This content has been marked as final. Show 15 replies
When I use secondary rotation via the nesting solution, I am alarmed to find that I lose any picture area where the primary rotation is off screen. No matter how well I optimize the primary rotation, I cannot get all of my picture area on screen.
This is only ONE reason why nesting is an atrocious solution for the common need for secondary rotation.
Huh? What are you getting at? What you describe sounds like a textbook application of parenting. Does that not resolve your issues? You know, you could have a hundred pivot points this way.... Or you could use the good old Transform effect.... Apart from that your comment is rather vague in what you even mean by "secondary" rotation and you are also not giving credit to the fact that by pre-composing you control the transform order just as much as you control the render order. It's certainly not an issue on the engineering level, it's more a matter of how you employ the wrong methodology, I'd say. if you wanan file a feature request, regardles, just go ahead:
Just for the life of it make sure it is written in a language people understand as opposed to your cryptic post here (no offense). Engineers are geeks/ nerds, but not telepaths.
Can you resolve your issue by either expanding the size of your precomp, or using Collapse Transformations?
Rather than precomposing, can you allign a null to your layer, and parent the layer to the null? Null gets primary rotations/transforms, layer gets secondary.
> I'd have thought, after successive generations of AFTER EFFECTS that it would have occurred to Adobes developers that it would be much more intuitive to offer secondary rotation within a composition than to require nesting a composition inside a secondary one.
It's never occurred to me and I've been using AE since it was CoSA.
The problem with feature suggestions is one person's obvious need is another's silly affectation.
I want all the stuff in AE that's broken, missing, or buggy replaced and fixed before anything new gets added.
"The problem with feature suggestions is one person's obvious need is another's silly affectation."
True... Funny you should mention that.
"I want all the stuff in AE that's broken, missing, or buggy replaced and fixed before anything new gets added."
That's stuff for service packs. I'd rather use my workarounds for known problems and get new features. You so silly, David. :)
>I want all the stuff in AE that's broken, missing, or buggy replaced
>and fixed before anything new gets added.
Weren't we done with this discussion (or so I thought)... ;-) It as it stands: Some things will never be "fixed" and new features will come, no matter what...
At least Adobe have that interesting beta lab release of new software.
If only Apple did that with Motion and Final Cut, the suer community could save them millions in wasted development expenses.
I suspect that understanding what I'm getting at is less a question of my clarity than it is a need for an good example:
I routinely stabilize just a segment of a longer shot from a handheld camera. If doing so requires fixing rotation as well as standard stabilization, the segment I am working on will end up fixed throughout its entire length at what it was in rotation at Frame One of the segment. However, at the segment's end point where my repaired shot portion meets up with the resuming longer shot, the rotation does not match where my shot resumes.
Now surely you would agree that the most obvious and intuitive solution for so common an operation is to use a secondary rotation. The Primary Rotation is taken up by all those key frames that have fixed the entire shot portion to whatever the setting was in the shot segment's first frame. What we need as a secondary shot rotation is the ability to keyframe frame one of the shot portion and then to keyframe the LAST frame of the shot segment to seamlessly match the resuming shot.
I have indeed nested the composition, in order to do this. But apart from the inelegance and counterintuitive nature of this action, the unpleasant side effect of this action is that the portions of my picture area that are offscreen in the primary rotation are lost when the nested rotation is set to seamlessly join up with the first frame following the portion being processed.
What I describe is a textbook case of the maddening necessity of operating counter-intuitively to a programmer's idea of a solution that fails to consider real world needs.
It may work on paper, but the result compromises the artist's intention.
I reiterate: nulls are your friend! Parent to null and do whatever rotations on the null.
"I reiterate: nulls are your friend! Parent to null and do whatever rotations on the null. "
I appreciate the help, I really do. But once again, this way of doing it is clumsy and counter-intuitive when a secondary processing line (such as we find in at least one Adobe color correction processing filter) allows you to do your entire operation at once without the tortured practice of making a new composition, nesting it, then having to compensate for whatever undesirable effects this operation introduces.
HOWEVER. I guess for the time being I'll have to "make NULL my friend." That said, he sleeps in the doghouse.
Norman, I think you misunderstand. No precomping required. Just create a new Null, parent the layer to it and you're done. The Null is now your "secondary rotation" tool.
If that is how NULL works, I guess it really will become my new best friend. Thanks!
Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, you might want to copy/paste all the primary transforms onto the null layer and leave your secondary rotations on the actual layer. Then you can adjust the pivot/anchor point..
Another technique that you may not be aware of - if you just wanted to add rotation values together (and not adjust a pivot point for the other rotations), you could add an expression sliders. I usually would copy the rotation keyframes onto 1 slider, and have another slider for secondary values. That way you don't have to worry about expressions and keyframe values together. Then you just need a simple expression on rotation, like rot1 = (pick slider1); rot2 = (pick slider2); rot1+rot2;