PDA

View Full Version : Non Linear Composition And Storyboarding


Kaiser_Sose
08-20-2002, 05:23 AM
Can someone please take the time to explain the differences and similarities between these two proceses of production [ AE vs. Premeire }

You can do the same things in both programs but each one serves its own perpose.

You dont have to use these programs to illustrate your answer as I know there are others that do the same thing

Lastly, which programs do you use and why

NanoGator
08-20-2002, 08:05 AM
Well, heh that's a tough one. Personally, I use AE for two reasons:

1.) You can see everything you're doing at full res.
2.) You can easily do panning and zooming effects

Premiere can do it, but you get a tiny little window to look in. However, the editing/sound is much easier.

pushingpixels
08-20-2002, 08:54 AM
The two packages are not meant to be similar. Premiere is really for editing and AE for compositing.

If you make an edit with for example 40 clips you can easily put them together in 3 odd layers. If you have to do that in AE you need 40 layers... I think you can imagine that that slows down the work process. On the otherhand AE is so well equiped with great options, which Premiere lacks.

But the combination of the two packages is perfect.... I normally make a rough edit in Premiere.... then decide what I need composite wise... do it in AE... and then import the result in my edit in Premiere. Of course if my edit is completely filled with wacky effects I don't bother touching Premiere.

Kaiser_Sose
08-20-2002, 11:30 AM
Ok, than I guess my next question would be, what is the concept of composoting and what does ' effects ' have to do with it

pushingpixels
08-20-2002, 02:31 PM
Hey Kaiser_Sose,

I'm not sure what you're asking...... I'm a bit thick! So waste so more words for me please.....

NanoGator
08-21-2002, 03:49 AM
compositing is the layering of several images into one frame. 'Effects' can be as ordinary as a brightness adjustment, or as sophisticated as a plugin that generates fiery effects.

:)

Kaiser_Sose
08-21-2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by pushingpixels
So waste so more words for me please.....

Was it really nessessary to be an asshole or is it something you can not control

NanoGator
08-21-2002, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Kaiser_Sose


Was it really nessessary to be an asshole or is it something you can not control

I don't think he meant it that way. I read it like "Im having trouble understanding this, so you may have to repeat yourself a lot."

Maybe he's learning English?

moovieboy
08-24-2002, 01:38 AM
Let's see if this makes "compositing" easily explainable...

Imagine this kind of shot: Giant Robots stomping on Tokyo!

Okay, look at all the elements you need for just one shot of this:

-- A background plate of a real Tokyo city block, maybe with some real actors
-- Another shot of a "cooler-looking" sky you want behind the city
-- Some minatures of buildings you can smash
-- Some actors on bluescreen, pretending to be smashed or falling or running
-- Shots of explosions and fires
-- The 3D robots, in all their crushing glory

Etc, etc... Now compositing is taking all these elements and combining them into the final shot the audience sees on screen.

Over recent years, editing programs have added some compositing features and can also use many after effects plug-ins, but they really aren't designed well for anything above "simple" shots which only have a few layers. It'd be almost insane to use Premiere, Avid or Final Cut Pro to pull off the aforementioned shot... :D On the flip side, using After Effects to edit more than a couple shots is needlessly painful because you don't have adequate playback/audio capabilities and altering your cuts is faaaaar more difficult.

If you're gonna need to do much compositing, then you should go with After Effects... If you have more money, there's combustion*2 ($4,500US) and Shake ($5,000US)... If you have an insane amount of money you can go all the way up to Flame* and Inferno*... You'll just need to sell your Porsche or a small house first :D

-Tom

Kaiser_Sose
08-24-2002, 08:17 AM
Thanks moovieboy

What do you think of Boris Red

Are you saying AE is good enough for your example. I am a little confused because you state it would be painful to use than you state ' If you're gonna need to do much compositing, then you should go with After Effects '

moovieboy
08-24-2002, 10:30 AM
Just to clarify:

Using Premiere or any other editing program for complex compositing is painful.

Using After Effects or any other compositing program for editing is painful.

Basically, it's a "use the right tool for the right job," statement. :D

Boris Red... I haven't worked with it personally, but nothing in it so far has intrigued me enough to test drive it either.

And, Kaiser, since you asked which programs we use... I used to use Premiere and switched to Final Cut Pro. I also use After Effects 5.5 pro and am starting to work with Combustion*2.

Why do I use them? "They do what I want/need to do" is the simplest answer...

-Tom

Kaiser_Sose
08-25-2002, 01:58 PM
You would actually have to animate the buildings being smashed in the 3d program, AE or other similar programs can not do that, correct

moovieboy
08-25-2002, 08:00 PM
Kaiser-

That's pretty much correct. Technically, you could pull it together in AE, but it would require a gret deal more work compared to the realtive ease within a 3D package. In that above example, I would've used Lightwave for the buildings, do a multiple-pass render and bring it in. Maybe even use RLA/RPF and bring that into AE... Although I've heard Lightwave's RPF is still pretty buggy...

Hope that's not too confusing :D

-Tom

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 03:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.