3 Replies Latest reply on Nov 21, 2014 11:10 AM by dissidently

    Mask Path is inherently inaccurate?

    dissidently Level 2

      Is it true to say that Mask Path is an inherent inaccurate and imprecise tool?


      By comparison, just about all other vector based apps treat paths as though they're SOMETHING with the ability to absolutely instruct their scale.


      It seems that once a Mask Path is created in AE that it's essentially always that size it was created at, other than the (imprecise) use of the Free Transform tool.


      Is this basically right?


      If not, how is it possible to treat a Mask Path with absolute precision when scaling it?


      Or, how is possible to do the same with a Shape Path that's being treated as the PickWhip master Shape for the Mask Path?  I can't seem to have changes of scale made to the Shape Path propagated down through the PickWhip connection because the Shape Path is itself a "thing" and any and all ACCURATE use of the built in scale features (not free transform) mean that the effect of scale is applied after the existence of the Path as a Shape, or as a Mask.


      Basically, I get the feeling, Mask Paths should be created at their ideal size for each composition outside of AE, and then imported, and that this is the only accurate way of getting desired results. And destructive, in the sense that any modifications then require resizing in an external app and then re-importing.

        • 1. Re: Mask Path is inherently inaccurate?
          bogiesan Level 4


          Except for the exceptions. Like mine. I don't need the functionality you're describing.

          Just my personal story: I've been using mask shapes in AE since they were invented. The function has been easy for me and they perform exactly as I expect them to, even though today's AE is a million times more complicated than Ye Olde CoSA. I have Illustrator artists in my shop who watch me work and they say they don't understand how AE's mask works or how I can possibly use the tools. Can't confirm or deny. I don't use Illustrator. I don't really care that it might work differently than AE's vector drawing tools.

          Besides, I don't trust any of my coworkers' opinions about these things; they're not video people. They're, you know, graphics people.

          • 2. Re: Mask Path is inherently inaccurate?
            dissidently Level 2

            And now we live in a world with Motion Graphics.

            Done, largely by default, within AE, an app that's inherently designed for compositing video, as you rightly point out.


            The masks and paths of AE never considered the intrinsic nature of motion graphics, so much like Flash before it, much motion graphics creativity is restricted by the path tools of AE.


            There's an opportunity there, somewhere. Apple's Motion has dropped the ball, some of the worst "preview" non-functionality known to man. Almost unworkable.


            At this point in time, the best place to do 2D motion graphics is within a 3D animation app like Maya, Max or C4D.

            • 3. Re: Mask Path is inherently inaccurate?
              dissidently Level 2

              Just one more thing.


              Thanks for the admission that Masks and Paths aren't all that we might assume they would be in 2014.


              That's a bit of a breakthrough and a relief. I thought I was searching for functionality that I couldn't find, that must be there... for the longest time.


              It seems Adobe has an issue with admitting to the (many) limitations of their software.