Forum Replies Created

Page 5 of 7
  • “AE IS NOT AN EDITING APPLICATION. IT DOESN’T WORK LIKE AN EDITING APPLICATION. IT DOESN’T USE THE SAME PROGRAM CODE AS AN EDITING APPLICATION. IT DOES DIFFERENT THINGS THAN AN EDITING APPLICAITON. ”

    To me AE is a glorified editing application that doesn’t edit. It has play buttons, trim markers, and I even heard they were thinking of adding digitization (or maybe they have by now). Let’s face it, in a few more years there will be no distinction between the two. I think Adobe just wants to sell their Creative Suite (or everything seperately if need be). Apple too. The only thing stopping them as that no one has jumped on the band wagon yet, and the Flames and Infernos haven’t dropped their price low enough. It just makes since to sell more software. Switching between applications just to have a few more controls seems pointless and really slows me down. Lets face it, Premier and FCP give you just enough effects control to make you not want to use it for that, and AE gives you just enough editing control to not make you not want to use it for that. AE gives me everything I need to put together a thirty second spot of flying graphics and video windows, but to edit the dialogue in one of those flying video windows I have to leave AE, create a FCP project, one timeline, export, etc. just to get the job done. The idea that it should only be a compositing program sounds really professional, just like saying I need a whole room of decks, switchers, and edit controlers to make an edit.

    Playroom Creative
    http://www.playroomcreative.com

  • Ian Dillon

    December 24, 2008 at 12:01 am in reply to: Final Cut Pro Keyboard –

    Dean, at the risk of coming across as just bitter and jaded, you know this question is asked and answered at least once or twice every couple of months and a quick search would answer your question a hundred times over.

    I too was unable to find the exact info. I’m glad this guy asked.

    Playroom Creative
    http://www.playroomcreative.com

  • Ian Dillon

    April 23, 2008 at 11:18 pm in reply to: 3D Lighting artifacts?

    Did you ever find a solution to the shadow artifacting problem? I’m having the same issue.

    IAn.

    Playroom Creative
    http://www.playroomcreative.com

  • Ian Dillon

    May 3, 2007 at 11:56 pm in reply to: What is the best way to conform 23.976 to 59.94?

    Thanks for your replies.
    I had contemplated these ideas. I KNOW you are on the right track. Using pulldown to achieve 29.97, then going 59.95. But I’m still worried about the loss of vertical resolution since this will be displayed on the big screen, and may just settle with a frame blended version achieved by simply dropping a 23.976 into a 59.94 comp with frame blending added instead.
    It would be nice if After Effects allowed for more rendering option in this area.
    Does anyone have any more ideas?

    Ian.

  • Ian Dillon

    May 3, 2007 at 7:36 pm in reply to: Frame Blending – Pixel Motion Problem!

    The original footage was aquired via HD camera at 23.976 then converted to Quicktime.

  • I never realized that, however I did check the frame rate in the interpret footage dialogue and it was 59.94 fps, the same as what was displayed in the Final Cut browser. Also, that still doesn’t explain why Quicktime Player saw 32.03 second length in it’s view file info dialogue.
    I was given this uncompressed Quicktime from a house that originally outputed a pict sequence from Flame, then converted to uncompressed Quicktime in After Effects. Could that be an issue?

  • I haven’t even brought it into a comp, or interpreted footage differently. I’m seeing this length (32:02) at the top of the project window as being the actuall length characteristic of the file. Same as in Final Cut, I’m seeing a different length (32:00) in the Browser window (like the Project window in After Effects) showing the actuall characteristics of the file.
    I also noticed that when I open it in Quicktime Player and view footage properties it is saying it is 32:03 seconds long.

    Something very screwy is going on!!!

  • Yes. It was an alpha channel issue. I turned it off.

  • A high-end Hollywood post house gave me a 720×540 square pixel uncompressed QT when I asked for 720×486. I’m not sure why they gave me that either, or why it won’t render into my 720×486 sequence. It plays fine with the QT Player App.

  • Ian Dillon

    August 16, 2006 at 12:03 am in reply to: Strange Artifacting Around Text Pict Files

    I’m not using an Alpha Channel or moving anything. Just a white slate with black graphics.

Page 5 of 7

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy