don't need Shake unless it directly affects my work...which it currently does not. If I was compositing film, I would probably learn it. I have friends that use it and I do respect it very much...but my world is Broadcast TV. We have 11 Workstations at my Studio and I have a Quad at home happily plugging along "NOT COMPOSITING" in After Effects 7 Pro and you know what? The results look pretty darn amazing! Good enough to put on the air - on TV even! I would post examples of some greenscreen VFX composites I did recently for an independant film, but it sounds like you are way past that as I can imagine. Besides...AE is way too limited to do any compositing

Enjoy your Shake = live & let live. I am looking forward to your tutorials as I am always expanding my knowledge of all things in our crazy business. I am fine with After Effects Pro at this moment in time (since version 3) and if anyone wants to know more about After Effects, ask me anything - anytime as I am happy to help.

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Joe

Its not about preference either.

If I say that a Hummer is a much better race car than a Ferrari that is not a preference that is lack of knowledge. But again, my apologies I should not have said that.

"How can you DO THAT when "AE is not even a compositing program" according to you??? You have to get your stories straight if you are going to come at people like you have come at me. "

Its not a compositing program just cause it happens to have a few amateur level green screen and tracking tools. I used it to composite just as you can use final cut to do 2D animation.
I'm not saying you CANT do compositing, I'm just saying it is very very limited in that respect and I would not recommend anyone use it for that purpose.

"I would post examples of some greenscreen VFX composites I did recently for an independant film, but it sounds like you are way past that as I can imagine"

-I'm not past that but if it was shot on film then you did not get the best result in AE.
Its simply not possible.
Film is logarithic.
After Effects only works in Integers.
AE does not even work in the logarithmic colorspace so obviously you compromised the result.
But thats just a part of it. The tracking function in AE is very weak as well. It uses two tracking markers and it does not have the ability to track in Z space. Furthemore the mathematical logarithm that lies behind it is weak and cheap. This is very noticable when comparing AE tracking to a proper tracking tool.


"AE is way too limited to do any compositing"

Yes it is. It is also incredibly timeconsuming. Compositing in AE is about compromising. AE is made in a way that makes it easy to use at one level but also impossible to get a perfect result out of on another level.

Do you think its a coincidence that NOBODY in highend film or even highend TV production would use AE for compositing but they all use it for titles and 2D?

Probably the same reason nobody uses iMovie for high-end editing either.

I'm not saying this cause I dont know After Effects because I do. I have used it for the past 6 years and I have not met one person who knows it better. I have used Shake for maybe 18 months on and off and I can confidently say that if you give it a try you wont go back for any compositing work. Ever.

Here is a greenscreen (the man) and rotoscoping (the lizard) job I did in Shake last year after only using the program for a few months:

[www.sydneywildlifeworld.com.au]

This was first done in After Effects.
The greenscreen shoot good but not perfect. Shot on Digi Beta but slightly unevenly lit.
Since it was going on-line we figured AE was good enough since the Shake machine was busy.
After a full day of tweaking in AE it was still pretty average looking.
1 hour in Shake and it was good enough.
And the rotoscoping difference is also huge. That lizard was hard in Shake but almost impossible in AE.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com

Can anyone tell us if there is a really good book that teaches After Effects in the same manner that Diana Weynand's book, "Final Cut Pro 5 - Apple Pro Training Series" does? Her book on FCP is outstanding. I hope there is a similar book of a similar caliber on AE.

Sorry if this has been posted up in another AE thread. I am relatively new to the fourm.

Thanks!

-Andrew Stone

Johan,

I can't tell you how happy I am that you love Shake that much, but we'll just agree to disagree and end it there. I love my After Effects... so

Peace

- Joey

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

-

Hi Peter.

Long time no see.

"It is also completely untrue that After Effects can't work with logarithmic image files, Johan"

No its not untrue. Do some research before you post. When AE converst Log files to After Effects own "Fake" floating bit point files it brings down the quality.

"I won't get into the details, because it takes Christiansen more than ten pages to explain it in the book, but basically you can't work with logarithmic image files for compositing. They have to be converted to a linear format. So I really don't know what you are talking about Johan, especially now that After Effects can work in 32 bit floating point mode in version 7"

This is also untrue.
First of all you dont convert log files to linear files (integers).
You convert the files to floating bit files. AE uses what is referred to mathematically as "short floating point files" as opposed to professional compositing software that uses "long floating point files". Short floating point files simply have a shorter range of values and as a result you do not get the fiull range of colors. As with everything else in AE you are compsomising the quality.


But even that argument aside AE is useless for high-end compositing.
As explained in earlier posts:
After effects does not have a proper tracking tool. It is inaccurate and it is nowhere near as stable as those tracking tools found in proper compositing programs.
The premade "effects" such as keylight etc are way to simple.
They lack any tweaking possibilities beyond the most basic.
AE may some day be good enough for compositing but the software would need a complete overhaul and also move away from their user friendly Layer based structure and into a node based environment.

The fact that someone wrote a book about how faboulus AE is at compositing does not make it so. I am sure it is theoretically possible to edit a feature film on iMovie but if someone wrote a book about that I would not take that seriously either.


"So to sum up the way I understand the issues you've been dicussing here, I would say that there is a lot more to compositing than the software you are using to accomplish it with. You really need to know how light and objects in the real world really looks"

Well only partly. It does not matter how much of an artist you are if you dont understand the maths and all you do is pressing buttons. And if the software is the limiting factor then yes - it does come down to the limitaitons of the tools that you are using. It does not matter how good you are at compositing if the tools cant do the job.

Compositing in AE is fine if what you are aiming for is wedding videos and some highly compressed internet content but thats about it.

Johan Polhem
Motion Graphics
www.johanpolhem.com