When To Use After Effects vs. When To Use Premiere

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by com crumb, Jan 6, 2004.

  1. com crumb

    com crumb Guest

    I've been using Premiere for a few years now. I've never had a need
    for motion graphics and/or compositing and so I've never used After
    Effects. However, I am currently working on a project that will
    require me to utilize some basic compositing and so I've bought Trish
    & Chris Meyer's CREATING MOTION GRAPHICS vol. I and II. Now that I've
    been somewhat enlightened about the possibilities of After Effects,
    I've begun to rethink the way I've done things in the past.

    I am using Premiere 6.5 and After Effects 5.5, by the way.

    So, what follows is a little checklist of things I've used Premiere to
    do a lot of in the past that may or may not be better suited for After
    Effects. Hopefully I can gain a better understanding of when to use
    one vs. the other:

    --Slow/Fast Motion?
    --Color Correction?
    --Brightness/Contrast adjustments?
    --Fade In/Fade Outs?

    Thanks for any input. It's a bit of a new world for me, so all help in
    navigating is appreciated.
    com crumb, Jan 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. com crumb

    FlyByKnight Guest

    AE has better motion estimation for deinterlacing video. Since 1/2 speed slo
    mo is created by splitting the fields, AE will likely give you better
    results here, due to better interpolation. Slower than 1/2 speed, and it
    will look choppy in either Premiere or AE.

    Depending on your needs, AE gives you better/more control, here. Not only
    are the tools more "detailed", but you can use AE's masks to correct only
    certain areas of a shot. For example, everything looks great except the sky.
    Mask off the foreground and color correct the sky only.

    See above. More control. Not *necessarily* better, depending on your needs.

    Stick with Premiere. BTW... here's a recipe for a cool "film-like" fade to
    black in Premiere (courtesy of DigitalVideoEditing.com - I think):

    Split the clip at the point where you want the fade to begin. Apply the
    Levels effect to this "fade clip". Apply keyframes to the beginning and end
    of the clip. Settings for the end keyframe: Input level - 255. Output level
    - 0.

    This simultaneously brings up the input level and drops the output level.
    The results are really nice and infinitely better than the "standard"
    Premiere dissolve to black.
    FlyByKnight, Jan 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. com crumb

    david.mccall Guest

    Cool tip about the fade to black.

    I agree with what you said except that AE might not be any better
    than Premiere for slower than 1/2 speed. AE's frame blending helps
    a lot when doing slow-motion, but you are spot-on about the rest.
    He might just as well stay with Premiere for the rest of it. While AE
    may do some of these functions with more control, Premiere is a lot
    easier, and more convenient, to use while editing.

    Beyond what he suggested, there are other areas that AE stomps
    Premiere royally. One of those is in panning and zooming on a still.
    With AE you get 3D capabilities with lighting and everything. Path
    text allows text to follow a spline curved line, or straight, line at
    any angle, and do those effects where the letters come together or
    spread apart over time. AE is also good for the blur in or blur out
    effects. You may need the Production Bundle to get the 3D and
    some of the better effects.

    david.mccall, Jan 6, 2004
  4. com crumb

    FlyByKnight Guest

    Good point! I haven't messed with frame blending, so I didn't even think
    about it. I guess I always figured it would be best for smoothing fast
    motion rather than smoothing slow mo. I'll have to look into that :)

    One other area where AE stomps Premiere is in working with square and
    non-square pixels in the same comp and having everything look right in the

    I'm still running Premiere 6, and it sucks at non-square pixels! Maybe 6.5
    has fixed that?
    FlyByKnight, Jan 6, 2004
  5. Non square pixels is NOT a bug in Premiere.. The NTSC standard is .9,
    so Premiere and all other editing programs use this same standard.

    Richard Ragon, Jan 6, 2004
  6. com crumb

    FlyByKnight Guest

    You misunderstood. I never said Premiere had a bug. I said it sucked at
    handling non-square pixels - particularly when trying to mix in footage with
    square pixels (such as stills).

    The reason it sucks at this (I believe) is in how it interprets non-square
    pixels (i.e "Interpretation Rules.txt")

    Try this test and see for yourself:

    Create a new 4:3 project.
    Import some 16:9 footage.
    Right-click the footage and under Video Options select "Maintain Aspect
    Now, ALT/Command-click the timeline scrubber and preview. It looks correct.
    Now render the timeline and look again. It looks wrong. It is NOT in the
    proper AR.

    More proof? Do this with an image that has a perfect circle in it (simply
    shoot a hulahoop or frisbee in widescreen mode on your camera). Repeat the
    above steps. The huluhoop/frisbee are slightly eggshaped. They are most
    certainly NOT circular.

    Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly... (for I am "The Architect" <grin>) Premiere
    does NOT handle non-square pixels correctly. Well, Premiere 6, anyway. As I
    said, I've heard rumors that 6.5 corrected this, but have been unable to
    verify (due to me being financially unable to upgrade at present).

    Now... there *are* workarounds, but they are just that: workarounds. Out of
    the box, AE (5.5) handles non-square pixels with ease.
    FlyByKnight, Jan 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.