View Full Version : After Effects & Premiere viva what difference?

07 July 2003, 08:13 PM
Well, I've owned both for about a year and a half now, and, as embarrasing as this is to admit, I find I just don't use AE vs. Premiere, even when I guess I "should" be, such as with compositing.

I suppose, though I've read both user's guides and played and used both quite a bit, I'm a novice idiot when it comes to what's the real diffence between the two?

Could some of the experts out there point me to some info (other than the obvious homepages, or Google, OK? Nothing I've read or experienced yet has really helped me discern a difference) or just do some expository on what the real freakin' difference is between these two packages?

I mean, it really seems to me the difference between the two is moreartificial than it should be in order to double dip the market and sell one tool for the twice the price. Sorta like Painter and Photoshop would be if they were made by one company. It's like combining the two together is what ought to be done- get rid of the redundancy and just allow us a complete tool set.

Here's what I've noticed:

AE is S L O W in rendering out final movie files compared to Premiere. AE's interface SUCKS compared to P's. AE crashes more than P. AE has animation capabilities along splines and such that make moving objects (or whatever) possible. AE seems more "layer" oriented while P is more "footage" oriented, but that's really just a way of calling the same thing by two names when it comes down to usage.

So, anyone else really separate their usage between the two packages here?

07 July 2003, 09:15 AM
Okay... deep breath.

The short answer:

Premiere is for EDITING.


Longer version:

I'm sure it doesn't help that all editing programs over the years have added some basic compositing features, which blurs the line a bit. But AE and AP, while integrated, are two completely different beasts.

(I've switched from Premiere to Final Cut Pro for editing, but it's the same thing.)

I guess the main question to ask, before going into detail is "what have you been using them for?" If you've been treating AE like an editing program, then, yes... the rendering would drive you nuts beacuse it's NOT for editing.

So, DearMad... what have you been doing so far with them? :D


07 July 2003, 11:05 AM
Premiere's MAIN function is to put clips, one after the other to make a movie or tell a story.

AfterFX's MAIN function is to put layers ON TOP of each other to make a SINGLE clip or effect.

- - -


You could think of AfterFX as photoshop with a timeline, premiere has no such corresponding application.. it's just.. a timeline.

07 July 2003, 02:12 PM
Thanks movieboy and opacity.

What I've been mainlyusing them for is compositing layers of renders together. I'm working on a CG short and will render my backgrounds out with camera moves. Then I'll set the 3d background to receive shadows only and turn everything else off, keep my camera moves and insert characters- render out the animation. That way I can tweek 'em and not re-render out the backgrounds (which are intesive and don't usually need re-rendering as regularly as my crappy character animation does).

Sometimes each character will get a pass unless shadows get complex.

I've found AP to be perfectly capable of working in this way, AE too, of course.

I guess I'm not working with AE as in depth as I should be in order to discern a difference that *matters* yet to me beyond the UI and stability. Ha, no explosive special effects yet.

I suppose if I had something like 30 layers every (most are 4 now) time AE would make a difference, but so far compositing in P has been a breeze.

Ok, I'll keep my copy of AE around and see if I come to use it more at some point. :D

07 July 2003, 02:33 PM
Must be horrible to use premiere for layering :surprised
I guess there's the "titling" kind of compositing, just plain mattes one over the other, that doesn't require any compositing work, it's just importing the files and throwing them on top of each other ;) Wait till you get to the point where you want to blur and colormatch your passes, or mask out unwanted parts etc, that's when you start dealing with compositing and Premiere will probably not have that much to offer any more.

btw, I suggest you make a shadow-only pass, so you dont have to include it in the background render. :)

07 July 2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Dearmad
AE crashes more than P.

That's odd.. I've used AE 5/5.5 excessively for the past year on a daily basis.. and it has crashed about one time badly.. and about 5 times where I could still safe. I did have the intention it's a very stable piece of software.

I think your antipathy for AE lies in the fact that you don't seem to like it's interface. Well it's a bit clumsy at times.. but when you get used to it.. you're pretty fast.

It's a bit of an Adobe problem I think.. the interfaces of their softwares are very close (a plus).. but not "the same". So you end up triing it the way it's done in their other software but often it's not exactly like that.

For example.. I'm very used to Photoshop and After Effects.. but I hate Illustrator with a certain passion. :D

I'd recommend you the "Classroom in a Book" for After Effects.. that really teaches you how to work in AE.. and not just the functions (like the handbook)

07 July 2003, 06:51 PM
just try editing a 30min video with over 3000 clips all syncronised to music in Afx :D . Then youll see the diffrence.

Also Premiere ties in well with my video editing card. I get real time playback with transitions, scrubbing and editing.


07 July 2003, 10:16 PM
Ok, I'm beginning to see the light here... thanks everyone for this discussion, it's helped me out. I guess I just for some reason had a tough time really feeling out the differences between the two apps.

Opacity: Yeah, the masking part would throw me in premiere... NOW I think I'm understanding why I have AE on my HD.

Ian Jones
07 July 2003, 02:11 AM
" I get real time playback with transitions, scrubbing and editing."

After FX 6, just released has opengl support and should hopefully have realtime playback, or close to it.

07 July 2003, 06:19 PM
Ahh. I ment I get real time output to TV via the card. :)

07 July 2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Ian Jones
" I get real time playback with transitions, scrubbing and editing."

After FX 6, just released has opengl support and should hopefully have realtime playback, or close to it.

Do you have Rt.x10 (matrox?)?

07 July 2003, 02:02 PM
For pure position animations, you may get something close to realtime playback, but imagefiles wont load faster from the disc and filters wont render faster ;)
Hopefully it will be a bit better for previewing "3D"-animations in afx but that's probably all it'll do :D

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 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.