On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:04:05 -0500, diane@firelily.com (Diane Wilson) wrote:
>In article <385277dc.7255542@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, d_ruether@hotmail.com
>says...
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:42:27 -0500, diane@firelily.com
>> (Diane Wilson) wrote:

>> [most deleted...]
>> >I don't like the way Premiere handles keyframes;
>> >if you're trying to coordinate effects across filters/motion/transparency,
>> >especially when stacking clips in separate tracks, After Effects
>> >is much more usable simply by virtue of having the keyframes in
>> >the timeline, rather than in dialogs.

>> Perhaps I'm missing something, but keyframes can be placed
>> on the SI tracks using points placed on the video "rubber
>> bands" in Premiere. I find it easy to vary the effect of
>> filters and transparency with time in the Premiere timeline,
>> though it is necessary to move clips up to the V2 track or
>> higher to do it. It is also exactly the Premiere handling of
>> keyframes on the timeline that makes Premiere useful to me
>> for multi-camera editing.

>The problem with Premiere and keyframes is that it's not consistent.
>Yes, transparency keyframes can be set in the timeline. Motion
>keyframes are set in the motion dialog. Filter keyframes are set
>in the filter dialog. If you wanted to use keyframes to alter
>something like an image matte, I have no idea how you'd do it.
>
>The nice thing about After Effects is that it has one way to handle
>keyframes, no matter what you're doing. Every effect, every filter,
>every transform, and every mask -- even down to effects applied to
>a mask, or to multiple controls within a single effect or transform --
>has its own track in the timeline. You can choose which keyframe
>tracks you want to see, within and across layers, so that coordinating
>effects is a simple matter of aligning keyframes, no matter what
>effects or controls you're working with. I've tried coordinating
>motion effects in stacked clips in Premiere, and it's not easy
>simply because you can't see everything that you need to see all
>at once.
>
>While After Effects excels in handling complex edits, it's not
>suited for long projects. Again, basic interface differences
>mean a lot; Premiere lets you re-use a track, while AE doesn't
>even think in terms of tracks. That alone makes a huge difference
>for multicamera editing, or for any assemblage of clips that isn't
>being composited. Premiere is far better for this work.
>
>What it comes down to is that these tools complement each other,
>far more than they compete. That wasn't obvious to me, though,
>until I had a chance to work with both tools. AE is good for
>segments that need a lot of detailed work; then you export the
>finished clip and import into Premiere to be part of a larger
>project.

I agree with the above - with the possibly minor addition
that some video filters can (and should, in the case of
the "sharpen" filter) be adjusted in the SI tracks in
Premiere (by copying a clip in another track, placing the
copy in synch. in a track above it, and adjusting the
"rubber band" to control the strength of the filter).