9 Replies Latest reply on Jul 6, 2010 6:38 PM by shooternz


    shooternz Level 6

      Wondered why the "BLUR" Effects (ie Camera, Fast, Gaussian..) have so little range to work with.


      In the instance that I generally use them...blurring BGs behind keyed FGs to simulate DOF..the effective range I can use  is between 1-4% maximum.


      Anything thing beyond this range is so extreme, its virtually unuseable.


      Be nice if they were a little more logarithmic.

        • 1. Re: Blurs
          Ann Bens Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          I am not quite sure what you mean but do you use the scrubber on the values.



          • 2. Re: Blurs
            the_wine_snob Level 9



            As Ann points out, you can scrub (I think that there is an "official Adobe name" for that operation?), so you are not limited in any way. The sliders only go to 100%, but the numeric field can go beyond - way beyond. It's the same for those fields in many Effects. I seldom use the sliders, unless I need < 100%, and just want to "eyeball" it. Otherwise, I type in the exact numeric adjustment, or "scrub."


            Good luck,



            • 3. Re: Blurs
              Colin Brougham Level 6

              I think Craig's point is that, once you've gone past a small percentage of added blur, the effect is way too strong for any practical use. I agree with this: if you're trying to simulate a shallow DOF with a background plate on a chromakey shot, it looks completely fake far too quickly. What Craig is suggesting is that the amount of added blur with each additional "tick" should be of a smaller increment, so that there is more control over the effect before the image turns to mush.


              The blur filters/effects in AE might offer some more control, and the ability to more closely replicate the blur/defocus caused by a camera lens at a shallow DOF. I gave up trying to simulate this effect in post, personally; instead, I shoot background plates out-of-focus at various focal lengths. It might not give you as much flexibility in post, but the look is far more realistic.

              • 4. Re: Blurs
                the_wine_snob Level 9

                I concede that point, hence his reference to log increments.


                Sorry, I just missed that. Have not tried, but can one type in decimals, i.e. 57.3, like with font sizes?


                [Edit] Yes. While not log, it does bring settings down to decimals.


                Off to try,




                Message was edited by: Bill Hunt - Added [Edit]

                • 5. Re: Blurs
                  Todd_Kopriva Level 8

                  > you can scrub (I think that there is an "official Adobe name" for that operation?)



                  We use the verb 'drag', as in 'change the blur amount by dragging the Blur Amount value...'.


                  We try to keep 'scrub' for the action of previewing by dragging the CTI.


                  But it would be an understatement to say that not everyone is consistent in such usage. [*shrugs shoulders*]

                  • 6. Re: Blurs
                    the_wine_snob Level 9



                    Thank you. I was thinking that Curt Wrigley (Adobe CiaB Premiere) had used a different term, but cannot find it. Maybe it was some other author for an Adobe product? Besides, coming down, from up on high, I will obviously defer. I will also refrain from using "scrub" for this operation, as I see your application of it, and understand the difference. Makes perfect sense.






                    [Edit] I try mightily to use the "approved" Adobe terms, so that a user will not be confused, and even try to capitalize terms that one would find in an index, like "Project."


                    Message was edited by: Bill Hunt - Added [Edit]

                    • 7. Re: Blurs
                      shooternz Level 6

                      I did mean what Colin deducted.


                      Unfortunately its not always possible to shoot the BGs that I use exactly as I require them.  Over a period of time I built some virtual lLocations (sets) from some component images and photographs.  I have always struggled to get the precision in the DOF due to the Blur Effects.  I do get close though.


                      Became more aware of the blur shortcoming due to the fact I am now working these composite builds in CS5 with UltraKey (fabulous) and realtime (MPE) ...awesome.  This means the subtleties are right in my face as I work on the edit.


                      Previously I comped these up in AEFX.


                      I would prefer the 1-25% range to be a lot more logarithmic. ie 1% imperceptible blur, 15% would be ,very subtle blur and then progress from there thru...

                      • 8. Re: Blurs
                        Colin Brougham Level 6

                        I realize it's not the convenience of having it right within Premiere, but have you experimented with the various blur filters in Photoshop? Most of the blurs will work as Smart Filters, so that you can go back and tweak the effect without having to undo/redo. This would work not only for still images or photos, but with most video formats as well.


                        I'll have to try this myself--though for my current project I already shot my blurry backgrounds...

                        • 9. Re: Blurs
                          shooternz Level 6

                          Its an idea but of course one would lose the interactivity (preview as you go) and the realtime

                          advantage of editing in CS5 with MPE.


                          Slightly cumbersome but maybe effective if all else fails.