On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 02:44:11 GMT, Briarpatch <briarpatch@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:

>> And for an earlier

>> poster, you would need to add one hech of a lot of blur

>> to suppress some of the nastier artifacts one sometimes

>> gets with Premiere (and likely others) moving images in

>> DV - and the point of using high-res images in the first

>> place is to arrive at full TV-res images in the output;

>> adding considerable blur defeats this...

>Which is why I don't use Premiere for this. AE

>does it much, much better. I use miniscule amounts

>of blur if and only if viewing a large image through

>the small window creates Moire patterns, and even

>then, only as a last resort--if a tiny little bit of

>blur does not improve the image, then it should not

>be used.

>> I could not

>> improve on Premiere with AE in terms of artifacting with

>> digital sources, but I gave up with struggling with its

>> absurd interface (perhaps too early to see what it can

>> really do, but the annoyance factor prohibits further

>> work with it -

>AE is just not intuitive. As with all programs,

>"more flexible" translates to "much more complex".

>Tutorials and/or "Classroom in a Book" (or some

>similar book) is absolutely necessary to get a

>decent idea of what AE can do and how to make it

>do it.

>

>If you have the time and patience to get yourself

>to the far side of the learning curve, you'll

>be glad you stuck with it.

I have --->***NO***<--- patience for non-intuitive

software, no matter what wonderful things it can do...!

It isn't worth my time and temper to deal with

programs like AE...