After Effects - capabilities

Q

quarrel84@hotmail.com

Member
What exactly is After Effects mainly used for in film/digital production? I know that it is a compositing/motion graphic program, and I understand what compositing and motion graphics do, but could anyone please explain in a clear way, how, practicaly, a program such as After Effects is used?

Are films that are predominantly visual and "digital looking" benefitting the most?

What is the effect of compositing and motion graphics on film/digital movies?

Thanks very much in advance. (I am trying to decide if I would like to get into compositing/motion graphics, and am having a difficult time)
 
Hmmm you are having a difficult time on deciding if you would like to get into compositing/motion graphics?
Well do you want to? It's not just technical skills and problem solving you need to have but mostly it's talent.

Motion graphics is a world of creativity. You can do still photography but with motion graphics you give life to stills.

There is an article in CreativeCow that answers your question, I shall try and find it.

As for After Effects, it's consider a low end production software. In the big studios they use other hi-end systems like Flame or Flint that handle 10bit and 2K resolutions.
 
Steve_Arm said:
As for After Effects, it's consider a low end production software. In the big studios they use other hi-end systems like Flame or Flint that handle 10bit and 2K resolutions.
Click to expand...

Not completely true. AE is used by MANY studios and production houses in many different ways. I'd say it's more of a workhorse tool than "low end". It's not low end in any way.
 
ps: After Effects does every bit depth, and any resolution you can dream up. It's completely resolution independent.
 
One of the reasons AE had been snubbed by the film industry was its lack of support of 32bpc color. Although there have been 'workarounds' for this in the past with Stu M's eLin plug-in, the film community as a whole has always had a preference for Shake, Flame/Inferno, Digital Fusion, Nuke...everything but AE. Occasionally, you'll find a film composited with AE, but it's rare. The one that comes to mind recently is Hellboy.

Also, I don't think AE even had Cineon support until several versions after its inception, and by then sfx artists, who had little respect for desktop systems in general, had left AE out of any consideration for film work.

I'll be curious to see if AE makes its way further into film production with its new 32bit-float color. At best, I think it will take a few years.

In short, if you want to get into film post production, learn Shake and Flame. If you want to get into motion graphics, learn AE.
 
AE has been used on a lot more films than most realize. I think the lack of a node based interface is one of the more compelling reasons to go with other software packages due to the almost "standardization" of node tree's and compositing. eLin has always been a good workaround, and many post houses, like the Orphanage, use AE in the forefront of their pipeline. Like Kai said, it's a workhouse tool, and learning it can lead to many oppurtunities throughout multiple different industries.
 
It's funny. I got my start on AE. What I always heard was how much better it is to work in a node based environment. So, I learned Combustion.. then actually started teaching Combustion and I've moved on to learning Shake and Flame.

Tell you the truth, I just don't find the node thing to make life any easier, my comps any more clever, or my projects any shorter. It's just another way to do things.
 
graymachine said:
Tell you the truth, I just don't find the node thing to make life any easier, my comps any more clever, or my projects any shorter. It's just another way to do things.
Click to expand...

Graymachine,
that's the truth, I have the layering mentality and find hard to grasp the node workflow. But also believe that using a node-based software just won't make me do anything greater that I can't do with AE. Softwares are just tools as we all agree.

But it all comes down to the indtustry. What I meant aobve was not that it's a low end system but rather a software for low budget movies.

In Butterfly Effect they used AE for the vfx.
 
Ok, i'll try to be more specific this time, it was about 2am last time I posted :p

Basicaly, I am specificaly interested in directing films.

I am not interested in 3d animation, nor am I interested in the over use of "special effects", but I am interested in a very visual style. (however I do realize that the majority of films out there, whether very visual or not, employ "special effects", just more subtle ones)


So, what I mean to ask is this:

Would learning Photoshop/After Effects enable me the technical ability to take my "vision" I have for whatever I am shooting, and "apply" it to my film with these programs?

Thanks again all very much.
 
quarrel84@hotmail.com said:
Would learning Photoshop/After Effects enable me the technical ability to take my "vision" I have for whatever I am shooting, and "apply" it to my film with these programs?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.
If this implies that you will do a one man show, then they can help you do things that are not possible with cameras.
Simple example is to create a specific mood for your film using cold colors, this can be achieved with your editing software but for more precise control over the colors you will need a more advanced tool...AE comes in mind now!

Of course there is a cost with this, you will have to learn many things that are not an easy concept to understand. It's up to you if you want to spent time learning or getting away with simple effects that NLEs provide. Either way you learn first.

A better investment would be to find a person that does effects, has good will to help you and you can communicate with him so you can pass your vision when it comes to effects.
 
Steve_Arm said:
A better investment would be to find a person that does effects, has good will to help you and you can communicate with him so you can pass your vision when it comes to effects.
Click to expand...

This is the way to go...executing your vision while having to learn the effects and software, and keep everything in check will be hard...you'll end up with a diluted version of what you originally planned in the best case scenario...much easier to communicate with someone who knows and then let the collaboration go from there to create what you see.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
This is the way to go...executing your vision while having to learn the effects and software, and keep everything in check will be hard...you'll end up with a diluted version of what you originally planned in the best case scenario...much easier to communicate with someone who knows and then let the collaboration go from there to create what you see.
Click to expand...


Thanks for all the great replies guys.

I appreciate this advice, oneinfiniteloop, but to put in perspective, I will have a very limited crew on whatever I make, and in general, I would like to be the "head" of the post production process in every film I make anyway. I've been working with FCP for some time now, and feel I have a good understanding of it... so I am trying to go further into different programs. This is why I am wondering if knowing (Photoshop, After Effects, Shake) will aid me in this. Also, to be more specific, I will ask this:

Are these programs only necessary if I am interested in doing "special effect" work, such as 3d animation, motion graphic design, etc, for my film?

I don't plan to use elaborate special effects, but I would like a firm grasp and knowledge of how to get any visual (look) and (aesthetic) on the screen through my intrepretation of the technology these programs provide.

Thanks guys. :)
 
quarrel84@hotmail.com said:
Are these programs only necessary if I am interested in doing "special effect" work, such as 3d animation, motion graphic design, etc, for my film?

I don't plan to use elaborate special effects, but I would like a firm grasp and knowledge of how to get any visual (look) and (aesthetic) on the screen through my intrepretation of the technology these programs provide.

Thanks guys. :)
Click to expand...

Well, none of the aforementioned programs do 3D animation. If you want a firm grasp, go read Cinefex, FX Blog, FX Guide, VFX Talk, Highend 3D, Stu Maschwitz's ProLost blog, CG Society, The Art and Science of Digital Compositing, After Effects Studio Techniques 6.5 or 7, or other similar resources.

No one is trying to dissuade you from exploring these programs, but what you have to understand is that if you don't wish to get into vfx, mograph, etc, then you will not be able to grasp the true scope of what the programs can do for your "visual (look) and (aesthetic) on the screen through my intrepretation of the technology ". It's just like someone that is a owner of a five star resturaunt and he hired the best chef in the country but isn't a chef himself. If the owner came down into the kitchen to try to make all these five star dishes, he would most likely cause more problems than necessary. But, if he took the time to learn the terminology, the current state of cooking, 'lingo', etc, he could communicate a more clear idea of what he wants done, and maybe even help a little by a shared knowledge.

You can't just pick up AE or Shake and dive in and learn it all just to aid you in your directing unless you're willing to invest a significant amount of time into...well, I take that back, you can, but your results will probably be less than stellar. You know what they say, practice makes perfect, and that applies equally as well in VFX, mograph, directing, lighting, make up, programming, etc...

Oh, and if you're interested in 3D animation, well, that's on a whole other planet and takes a much deeper understanding to execute properly.

Hope this helps put things in perspective, if it doesn't, maybe you can give us an example of what you would like to know that would help you in the fashion that you wish.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
Well, none of the aforementioned programs do 3D animation. If you want a firm grasp, go read Cinefex, FX Blog, FX Guide, VFX Talk, Highend 3D, Stu Maschwitz's ProLost blog, CG Society, The Art and Science of Digital Compositing, After Effects Studio Techniques 6.5 or 7, or other similar resources.

No one is trying to dissuade you from exploring these programs, but what you have to understand is that if you don't wish to get into vfx, mograph, etc, then you will not be able to grasp the true scope of what the programs can do for your "visual (look) and (aesthetic) on the screen through my intrepretation of the technology ". It's just like someone that is a owner of a five star resturaunt and he hired the best chef in the country but isn't a chef himself. If the owner came down into the kitchen to try to make all these five star dishes, he would most likely cause more problems than necessary. But, if he took the time to learn the terminology, the current state of cooking, 'lingo', etc, he could communicate a more clear idea of what he wants done, and maybe even help a little by a shared knowledge.

You can't just pick up AE or Shake and dive in and learn it all just to aid you in your directing unless you're willing to invest a significant amount of time into...well, I take that back, you can, but your results will probably be less than stellar. You know what they say, practice makes perfect, and that applies equally as well in VFX, mograph, directing, lighting, make up, programming, etc...

Oh, and if you're interested in 3D animation, well, that's on a whole other planet and takes a much deeper understanding to execute properly.

Hope this helps put things in perspective, if it doesn't, maybe you can give us an example of what you would like to know that would help you in the fashion that you wish.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Thanks so much for this reply.

Basicaly, I certainly am willing to invest a significant amount of time to learning these programs and "vfx, mograph, etc"

I guess this is more a personal decision than a practical one, but I have found that I personaly cannot work very well in "total" collaboration with another artist in interpretting my ideas. I would rather train myself in the specific field, and do it myself, or collaborate with another artist when I understand the technology equaly.

As for, 3d animation and things in that field, I am completely not interested in this, so I just wanted to make sure that these programs I mentioned had nothing to do with that.

I guess the final core question I have is: What is the (Compositors) role in the filmmaking process?
 
A compositors role in filmmaking varies widely...sometimes it's very specific, on other movies it's wider. Here are some basic things a compositor will do:

The main responsibility is to take all the elements of a shot, greenscreen/bluescreen, live action, CG, miniuature footage, etc and put them together, i.e. composite. Basically, you would have a shot of the actors against a a greenscreen and you would combine that with footage of whatever, maybe with some CG, or maybe not. Essentially, you put everything together.

Some other things you would do, especially if you're working on your own, would be all the rotoscoping (seperating elements from your video by "drawing" them out frame by frame), sky removals/replacements, creating clean plates, keying, tracking, matching plates, adding atmosphere, removing unwanted elements of a shot, color timing, creating effects from scratch, creating depth maps, etc...

Most of these things are just different techniques that aid in helping you accomplish your shot, but sometimes you may need to remove a reflection from a windo with the crew in it or tedious stuff like that to clean up mistakes..etc...

What kind of effects do you have in mind?
 
quarrel84@hotmail.com said:
Thanks for all the great replies guys.

I appreciate this advice, oneinfiniteloop, but to put in perspective, I will have a very limited crew on whatever I make, and in general, I would like to be the "head" of the post production process in every film I make anyway. I've been working with FCP for some time now, and feel I have a good understanding of it... so I am trying to go further into different programs. This is why I am wondering if knowing (Photoshop, After Effects, Shake) will aid me in this. Also, to be more specific, I will ask this:

Are these programs only necessary if I am interested in doing "special effect" work, such as 3d animation, motion graphic design, etc, for my film?

I don't plan to use elaborate special effects, but I would like a firm grasp and knowledge of how to get any visual (look) and (aesthetic) on the screen through my intrepretation of the technology these programs provide.

Thanks guys. :)
Click to expand...

I recently attempted to fix a movie that was directed by a person who had a sinilar attitude as yours "I would like to be the "head" of the post production process in every film I make anyway." There's a reason that directors cuts don't ussually see the light of day. That's not to say that they are better or worse.

This director blew through about $6M before they relieved him of command. He new everything about everything accept how to direct. If you plan on directing then direct, if you want to be a post production supervisor then do that, but I strongly recommend against trying to do both.

Either job is a full time gig and if you try to do both neither will be very good.

As suggested earlier, find someone who is knowledgeable about post and develop a relationship with that person so you can trust them to help realize your vision. That will be time much better spent than trying to learn any of the applications you mentioned.
 
This director blew through about $6M before they relieved him of command. He new everything about everything accept how to direct. If you plan on directing then direct, if you want to be a post production supervisor then do that, but I strongly recommend against trying to do both.

Either job is a full time gig and if you try to do both neither will be very good.
Click to expand...

Hmm, while I agree with a lot of what you say, it's just not entirely true. And working on a small movie with limited funds is going to make hiring someone for each position a virtual impossibility. I say if he wants to do both, he should work extensively with shorts he films before diving into his main project. Read up on AE, mess around with it so that if you do make a mess, you can learn your away out of it without ruining your 'real' movie.

Practice makes perfect, and AE demands a ton of practice. Take your time, learn it inside and out. There are plenty of tutorial videos and manuals that can give you a firm grasp on the basics, and then you can experiment with your small projects at your liesure. Once you feel like you have it by the balls, go for it.

The best advice I can give you is to take your time. Do not play around with it for 2 months, then think you've got it, dive headlong into your feature and begin screwing yourself over.

So yes, I think you can direct and handle everything AE brings, but you have to take the time to come close to mastering it before you dive into production.
 
Alternative_3 said:
So yes, I think you can direct and handle everything AE brings, but you have to take the time to come close to mastering it before you dive into production.
Click to expand...

...which takes years and years.

I'll have to agree with those above, if you try to wear all the hats, something is going to suffer on one hand or the other. It's just simply not realistic to be master of all things and be efficient at it. If you're a low budget one man show and can't afford to hire someone, make friends with someone who has decided to take the post road and is just getting started on their journey. They're most likely looking for some material to cut their teeth on while going down their own path of learning AE and post, while you can focus your energies elsewhere (directing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top