[David Johnson]

Maybe I misunderstood something, but your post seems to contradict it’s subject (“Animation” vs. “DV”). One of the things I hate most about DV is that it is always relatively “blurry/out of focus” … especially DV25 (vs. DV50).

Either way, as Dave L. suggests, checking field order is a good place to start … both the import interpretation and the output module settings.

[David Johnson]

Maybe it’ll help folks answer if you provide more details of what you’re working with and what you’re trying to accomplish. For example, how close up will the shot be and what degree of realism do you need? And, equally importantly, is the bull whip made from a …

… still image? If so, just one or several for different segments?

… masked AE solid with effects applied for texture or other details?

… 3D model? If so, via Invigorator?

[David Johnson]

I’ve never heard of a way to do that and doubt very much that one exists. However, you can accomplish the same by simply saving a duplicate copy of your project with a different name. You could even import the copy into the original project, but that probably wouldn’t be a good idea since you’d then have a bunch of comps, precomps, sources, etc. with identical names and it would be very confusing.

[David Johnson]

I understand why you’d consider Bill’s view to be the minority based on things Daniel and I said, but I’m not sure that’s a good leap to make and here’s why …

AE is a very deep program that does very many different things. Although I use AE for a wide range of those things, a large percentage of my AE work includes some degree of motion graphics for which Photoshop & Illustrator are often helpful or even necessary. Many editors may do very little mograph work and have entirely different needs so they may use AE only for compositing, keying, rotoscoping, color correction, etc., which often require no Photoshop work at all.

Similary, the reason I mentioned that I’ve been using both before there was so much redundancy is that different people just have different approaches … mine are at least partially based on having gotten use to doing things certain ways because I had no choice for a long time, but now, many things we all use to have to do in PS or AI, can be done directly in AE. So, people who started using AE a little later or just learned different methods may have different perspectives.

[Chris Davis] “How well do I need to know Photoshop before learning AE?”

Very much related to the things above, it depends a lot on the types of things you plan to do. Generally speaking, you only need basic familiarity with Photoshop (or After Effects, for that matter) to get started and can learn what you need as you go. Both are deep programs that not only do many different things, but also offer many ways to do the same things. So, you shouldn’t feel that you have to spend countless hours learning every nuance from the ground up.

Also, with your end goal being AE, it’ll be important to have at least a fairly good foundation in general video in addition to any software-specific learning. For example, without enough knowledge of codecs, aspect ratios, etc., you’ll likely spend a lot more time than necessary trying to work in AE and trying to figure out how to resolve avoidable issues.

[Chris Davis] “I love the program, but a bit clunky for compositing, etc.”

I too find FCP clunky for compositing, etc. and I think most editors would agree. The reason is simple … it’s not a compositing program … it’s an NLE that has some basic compositing features as a convenience. The same reason audio editing is clunky in AE and it would also be very tough to master a broadcast tape directly from AE.

Perhaps it’ll help to think about how the industry evolved … originally (and the higher end still works this way to some degree), video editors, motion graphics designers, colorists, compositors, audio editors, etc. were all different people doing more specific jobs. It’s only the advancement and combining of related technologies in combination with the growing need to do everything faster and cheaper that created so much overlap.

[David Johnson]

In addition to the fact that FLV (like any other web format) is highly compressed and can’t retain much of the original resolution, which I’m sure you already know, it looks like you may have one of the two following issues or some combination thereof …

1] jaggies from interlaced footage –
Are you sure that you interpreted the footage correctly when you brought it into AE? That you rendered it out of AE with the proper field order? Did you deinterlace when you converted the AE render to FLV using separate compression/conversion software? Although AE can render web formats like FLV, it generally doesn’t do it as well as compression/conversion software like Adobe Video Encoder, Compressor, Cleaner, Squeeze, etc.

2] edge issues from how the footage was keyed –
Artifacts around the edges of a key that were barely if at all noticeable inside of AE or an ucompressed AE render can be amplified by web compression. I sometimes use the Sapphire Edge Flash compositing plugin for smoothing edges of composites, but its part of an expensive set and there are plenty of other ways to accomplish the same … chances are at least one of whatever plugins you used to do the key has some adjustable edge smoothing settings.

By the way, this may just be a wording difference, but it’s best to always “render” from AE, not “export” … I’m not in AE right now so I can’t confirm, but if I recall correctly, you don’t get access to all the available options for FLVs when you export. Again, I’d suggest using separate compression/conversion software anyway, but I mention that just in case you don’t have any or don’t want to use it.

[David Johnson]

I’ve never experienced what you described, but the first thing I’d try is turning off OpenGL. If you search the forum you’ll find lots of info about AE and OpenGL.

[David Johnson]

Search the forum and you’ll find many posts about AE and graphics cards … the gist is graphics cards don’t make much difference for AE so its best to base your choice on the other programs you run (as long as its still on Adobe’s compatible list).

[David Johnson]

Just to offer you a second opinion, I agree 110% with everything Daniel said. Yes, you certainly can learn AE without learning Photoshop, but knowing at least the basics of Photoshop will definitely make your life in AE a lot easier … you don’t necessarily need to master Photoshop though.

In addition to all the crossover, Photoshop also serves as a good stop-gap … meaning, if you find that you’re really struggling with Photoshop, you might reconsider whether AE is really for you since it’s a much deeper and more complex program than Photoshop, although that’s not to say you couldn’t learn to do some basic stuff without ever touching the more advanced features.

Personally, I couldn’t imagine working in AE without knowing and using Photoshop to some degree with almost every AE project. However, that’s probably largely because I started using both well before there was the degree of redundant capabilities between the two that there is today … in other words, many of the things you use to have to do in Photoshop (or Illustrator, for that matter) to bring into AE, can now be done directly in AE.

[David Johnson]

In the Render Queue’s Output Module you can change both the video and audio codecs, as well specific settings for each and other important settings. However, Animation is one of the best intermediary codecs to use since its lossless so whether it’s a good idea to change it depends on your workflow and needs.

For example, if you’re taking the AE render into an NLE for further editing or compositing, it’s best to use a lossless video codec. Even if you’re final delivery is web video only, its best to render from AE with a lossless codec and use separate compression/conversion software to generate a web file from that.

Of course, there are all sorts of variations and exceptions to that basic workflow description. For example, if the source footage is DV (rather than uncompressed), it’s fine to render back to DV since using a better codec than the source can’t add image quality that wasn’t there to begin with so it only serves to increase file size.

By the way, if your computer can’t play an Animation or uncompressed coded video file flawlessly, that doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the file … many computers can’t play uncompressed video without help from hardware and/or software that’s more robust than a simple media player so just bring it into your NLE and you’ll see that its just fine.

[David Johnson]

This may not be possible for your needs, but in similar situations when there were no alternatives I’ve turned a severe footage problem into a project-making plus by designing around the poor footage. In other words, by making the imperfections of the footage look intentional … shrink it down a little and put it inside of a monitor 3D model or some other type of frame, bleach-bypass it, add film grain, minor dust & scratches, some film sprocket jitter, etc. … whatever works for the project.

If you can’t do anything along those lines, you could try Shadow/Highlight with temporal filtering so it adjusts as the image changes … I wouldn’t expect great results, but it might help some in combination with other adjustments. For example, the changes will probably be most noticeable in the blacks so you might try using the Levels plugin to crush the blacks some. Anything is probably worth trying before keyframing.

The QT not playing back sounds like a separate issue … probably codec related. Can your provide more details?