Newb to Video - help with premiere vs after effects (rendering quetsion)

[qwik3r2]

Greetings, i have been taking a class at my technical school for video, we use adobe premiere, encore and after effects.

I am having difficulty understanding the difference between premiere and AE in regards to rendering. It is to my understanding that AE is used for effects, usually not ot bring your entire film in and that transitions and final sequences should be compiled in premiere then rendered out, is this correct?

If it IS correct then my teacher is wrong since he is insisting we use AE to bring all of our footage in, deinterlace and render it out. The reason i do not like this is the fact that none of my text or transitions transfered over from premiere pro 1.5 into AE 6.5, i see them on the timeline and it says "additive dissolve" etc on the layers but they do not work.


I was also curious regarding the power of rendering if any one program really makes a difference in rendering, better quality etc. It seems like AE has more options.

Final note, after spending 3 hours rendering a 2 minute movie (had alot of effects) in AE i noticed that it did not render my audio or transitions, ugh. So i used premiere, set it to microsoft avi, unchecked recompress and choose no audio compression.

Upon playback i noticed the audio is fine for a good period of time then it begins to skip at a certain point, it does not do this inside of premiere - could it be because i did not compress the audio?

I am at my wits end with these programs.

[guns1inger]

AE is not an editor, although you can do some editing in it at a pinch. It is designed primarily to do motion graphics and effects work. Depending on the transition, AE might be the better option, although many AE plugins will also work with in Premiere Pro.

The rendering engines are pretty much the same in both, so you aren't going to get better quality from one over the other.

Deinterlacing is a dicey thing. You would only do it if you were creating output specifically for progressive display, and if so, you would work with a progressive project, so no deinterlacing was required. If you are mixing in interlaced source material (e.g. DV) then things might be different.

Generally, the edit would be done in Premiere, bringing in material created in AE as required, and the final work output from Premiere. That would be the normal workflow.

[mats.hogberg]

I'm constantly amazed as to why even self confessed "Newb"s have and use professional grade software? Do they drive F1 race cars to work too, and are puzzled with why they always end up on the neighbours lawn as soon as they leave the garage?

/Mats

[qwik3r2]

Hey thanks so much for the completely and utterly useless response! If you bothered to actually READ my post you would see that i am in a TECHNICAL SCHOOL and gee duh uhm one might expect them to be using PROFESSIONAL GRADE SOFTWARE

I'm constantly amazed as to why even self confessed "Newb"s have and use professional grade software? Do they drive F1 race cars to work too, and are puzzled with why they always end up on the neighbours lawn as soon as they leave the garage?

/Mats

[qwik3r2]

Thank you for your useful and helpful response. As for deinterlacing in premiere how is theh process in comparision to AE? I noticed a a deinterlace footage checkbox in premiere although i am wondering if there are other options. Thanks again for the actually relevant response

AE is not an editor, although you can do some editing in it at a pinch. It is

designed primarily to do motion graphics and effects work. Depending on the transition, AE might be the better option, although many AE plugins will also work with in Premiere Pro.

The rendering engines are pretty much the same in both, so you aren't going to get better quality from one over the other.

Deinterlacing is a dicey thing. You would only do it if you were creating output specifically for progressive display, and if so, you would work with a progressive project, so no deinterlacing was required. If you are mixing in interlaced source material (e.g. DV) then things might be different.

Generally, the edit would be done in Premiere, bringing in material created in AE as required, and the final work output from Premiere. That would be the normal workflow.

[mats.hogberg]

Hey thanks so much for the completely and utterly useless response! If you bothered to actually READ my post you would see that i am in a TECHNICAL SCHOOL and gee duh uhm one might expect them to be using PROFESSIONAL GRADE SOFTWARE

Sorry if you took it personal - It was just a general reflection. It wasn't meant as a constructive reply at all. However, to continue my analogy, I don't think a driving school would put anyone in a F1 car without an instructor? Just ranting - pay no attention.

/Mats

[pijetro]

I am having difficulty understanding the difference between premiere and AE in regards to rendering.

Essentially, there's no difference in the engine..Material comes in..Material gets manipulated, Material gets spit out with the same properties as before..
Essentially, the clips get accessed, torn apart, reassembled, and spit back out..

Adobe Premiere is an NLE, and After Effects is a compositor..Simple as that.
You can half ass cross functions in either application, but that's not the intent...

then my teacher is wrong since he is insisting we use AE to bring all of our footage in, deinterlace and render it out.

Not entirely..Sometimes AE does a nicer job depending on what deinterlace filter you've got. AE allows for masking and easier manipulation at times, so it comes in handy..

The biggest difference as far as footage goes, is , After Effects natively allows for many more input and output formats..
Most people using NLE's are usually working with DV or a variant (just a generality)...
DV doesn't support Alpha Channels, and has a tough time with text (codec issues)..
You can use AE to offset this problem a lot easier..

Simply put, it's a specialty wrench in your toolbox...

[qwik3r2]

Assumption is wonderful don't you agree?

We do have a teacher, but far be it from me to come online and do my own research. Its not like they give us software and say "go play" - Regarding your analogy though how else would you expect someone to learn the software? We are being taught it....

Hey thanks so much for the completely and utterly useless response! If you bothered to actually READ my post you would see that i am in a TECHNICAL SCHOOL and gee duh uhm one might expect them to be using PROFESSIONAL GRADE SOFTWARE

Sorry if you took it personal - It was just a general reflection. It wasn't meant as a constructive reply at all. However, to continue my analogy, I don't think a driving school would put anyone in a F1 car without an instructor? Just ranting - pay no attention.

/Mats

[guns1inger]

If was to be lenient towards your teacher, I would say he is just trying to reduce confusion and simplify your work by spreading the load across the packages.

If I were to be more honest, I would say (based only on what you have posted) that he has little to no idea about the use of these packagesin the real world, and up until he was given this class, probably taught woodworking. He the advice he is giving you is the sort of advice you usually see from self-taught people who have no formal training, no industry experience, and haven't bothered to even read about how these tools are applied in a practical situation.

[edDV]

My 2 cents worth after a decade of using Premiere:

Premiere is normally the base program. After Effects is used for short "special effects" segments that exceed what you can do in Premiere alone. Likewise Audition is used for extended audio beyond Premiere's capability and Photoshop is used for layered graphics.

A "normal", "typical" project will source from interlace camcorders and the project timeline will be interlace. Special effects will be used to spice it up for promos, commercials, animated sequences etc. For native interlace projects, some effects may need selected video frames to be deinterlaced for effects creation, and then the result is reinterlaced to the timeline. After Effects is often used to create these frames to seconds of complex effects.

Some projects are specialized to short effects segments only and those can be handled completely in After Effects if that is the appropriate software to the task. Alternatively you might use full 3D modeling/rendering software like Maya or Lightwave. After Effects is considered a 2.5D productive solution to getting 3D looking effects sequences more quickly.

There are many types of video projects. The tools should be selected only to meet the needs of the storyboard. A good workman knows how to select the right tool for the job.

[edDV]

Hey thanks so much for the completely and utterly useless response! If you bothered to actually READ my post you would see that i am in a TECHNICAL SCHOOL and gee duh uhm one might expect them to be using PROFESSIONAL GRADE SOFTWARE

Don't fool yourself that you will come out of this class with professional skills or that your teachers have any practical experience.

If you are serious you will use your diploma to leverage yourself into a pro production house where your apprenticeship will begin. The most important thing is to select the right specialist facility to get this training while being paid to deliver the mail or load tapes. Take any job that gets you in the door. Promotion is usually from within. That is the path to the top and you would be surprised at the various career paths of the top editors and effects artists. Technique can be trained. Talent is promoted.

And remember that these facilities have the best toys. They may let you learn on them from 2AM to 6AM. During the day you have the best teachers and the best future letter of reference writers.

[qwik3r2]

Again the wonder if your assumptions amazes me. My instructor worked full time for CNBC as a broadcast designer and upon getting married and having a baby he now works part time for CNBC and teaches at my school, perhaps you'd like to make some more assumptions?

My 2 cents worth after a decade of using Premiere:

Premiere is normally the base program. After Effects is used for short "special effects" segments that exceed what you can do in Premiere alone. Likewise Audition is used for extended audio beyond Premiere's capability and Photoshop is used for layered graphics.

A "normal", "typical" project will source from interlace camcorders and the project timeline will be interlace. Special effects will be used to spice it up for promos, commercials, animated sequences etc. For native interlace projects, some effects may need selected video frames to be deinterlaced for effects creation, and then the result is reinterlaced to the timeline. After Effects is often used to create these frames to seconds of complex effects.

Some projects are specialized to short effects segments only and those can be handled completely in After Effects if that is the appropriate software to the task. Alternatively you might use full 3D modeling/rendering software like Maya or Lightwave. After Effects is considered a 2.5D productive solution to getting 3D looking effects sequences more quickly.

There are many types of video projects. The tools should be selected only to meet the needs of the storyboard. A good workman knows how to select the right tool for the job.

[guns1inger]

That background is certainly not consistent with the advice he is giving you

[qwik3r2]

The technical school that i attend is not the creme de le crime, but it is enough to get me knowledgeable with the software. I am not arrogant, nor ignorant, i know the deal and i do not expect to come out of the school with companies chomping at the bit to hire me. I managed to get myself an internship working for a small multimedia company while attending school, i do not intend to stay there forever, but to learn and put it on my resume and move on. Its a long road to a illustrious career in this field and i know this.

Hey thanks so much for the completely and utterly useless response! If you bothered to actually READ my post you would see that i am in a TECHNICAL SCHOOL and gee duh uhm one might expect them to be using PROFESSIONAL GRADE SOFTWARE

Don't fool yourself that you will come out of this class with professional skills or that your teachers have any practical experience.

If you are serious you will use your diploma to leverage yourself into a pro production house where your apprenticeship will begin. The most important thing is to select the right specialist facility to get this training while being paid to deliver the mail or load tapes. Take any job that gets you in the door. Promotion is usually from within. That is the path to the top and you would be surprised at the various career paths of the top editors and effects artists. Technique can be trained. Talent is promoted.

And remember that these facilities have the best toys. They may let you learn on them from 2AM to 6AM. During the day you have the best teachers and the best future letter of reference writers.

[edDV]

Again the wonder if your assumptions amazes me. My instructor worked full time for CNBC as a broadcast designer and upon getting married and having a baby he now works part time for CNBC and teaches at my school, perhaps you'd like to make some more assumptions?

Private message me his name and I'll check his resume with the NBC VP Technolgy who was Project Manager for the first and second CNBC studio projects. We go back 25 years.

My assumptions come from experience in the indusrtry in multiple capacities, mostly engineering and management. I think you should re-read what I said. It was intended to help your career.

[qwik3r2]

i didn't say he was good lol

[Guiboche]

Hey! I'm jumping in late, but in the future (or if someone asks you to do this again. Which they shouldn't ), if you really MUST do this, just export your final finished project from premiere into a quicktime or avi format. Import that final version into After Effects, deinterlace, render, done!

There should be nearly next to no reason why you would want to import a premiere timeline into After Effects. Only if you have done a quick rough cut of something you want to use in After Effects.