The answer to question one is "That's one way to do it. It's a prety good one."
Question two, if it were my project I wouldn't nest one AE project inside another because AE doesn't work that way. Each project is unique. Comps nested inside comps pass references but imported AE projects just bring in all of the data. The usual procedure is to create your shots or short sequences in AE and then edit them and finalize the timing, sound and final production in a NLE like Premiere Pro or Final Cut.
Ok, thanks on that Question one - that seemed to work, so i must have gotten the right idea somewhere
and on Question TWO, i probably didn't explain myself - i was referring to the AE project being IN a PPro
project., although i had run across some reference to nested projects in AE, but that's not what i meant. Part
of the issue, especially as a beginner, is the terms like "project" being somewhat ambiguous, as far as where you are
in the process of creation. At any rate, importing the AE project into PPro is the next step, I THINK, although i have
seen reference to "render intermediate" etc etc, and am not sure exactly where/if that fits in - is it a "final" step in AE
before importing the project ("composition"?) into PP? The "Classrrom in a Book" unfortunately isn't interactive, nor
are the numerous tutorials. Maybe I'll just go as fast i can til i crash and then see where i went off the road....
For most of my work I render my AE projects to a production codec. The projects have 'handles' or extra frames at the head and tail to allow editing. You can use Dynamic link if you like, but for larger projects I find that it slows things down too much. The choice is yours.
I'm afraid, at this point in my training and experience, "render my AE projects to as production codec" is beyond my understanding
I do understand the "Handles", and would find that useful. My experience with dynamic link involved warp stabilizer and some
unsuuccesful work there. I think what you're referring to is what i thought was the "render intermediate" process. I know my
source footage is 1920X1280 @29.97, if that helps...
A production codec is a codec that is lossless (or close to it). That way you aren't introducing compression artifacts in the middle of your workflow. You render a video out of AE in a production codec which you then bring into Premiere for the finished edit. Once you're done in Premiere, you render out your delivery codec which is what the client will use for easy playback. The reason the client doesn't get a production codec is that the file size and data rate is HUGE compared to your nicely compressed delivery codec.
Popular production codecs (also known as intermediate codecs) include Quicktime with the PNG codec (technically lossless at highest quality settings), Quicktime with the Photo JPEG codec (not technically lossless, but probably close enough unless you were planning to key the footage later), Avid's DNxHD codec (close to lossless), and Cineform codec (I think this is closer to lossless than the DNxHD codec, but I haven't done full enough testing to be sure).
As I said, NOOB here - i think i get the "lossless" part, and haven't begun to worry about introducing compression artifacts - at this point, i simply render the AE project as a MOV file, and import it in from Premiere. Gets the job done, so far, so i guess that's all i need to know for now. My "client" is youtube, and they haven't fussed about much, (yet).
Another issue, however, is causing some head-scratching - per my OP, the "dots" I use are shape layers with added ellipses with fills, and i seem to have a problem with keeping the elipses the same size, even though i "size" them - they don't always end up the same size, after i position them over my graphic, which is a guitar neck grid. I have gotten down to things size "55", and then next "dot" needing to be "71" in order to maintain the same visual appearance. Is this perhaps some sort of optical illusion caused by the grid? The overall effect is that of emphasizing some of the "dots"(musical tones) more than others, which is not the intent. I've spent a lot of time playing with this, including parenting the "next" dot with the previous, or with the very first in the series ( often a dozen or more). The texts i've seen so far indicate that the child layer will duplicate everything in the parent but opacity - maybe size is also not included? Or do i need to rearrange something?
Thanks for you help on this...
Your explanation for how you've created your dots isn't explicit enough. Could we have some screenshots? Also, if you're wondering if it's an optical illusion caused by the underlying image, turn off the underlying image and check it.
It tried making sure my workflow included the sizing in the same order repeatedly - although it's not obvious why that would make a difference. It would be great if
somehow i could just generate say 5 dots at a time, and simply drop them where they need to be - there is also the issue of the "moving" dot (the blue one), which needs
to slide back and forth (up and down on the grid) to indicate a string bend and release. The also fade in and out of view when being sounded.
Like I said - and i guess i though the "parentin" think would allow me to just copy a previous layer and tweak the position for the ellipse, and not have to set the next dot up on both x an y axis. I hope i'm saying what i think i am...
It would be great if somehow i could just generate say 5 dots at a time, and simply drop them where they need to be
You should be able to do that. I'm really not sure why you can't. There must be something screwy in your settings somewhere that I'm not seeing.
Parenting would only be needed if you wanted to animate things moving together. From the way you're talking I don't think that's needed.