Photoshop Extended and Animation

[KevinA]

I have taken a series of overlapping images from a helicopter. I was wondering if Photoshop extended with it's animation could turn it into a movie?
I know I can just drop the frames into FC and get a flipbook effect. I ask because Photoshop has a content aware feature, I wondered if this would smooth out the missing gaps. I spent the night downloading it as a trial and can see another steep learning curve infront of me just to get to grip with the basics. So does Photoshop apply any smoothing in the animation or am I wasting my time?

Kevin.

[fredjeang]

Kevin,
 
I think I understand what kind of situation you are facing. You have a goal wich is new for you and try to evaluate and get information on different possibilities, and maybe trying to take the train on a solution that can be more or less familiar-comfortable to you.

PS extended that I know allows a lot of work on image, that can be very elaborate, but the thing is that when it comes to motion behaviour, you'll find limitations. I've been playing a bit with it and it is without doubt a tool to acheive elaborate tasks but within its nature, it is not going to replace your NLE either.

You have a goal to acheive: this helicopter pics, and you are logically looking wich solution could bring a satisfactory answer.  What you want to do has been done extensively and most of the editors are able to acheive that task. Then the PS extended option question.

I can tell you that what you want to acheive, this full control on the zooming visual effect can be done in Premiere Pro.  Can This effect ( acceleration or smoothness of the displacements etc...) be done in PS extended? That I know, no or not at least in a straightforward manner. But there I can't say it 100% sure, maybe it is possible but it's not its nature. This can be done in Avid? in Edius? Yes! Can it be done in FCP? I don't know but would be very surprised if it couldn't, although FCP is, well...FCP...

PS extended should be seen as an alternative or complement to an FX software, resuming, working on your images themselves, but it should not be seen as a real video editor nor a realñ fx program. In other words, Adobe allows you to edit videos in Photoshop, to wich extend and for what purpose? Does the learning involved worth the time or should I invest my time in more specialized softwares?  

Where do I want to go with all that? is that you have noticed that even wanting to acheive a rather simple motion effect, within PS extended, or Premiere etc...it can take hours and hours to find the proper way to do it. It's like walking in an unknown land without the confidence to be able to reach the goal and get to realised: I've spend long hours and in the end it can't be done. Frustrating!

I'd go for a secure solution for those editing tasks: PREMIERE, FCP with reservations, AVID, EDIUS, AE...

This is an example of where to look for training: http://library.creativecow.net/articles/devis_andrew/Pan-Zoom_Corner-Pin_Premiere-Pro/video-tutorial  This video asnwers to your goal, but in the specific Premiere system.

IMHO.

[KevinA]

thanks again.
Yes I am searching as many possibilities as I can for use of still images in things like iPads and smart phones, in some ways I can see more options with still images than I can straight video. So I am just trying different things and feeling well out of my depth at the moment. I have ideas but not sure if they are easily possible. i have done 360 degree spins around buildings ( http://www.kevinallenphotography.co.uk/spin_360.html ), but this depends upon the use of Flash which is not supported on iPhone. So I am after as much interactive use of a still image as I can find. I think the use of an image that does nothing will become limited as everyone relies upon their smart phone and tablets for more and more. If I can make still images move on these devices I will be getting towards what I want to achieve.

Kevin.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

I have taken a series of overlapping images from a helicopter. I was wondering if Photoshop extended with it's animation could turn it into a movie?

Not in the way you want.

I know I can just drop the frames into FC and get a flipbook effect. I ask because Photoshop has a content aware feature, I wondered if this would smooth out the missing gaps....So does Photoshop apply any smoothing in the animation or am I wasting my time?

You are wasting your time. 'Smoothing the gaps' is called retiming, i.e., introducing new frames between available frames where non existed earlier, especially to create a slow motion effect. To get a realistic effect, you need a high-end software. An example would be Kronos by the Foundry. It is available as a plug-in for Nuke as well as for After Effects. It's expensive.

A cheaper alternative is to use the After Effects to do the same, but you might not like the results. Either way, start your experiments with After Effects and take it from there. Hope this helps.

[fredjeang]

Not in the way you want.

You are wasting your time. 'Smoothing the gaps' is called retiming, i.e., introducing new frames between available frames where non existed earlier, especially to create a slow motion effect. To get a realistic effect, you need a high-end software. An example would be Kronos by the Foundry. It is available as a plug-in for Nuke as well as for After Effects. It's expensive.

A cheaper alternative is to use the After Effects to do the same, but you might not like the results. Either way, start your experiments with After Effects and take it from there. Hope this helps.

Interesting Sareesh. Reading you, it seems to me that you are actually working in this industry and-or are experienced.

Coming from photography, like many of us are experiencing and making the move to motion is at first like jumping in unknown waters. That is why I've been taking those 2-3 months evaluating softwares solutions, collecting as much infos as I could and talked with video-cine pros.

There is a point that I realised and I think intertesting to mention. After Effect, to master it well, is not so easy. There is a serious learning curve and I don't really like it's layer based, find the interface messy. It soon appeared clear to me that if I know I have to invest time, energy and dedication, I rather do that directly with a high-end software because both (AE or more solid softwares) will require a lot of hours. In the high-end, there are solutions that are out of question for me because of the cost and no need at that point. But there are middle-High-end solutions that are expensive but still affordable. AE is IMO a budget choice. Not a bad software at all but a budget choice and no way comparable to the softwares I've been playing with, although it can lead to similar results, it would do it the painfull way.

Evaluating (actually starting to work with them) several high-end softwares exactly like I would evaluate a new camera before buying, some of them in other's equipments because mine is not suitable now, it became fast cristal clear why a program costs 30.000€ or more and another 3.000. And it became also clear that those are not useless luxury.
I won't enter the details but there is in motion softwares no mystery. A little more investment today can be an enormous time and hassles saver tomorrow. Way much more than with stills.

My choice is finally NUKE. I think rock solid, extremely fast, 4K 5K real time or whatever K will come tomorrow; there are also enough nuke artists here where I can take lessons with and very good training material on the internet.

Cheers.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

If you are opting for Nuke, go for Nuke X. It's completely worth the extra plugins. You will always be working in 32-bit mode and can handle any resolution (short of hardware or OS limitations).

Just to clarify an earlier point:

After Effect, to master it well, is not so easy. There is a serious learning curve and I don't really like it's layer based, find the interface messy

After Effects is layer based. Nuke is node based. The layout of AE is very similar to Photoshop's. And to be honest, there is nothing that After Effects cannot do which Nuke can, except the 3D integration with Maya/3D Max, etc, and stereoscopy. However, when it comes to motion graphics nothing beats After Effects.

What I'm trying to say is: I've used both, and I still NEED both. If you need assistance on a Nuke based PC, I suggest you search through the files of dvinfo.net/forum. I have had extensive discussions about this with Steve Kalle, who's also a good source of information.

[fredjeang]

Sareesh,

You hit good points IMO.

I have an after effects CS4 that comes from the Adobe suite before I switched to Avid. I never felt comfortable with the interface, but it is a personal sensation.
Precisely, the areas where AE is really good like motion graphics as you point, are the once I'd like to avoid and-or won't really need.

I celebrate the very good integration of Adobe products, it is a very powerfull suite. But you see, I have few months experience with Combustion that will unfortunatly be discontinued,
and each time I had a task like tracking, keying etc...Combustion was simply much more efficient, reliable and in less time than the results I obtained with AE.
The thing with AE is that it is very plug-in, it is just a different design approach but its layers drive me mad. I really want to use nodes because I feel very comfortable with them.

Combustion also works on layers but at least you have a node arquitecture, not a pure one and very limited, but it's there and usefull. Also the interface is IMO much more acheived to maintain a fast workflow.

To me, AE is too complicated, messy and not the kind of interface I like to work with, but it is a very personal sensation that I'm aware is dependant on each person's feeling and needs.

It is a good software but I simply never ended to get exited about it and finally stopped to use it. You know, it's like that girl, everybody tells you she's great and you never end to feel attracted. Something like that.

About Nuke, yes, with big probability I'll go for the X.

Thanks a lot for the imput on dvinfo.net, I'll look into it.

Cheers.

[KevinA]

Mmmm I just looked at Nuke, they speak a different language to me, I sort of know what they talk about but not enough to figure how I could make use of the program. Plus it looks like the kind of thing you get good at by being nothing but a Nuke worker, it does not look like something you bolt onto another business.
That's the trick right, adding value to your business simply and cost effectively, its good to get other skill sets but not at the expense of what you do now to earn a crust. I think knowing that, is why I was looking at solutions/options I thought I might have some knowledge of like Adobe products. Even if the products from Adobe or Apple are not cutting edge Hollywood they most likely are the ones I need to work with to their limitations in order to create a profit. So I might not be able to do what I had in mind, in which case I need to work it the other way and go with what the programs manage easily and look for new tricks, I think that is how a child's mind might work, exploring the World and take it for what it is and not trying to build a different World.

Kevin.

[KevinA]

Fred,
I hope you don't think I was criticising you or your working in anyway, if anything I was talking to myself. It is very easy for me to go off on a tangent and find myself on a coarse that saps my time and money.
I do think people like me that are still based image makers need to do more in this climate, I also think we need not necessary go the full blown video route. I think (could easily be wrong) that still images are easier to make interactive and the modern device likes "interactive". So I am looking for ways to make still images sing, dance and seduce, which is a different need to what you are doing.
I thank you for your help and information and hope it all goes well.

Kevin.

[fredjeang]

Fred,
I hope you don't think I was criticising you or your working in anyway, if anything I was talking to myself. It is very easy for me to go off on a tangent and find myself on a coarse that saps my time and money.
I do think people like me that are still based image makers need to do more in this climate, I also think we need not necessary go the full blown video route. I think (could easily be wrong) that still images are easier to make interactive and the modern device likes "interactive". So I am looking for ways to make still images sing, dance and seduce, which is a different need to what you are doing.
I thank you for your help and information and hope it all goes well.

Kevin.

Kevin,

I didn't have the feeling at all you where criticising me, and if so, it's always refreshing when things are done in a constructive way. I think we are living on exciting times and there are many possible paths.

I kind of agree that still images are easier to make interactive and there is a market. But tech evolve at the speed of light. It may be possible that HTML 5 will redefine that and put motion interactivity as easy as stills today. I've seen incredible interactivity with motion involved done in HTML 5 and it's just the beginning. If you are into that, keep an eye on Java and HTML 5.

I also wish you the best in your work, lots of inspiration. A pleasure to share those interesting topics. 

[KevinA]

Not in the way you want.

You are wasting your time. 'Smoothing the gaps' is called retiming, i.e., introducing new frames between available frames where non existed earlier, especially to create a slow motion effect. To get a realistic effect, you need a high-end software. An example would be Kronos by the Foundry. It is available as a plug-in for Nuke as well as for After Effects. It's expensive.

A cheaper alternative is to use the After Effects to do the same, but you might not like the results. Either way, start your experiments with After Effects and take it from there. Hope this helps.

Am I not understanding something. I have been on the Kronos site and it says £70. for Kronos as a AE plugin. I thought it was going to be thousands, am I getting it seriously wrong?

Kevin.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Go for it...but download the trial version and test it out first...Then compare it against AE's own retiming algorithm.