Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adobe effects vs premiere pro

cpnotebook80

cpnotebook80

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 4, 2007
1,240
560
Toronto
I currently downloaded the trial of premiere pro and i notice that some good effects just need adobe effects.
just wondering which one is more preferable and if anyone uses both what the workflow is like.
I did read that premiere is mostly for sequence editing and effects well is more adding the cool filters etc.

any advice?
thanks
 
After Effects (AE) as its name suggests is for applying effects afterwards. It is a compositing application for manipulating film (moving images) after one finishes editing a film. Think of it as Photoshop for movies.

Premiere Pro (Pr) is used to assemble all the small bits a film is made of, it is used to edit these bits and make a wholesome story out of these bits. It is not primarily used for applying effects.

AE of course has some rudimentary editing capabilities, as Pr has some more advanced effect capabilities, but AE is primarily used for "cool" and less "cool" effects and Pr is used to combine footage on which later effects might be applied to.

Maybe you could also take a look at Adobe's representation of AE and Pr.

Some resources for AE:
http://psd.tutsplus.com/
http://www.videocopilot.net/
www.lynda.com
 
from the links i was looking, it almost seems like effects is used for creating logo effects, beginning of titles in movies etc
 
After Effects can be used for TONS of things involving compositing and motion graphics. It's quite powerful. But it can be a bit overwhelming to a novice. If you're considering getting into AE, I would suggest the excellent Video Copilot tutorials. They cover a lot of the basics and they're free.

Premiere Pro would be best compared to Final Cut Pro and Avid MC, being a non-linear editing application.

As mentioned before, there are a number of included (and available 3rd-party) effects available in the aforementioned NLE packages, but their functionality and flexibility are limited in comparison to what you can do in dedicated motion graphics applications.

Apple's competitor to After Effects is Motion (included with Final Cut Studio). Motion is a fairly powerful application in its own right, but AE really is the industry standard and has a much larger support base. I do my actual editing in FCP (personal preference), but post effects in AE.

AE does have limited timeline editing capabilities, although I'd strongly urge against using them for a couple reasons. For one, it isn't exactly intuitive for that purpose. Secondly, it can cause workflow issues with related applications. So, do the actual editing on the NLE of your choice and the post effects in a motion graphics application. :)
 
simsaladimbamba said:
think of it as Photoshop for movies.
Click to expand...

As a professional compositor, I find your descriptions a little insulting, especially the above quote!

Unless u were dumbing down your description so the OP would understand the differences then you have underestimated the power of a programme such as after effects... Not simply used for adding titles or filters to footage!!!

Software such as AE is used daily in the media world mostly on work that the audience is NOT meant to see, that is the magic of post production... But after effects is also part of a family of software used to create fantastic visual effects sequences as part of the post production process not merely an afterthought as your description would lead one to believe...!
 
anim8or said:
As a professional compositor, I find your descriptions a little insulting, especially the above quote!

Unless u were dumbing down your description so the OP would understand the differences then you have underestimated the power of a programme such as after effects... Not simply used for adding titles or filters to footage!!!

Software such as AE is used daily in the media world mostly on work that the audience is NOT meant to see, that is the magic of post production... But after effects is also part of a family of software used to create fantastic visual effects sequences as part of the post production process not merely an afterthought as your description would lead one to believe...!
Click to expand...

...and thats exactly what Photoshop does to still imagery... so yes, AE is photoshop for movies. We don't just put filters on and write text on photos with photoshop. But being a 'professional' I guess you just forgot that for a brief moment.

OP, as for the usage of the two. Compose your sequence with premiere maybe do some basic color adjustments with color finesse plug-in. Then if you need some more advanced effects finish it up in AE. I find that premiere has a nicer workflow for pure editing where AE is more sluggish.

----------
Www.legreve.com
 
anim8or said:
As a professional compositor, I find your descriptions a little insulting, especially the above quote!

Unless u were dumbing down your description so the OP would understand the differences then you have underestimated the power of a programme such as after effects... Not simply used for adding titles or filters to footage!!!
Click to expand...

I dumbed that down, but PS can be used for much more than I alluded to too.
Anyway, I did not mean to offend anyone (which is quite easy these days anyway), especially not AE.
 
Last edited:
Of course i know that Photoshop is much more capable than simple photo editing and fiilter use, but seeing as the OP's understanding of AE seems vague at best i was particularly annoyed by the comparison...

I used to have a collegue who 'dabbled' with AE from her Media Management position and once overheard her, whilst talking to the press about the production we were currently working on, describe AE as 'Photoshop on Wheels'. It is now my pet hate to hear the two programmes compared in that way... She was terrible at AE and most of her work had to be redone... BY ME!!!

i am no professional photographer so definitely do not use PS to its full capacity but in my experience of using it, as well as PR and AE, i do not think saying its AE is PS for movies a good description... its confusing and undersells it.
 
Thanks all for explaining
I like APremiere since workflow is nice
I've started on the tutorials on AE n understanding it better. I was so excited to see the effects
 
Last edited:
anim8or said:
i am no professional photographer so definitely do not use PS to its full capacity but in my experience of using it, as well as PR and AE, i do not think saying its AE is PS for movies a good description... its confusing and undersells it.
Click to expand...

I think it's a pretty apt comparison in that they both perform similarly in their manipulation of imagery, use of layers, filters, etc. I've often explained it to people who aren't familiar with the program that way and in no way feel it's a disservice to After Effects. Photoshop has broken out from the confines of just photo professionals and is now widely known about to the general public and has even evolved into a verb in everyday language. After Effects is still more of an inside the industry product, so the simplest and best comparison is to Photoshop. And Photoshop is the defacto industry standard for professional photo editing. After Effects fills the same niche in the video world. So I don't see anything wrong with telling someone After Effects is like Photoshop for motion.


As for the original poster's question, you really can't compare the two. They are completely different tools for different jobs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anim8or
As a professional compositor, I find your descriptions a little insulting, especially the above quote! [etc.]
You've got impressively worked up over nothing.
Click to expand...

No kidding. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back