Talk:Adobe After Effects

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adobe After Effects article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

repeated info!!!

Competitors to After Effects include Discreet Combustion, Apple Shake, Cinelerra, Digital Fusion, Boris RED and Apple Motion.

...

It competes with such compositing platforms as Shake, Pinnacle Commotion, Combustion, Apple Motion, Inferno, Flame, and Boris FX.

Add info for versions 11.0.3 and 11.0.4

As you know CS6 has version 11.0.3 and 11.0.4 and I would appreciate it if someone updated the article.--Needforsuv (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Yes, yes it was. Fixed now, but don't forget that it's often easier to do it yourself than to post on a talk page! --ZsigE 14:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Wikivid had been a long-time listing in the after effects external links, it serves as an unbiased index of free video tutorials. I recently re-added it only to see it quickly removed. To me this site is more in line with Wikipedia than say 6 separate creative cow links. Your thoughts?

SPAM, just that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.100.165 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UI Screenshot

I think the screenshot used in this entry should be the default gray, not this darker variant.

On After Effects Clutter

I have rewritten the paragraph on clutter in After Effects. After Effects does suffer from layer clutter, however a) the clutter doesn't have anything to do with the timeline but rather with the stacking of layers in the Composition Window and b) I think the article could do without the fish example--discussing what consitutes a 'typical animation' and how to achieve 'extremely realistic results' is beyond the scope of the article. AfterEffects suffers from clutter really because it is the only surviving compositing application not to use tree graphs--which is not necessarily a bad thing. ezgeez

For such a small article, I don't a paragraph on "clutter" is necessary at all. Yes, AE could benefit in some ways from a node-based system being implemented, but it's not as big of an issue as the article makes it out to be. In fact, layer based compositing is seen as being easier for doing animation in many cases. Perhaps a sentence explaining that most other compositing programs like Shake and Flame are node-based, as opposed to AE being layer-based is all the article needs.--Weakmassive 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sections

I added some new sections so that the information is more easily accessible and ordered logically. There were a few instances of unabashed praise ('stunning', 'perfectly') particularly in reference to other software products. If these are important opinions and therefore worthy of inclusion I think they should be cited otherwise it reads like an advert. Al001 10:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version history section

I would like to see a section that generally outlines what major improvements each release featured. See the entry for Quicktime to see what I mean. --24.249.108.133 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What version introduced multi-processing -- v7 or CS3? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are missed 2 major bundles of well-known plugins: Cycore Cult Effects (in which AE ver?) and CycoreFX LE (in CS3?)

Screenshots of other versions

I wanted to know if and were I should add a screen shot of After Effects running on Windows Vista. The article seems to just show MAC and no other OS Rgoodermote 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Reviews

Hi, I just commented out the entire Review section of the article. Three of the 5 links were broken and the other two link to reviews of old After Effects versions (6.5 and 7). Hope thats ok with everyone. --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description Confusing to those Unfamiliar with Subject

I've done some editing with Final Cut Pro, but it took me a minute to figure out that NLE meant "non-linear editor." "Track oriented" is also a confusing term. The term NLE should be written out before becoming an acronym, and both "non-linear editor" and "track oriented" should link to articles that describe what they are.

I came to this page because I was interested in finding out what After Effects is and what it does, but I still am confused. Can you edit a whole video in it start to finish? I always thought "After Effects" implied adding special effects or graphics, as opposed to a video editor. But now... I am not so sure! :)

Even to people who are familiar with other Adobe creative software, the description is inadequate.

The fourth sentence of the article reads, "Although other compositing packages--especially ones that employ tree or node workflows, such as Apple Shake--are better suited to manage large volumes of objects within a composite, After Effects is able to somewhat counter the clutter by selectively hiding layers (using the Shy switch) or by grouping them into precompositions."

I believe that "Apple Shake" is an even less familiar software than After Effects, which makes it a poor reference point. From my perspective I am more curious about how it differs from Final Cut or Premiere. I don't know what "tree or node workflows" are. In my head I might try to imagine what I think they are based on my previous software understanding, but if I had no concept of what a tree or a node might imply in regards to software, I probably wouldn't research those topics in order to decipher this article.

In summary, I am now headed to the Adobe website to read their description of the program. I initially came to Wikipedia for a more objective and thorough overview.

--Kilojake (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I am totally uncertain what exactly After Effects is. This page makes it sound very similar to Adobe Premiere (Pro). Something describing the distinction between these two video-oriented pieces of software would be appreciated. RobertM525 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

after effects is for creating motion graphics. picture a news program that starts out with an animated globe and then the logo comes flying in and then explodes in a flash of light - that's motion graphics. Premier is just an editing application for editing clips together.67.180.178.60 (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks O Sturm —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

v 2.1 info?

I distinctly remember v2.1 as being the first PowerPC native version of After Effects. Anyone have any info on it? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help

I need some help whit this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Specific_question_about_Adobe_After_Effects)

… thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This it the specific post you are talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing&oldid=519139622#Specific_question_about_Adobe_After_Effects (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Specific_question_about_Adobe_After_Effects is now a broken link). Did you ever solve that problem? P.S. I bet the software Adobe After Effects uses the software FFmpeg. Is FFmpeg embedded in the Adobe After Effects program? Probably, but I don't know if we will ever know for sure since Adobe After Effects is closed-source software. --73.229.254.144 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very possible that FFmpeg was embedded in a previous version of Adobe After Effects, but since about five years ago, After Effects hasn't natively supported exporting in MPEG-related (i.e. H.264) codecs, and thus there would be no need for FFmpeg to be embedded in After Effects that I can think of. To use these codecs, you need to use the separate program Adobe Media Encoder, which itself may or may not depend on FFmpeg; there's no way to know. They also could have started with a certain version of FFmpeg and optimized it further. ThePlug111 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Effects CC 2014

There is a new version of After Effects available for download. Launched this June 2014, I think. Part of the Creative Cloud Suite.

http://helpx.adobe.com/after-effects/using/whats-new.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.162 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plugins, Scripts and Extensions

I am new to Wiki Editing so I apologize if I do this wrong. I would like to add to the list of sites to get these at. Links such as to Envato, Maxon and Video Copilot. With hyperlinks of course. Thanks. GKlimala (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition, it was an obvious violation of the guideline on external linking. - MrOllie (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Version history

Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTCHANGELOG) specifically says we should not have a version history. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As that policy states, A list of every version is inappropriate. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: (Copy-pasted from Talk:Adobe Premiere Pro) WP:NOTCHANGELOG does not say that no Wikipedia article is allowed to have a version history table; it says that such tables must cite reliable secondary sources and that "Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include". I will restore the table with reliable sources and appropriate pruning of details. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a great example of the kind of indiscriminate list that WP:NOTCHANGELOG is meant to curtail. While it is true that it doesn't say that 'no Wikipedia article is allowed to have a version history table', what was on this article was clearly excessive and unencylopedic. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Adobe Premiere Pro#Version history. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need to cover the history of the software, but I'm not sure every minor release should be listed. Like the fact that there were bugfix releases in April, May, and June of 2021 seems not worth mentioning unless we're giving a comprehensive log of public releases, which is what WP:NOTCHANGELOG says not to do.

I think it is useful for software historians to have an overview of when major features were released and various OSes were supported. People dealing with old computers might benefit from a fuller listing of changes if they are having problems. My advice would be to put the table back in, but prune it. Ideally the table would contain only major changes, and there would be a link to a release announcement or change log for people who really need the details. The table should have that anyway to satisfy Wikipedia requirements. That would also cause those URLs to be permanently backed up at archive.org, and having pointers to those is a helpful service for our readers. Minor releases could be mentioned in the form of a link from a footnote or something, if there's not a good link that gives an official list of all releases. -- Beland (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of citations in the table are to dead URLs, BTW, so it would be useful to run the article through the automated link fixer if it's restored. -- Beland (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(My comments are in reply to your request for a third opinion, BTW.) -- Beland (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]