why oh why the precomps?!?

[Tom Hepburn]

Well you can “parent” them. Isn’t that what you’re looking for?

T

[Roland R. kahlenberg]

Essentially AE has a rendering order and precomping allows for manouvering around a few limitations that this render order forces on the user. So grouping may actually create more problems than you’d expect.

And the reason why we have a Rendering Order is because compositing applications work better if they work in a non-destructive environment. Non-destructive compositing is crucial as you add stuff, change your mind etc etc etc.

Cheers
Roland Kahlenberg
broadcastGEMs
customizable animated backdrops with Adobe After Effects project files

[Peter O’connell]

You could always learn shake if it really bothers you.

Pete

[Mylenium]

[jporter313] “Can someone tell me why both of the major compositing packages I’m versed in (After Effects and Combustion) use precomps rather than simple groups? It seems extremely convoluted and inefficient. Why can’t I simply group objects like I would in Maya or photoshop? Why the roundabout solution?”

Umm, sorry, but that’s complete nonsense. Neither is pre-composing a workaround nor is it in any way inferior to other concepts. Simply consider the following:

a) You can “group” in AE. It’s called parenting and will inherit all transformation operations across layers. Grouping/ parenting in 3D programs won’t do anything more than that – neither do grouped objects necessarily share identical surfaces/ materials, nor must they belong to the same render layer nor are other relations affected by grouping.

b) You pre-compose as well in Photoshop. You create masking groups, design comps, smart objects and what not. The term may not be the same, but the process (and its result) is.

c) How would you define a rendering order in a group? Technically in a group all elements share the same root level, so all you can do is shift them around but unless you tell the program how to handle this shifting around, it wouldn’t affect the result. You’d still have to tell the program to calculate layers in a certain order and that is exactly what pre-composing does.

Other than that: Learn to see pre-composing as a tool, not a burden. It’s the only way to structure your projects and achieve certain effects, regardless of what compositing program you use. Even node-based applications use it – by defining “capsules” or ” nested flows” you are doing exactly the same as you do in AE. Ther same is true for many editing programs where you can create containers and sub-timelines There is no escaping that and I really find it odd why you are complaining.

Mylenium

[Pour Myl

[Dan Ebberts]

I think the point that the original poster is making is a valid one. There’s no question that it would be way cool if you could twirl open a nested comp and manipulate the layers inside, while still in the top-level comp. It wouldn’t change the functionality of nesting/precomping at all – just give you the ability to not have to jump from comp to comp to make adjustments.

Dan

[Mylenium]

[Dan Ebberts] “I think the point that the original poster is making is a valid one. There’s no question that it would be way cool if you could twirl open a nested comp and manipulate the layers inside, while still in the top-level comp. It wouldn’t change the functionality of nesting/precomping at all – just give you the ability to not have to jump from comp to comp to make adjustments.”

I guess it depends. As an rather pedantic and organised kind of person I don’t find much use for the much discussed “uber-twirl” when there already is enough ways to navigate around in a project. Adding yet another way would just increase interface clutter and make the interface more noisy from my POV. I also don’t believe that this kind of explorer-tree like structure has a future. Without filtering, these trees are actually very hard to navigate and if you look at contemparary research into data visualization and analysis, you can find far superior concepts including multi-relational hyperbolic trees (which really is just like nodes on steroids), cloud/ cluster sorting etc..

Mylenium

[Pour Myl

[Tony Kloiber]

Yes but the strength of the “uber-twirl” is that you can work with time relevant events between the various elements across comps in one view.

The ability to have both is what is needed. Certain work process are better suited to one view while other processes are better handle in other views.

TonyTony

[Steve Roberts]

… and nodes would be nice. Or at least giving some more functionality to the flowchart view.

I once did a complicated (at the time) compositing job in AE, and once it was organized it on paper, the diagram looked just like a bunch of nodes.

Therefore, nodes could be seen as intuitive, from one point of view at least.

[Mylenium]

[TonyTony] “The ability to have both is what is needed. Certain work process are better suited to one view while other processes are better handle in other views.”

Nope, I don’t think that it would be an definite requirement. From where I sit, the issue could have been resolved long ago by really polishing up the marker system. It should work both ways (markers in master comps show up as reference markers in sub-comps, not just the other way around), update interactively(if you move a comp marker, it should also update the resulting layer marker), markers should have label colors and there should be no limit to their number. For me that would be much more efficient. I could still slip,slide & trim layers, but without getting a skyscraper-high timeline such as potentially an uber-twirl would produce. There are other things that need to be implemented just to manage the uber-twirl, so repercussions are greater than one might think at first sight. Seeing that, I’d much rather have Adobe develop “serious” stuff, than such, in my view, toyish features.

Mylenium

[Pour Myl

[Dan Ebberts]

I guess it depends on your workflow. I would use it all the time. Now (with AE 7) that you can just hit the grave accent key and fill your screen(s) with the timeline, pick whipping from comp to comp, for example, would be a breeze.

Dan