Can the Ken Burns effect realistically be achieved using Adobe CS5?

[gregboet]

Before answering this question, please read my definition of the "Ken Burns effect" and do not ignore ***the emphasized parts of my question***.

My definition of the "Ken Burns effect":

1. Assumptions:

1a. You have a photo.

1b. You define Point A: an initial portion of the photo to start on (X/Y scale, X/Y position).

1c. You define Point B: a final portion of the photo to end on (X/Y scale, X/Y position).

1d. You define how many seconds it takes the camera to get from Point A to Point B via zooming/panning.

2. Description of effect:

2a. The camera starts at Point A. It starts out virtually stationary, not zooming/panning for the first couple of frames.

2b. *** The camera's zoom/pan GRADUALLY speeds up until it is at the rate it needs to go. ***

2c. The camera zooms/pans at the rate it needs to go to get to Point B.

2d. *** As the camera's zooming/panning approaches its destination, it GRADUALLY slows to a stop. ***

2e. The camera ends at Point B.

When I was a student and had access to iMovie back in 2008 or so, I recall that the user interface contained a feature called the "Ken Burns effect" that matched this definition, ***including 2b and 2d***. The feature was very easy to use, in that you just had to set points A and B and the time span for zooming/panning, and that was it.

I purchased the Adobe CS5 suite back in 2009 or so. I have looked at the lynda.com tutorials for both Premiere Pro CS5 and After Effects CS5. I hope I have not missed something, but as I understand it, the way Adobe CS5 works is, you can do everything above very easily ***except for 2b and 2d***. For 2b and 2d, depending on how gradually you want the zoom to begin/end, you may need to define a potentially infinite number of points where the speed of the camera changes. If the CS5 answer is "do a potentially infinite amount of work," that does not help me.

Am I right that Adobe CS5 is unable to help me here?

Can you tell me what my best option is?

a. My preferred software is Adobe Premiere Pro CS5. I would like to know if I am right or wrong that Premiere Pro CS5 is unable to do 2b and 2d without a potentially infinite amount of futzing around.

b. If my goal is not feasible with Premiere Pro CS5 but is feasible with After Effects CS5 or some other part of CS5, that would also work for me. If this is true, I would appreciate details explaining how to do this without a potentially infinite amount of futzing around in order to achieve 2b and 2d.

c. If neither of the above are realistic, and if therefore my best option is to go to fiverr.com and hire someone with iMovie to do what I need to be done, please tell me that.

If CS5 can't do this, but future versions of the Adobe creative suite can, then I would be curious to know this, but that is just academic information for me that does not help me with my current project. If you want to actually help answer the question I'm asking, please tell me what my best option is: a, b, or c.

Thanks,

Greg

[Roei Tzoref · Accepted solution]

here's how to do Ken Burns aka motion control moves in Ae with a virtual camera:

Pan And Zoom Along A Curve

here's a tutorial demonstrating how to do this in Ae with anchor point + scale:

Working with motion control moves

Idea corner one: Alternative camera movements

this is how it could be done in premiere with the same principle of scale+anchor point:

Photo Motion Effects (Ken Burns Effect) in Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 on Vimeo

The advantage in Ae vs. Premiere is that in Ae you can use the layer window to see your motion path and keyframes in context of you whole image. but for simple moves, Premiere would suit just fine.

[Conrad C]

gregboet  wrote

...I hope I have not missed something, but as I understand it, the way Adobe CS5 works is, you can do everything above very easily ***except for 2b and 2d***. For 2b and 2d, depending on how gradually you want the zoom to begin/end, you may need to define a potentially infinite number of points where the speed of the camera changes. If the CS5 answer is "do a potentially infinite amount of work," that does not help me. Am I right that Adobe CS5 is unable to help me here?

No, it's much easier than that. It would never involve a "potentially infinite amount of work."

You can do what you want in 2b and 2d quickly and simply in Premiere and After Effects. The feature is called "easing." In both programs you would set up Point A and B as different Position values at the start and end times, and doing so creates keyframes at both points in time. Each of those Position keyframes comes with many options as to how you want to control the animation from A to B.

In Premiere Pro, the one-step way is to right-click a Position keyframe you created and choose Temporal Interpolation > Ease Out. At point B you would do the same thing but choose Ease In. This adds an automatic acceleration (Ease Out) and automatic deceleration to a stop (Ease In). If that looks good, you're done.

It's similar in After Effects; you'd right-click a keyframe and choose Keyframe Assistant > Easy Ease Out or In.

If you aren't happy with the acceleration/deceleration rates of the one-step easing, in both Premiere Pro and After Effects you can expand the display to show the graphical acceleration curves, which you can then manipulate by dragging handles. In this way you can freely adjust the rate of speed to whatever you want at any point in time. The fact that you have these curves is why you'll never have to add a "potentially infinite number of points." All you need are two points, A and B, and the one acceleration curve between them which you can shape however you like.

In short, what you want can be a simple one-step adjustment in Premiere and After Effects, but if you want more, the level and precision of speed control that you have in these programs goes well beyond what iMovie can do.

[Ann Bens]

You can even refine the ease in/out with the keframes bezier handles in the Program Monitor.

Page 268 of the Pr. CS5 pdf help file.

[Roei Tzoref]

ou can even refine the ease in/out with the keframes bezier handles in the Program Monitor.

Page 268 of the Pr. CS5 pdf help file.

I tried looking for an explanation in the document you refereed to but 268 of the PDF but these pages are about the titler: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/premierepro/cs/using/premierepro_cs5_help.pdf#page=268

I did find a mention in page 430 of the pdf (or 425 of the actual pages) here: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/premierepro/cs/using/premierepro_cs5_help.pdf#page=430

"You can manipulate Bezier handles in either a Timeline panel, the Effect Controls panel, or the Program Monitor."

if you meant spatially, if it's anchor point - I can't see how it can be done in the program monitor since it's the result of the composite and the anchor point will always be centered. if it's temporarily, still a problem since you cant see the keyframes if it's temporal keyframes (like scale) and if it's anchor point - all the keyframes will be in the same location. in After Effects you have an additional window called the layer window where you can see the keyframes in context of the layer itself. then the anchor point bezier handles could be manipulated. this is demonstrated in this tutorial and refereed as "working side by side". I prefer to work this way too but with a virtual camera instead of anchor point like it is demonstrated in here.

if it's spatially for position, yes you can adjust the bezier curves in the program monitor, but panning and zooming using position+scale instead of anchor point+scale could get you in trouble if it's more then just 2 keyframes and a large image/video pan. (this is demonstrated in the first part of the tutorial and referred as "the wrong approach")

[gregboet]

Roei, Conrad, and Ann, thanks very much for the reply. I'm relieved to know the feature does exist and am grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

I guess I overreacted when the tutorials I was using didn't tell me about the feature I needed.

I did try googling to find the answer to this one, but I think you can see how this is sort of a hard topic to google.

Thanks again,

Greg