How did you create the gradient? I recommend doing this in Photoshop and bringing the PSD into PP.
Hi Lee, did you ever get an answer to this, I'm having the same problem - the gradient is meant to fill the full screen width but in fact only transitions across the middle 5 or 10%. Not what I call a linear gradient.
I'm on cs5.5 on OSX
The linear gradient for the lower third I think I understand. Like this:
But Frank, what is it you want to do? Fill the title with a gradient? If so, the default looks like this:
But you will notice that if you spread out the little boxes I have arrows pointing to in the image below, it spreads out over the screen much better.
It still might not spread out enough to suit you, but there are only so many shades of gray. Photoshop certainly does a better job.
EDIT: OK, I figured out the problem. Make the rectangle in the title as big as you possibly can. That makes the gradient as good as the one in Photoshop. When I made the Photoshop gradient I drew the line starting well above and ending well below the visible image. So it occurred to me to do basically the same thing in Premiere Pro.
I have always personally prefered using the RAMP effect in the timeline instead of using the titler for gradients. I just like using number controls better. However whenever I want to make really nice still based graphics I use Photoshop, if I need nice animated graphics I use AE, if I need to lay lower-thirds/Bumps/Cut footage and title stuff Premiere is the way to go.
Yes, ramp is even easier because you can extend it way above the frame and way below the frame to get it really smooth. I have used it for mattes, but never really thought about it for this thread.
I find the title maker incredible versatile. More and more I find myself creating 3 - 5 track title sequences rather than building analogous compositions in AE with PS files. I'm happy with the quality of the results I'm getting, and with the ease of Title Maker coupled with MPE RT playback, the workflow is so quick.
This thread shows a good demo of integrating the Title Maker in the editing workflow for more than simple titling.
I use premiere to animate certain things, but for anything in 3d camera space I use AE. Which I've always thought it would be cool if they added a 3d camera space/camera option for premiere. I do agree though Premiere is much faster, it just can't do certain things. Premiere also has no way that I know of to do auto tracking with keyframes when dealing with mask, you can't keyframe anchor points the same way in premiere either though but that is also somewhat tied into the 3d space point I already made. Also the text animation presets in AE are much more complex than Premiere.
I do agree though you can do a lot in Premiere, it's just limited in certain ways. For quite a long time though I used to avoid AE at all costs, however once I got comfortable using it things changed and it also made me realize all the limits of Premiere when it comes to animating things. You get way more control over your keyframes in AE, and also keyframming is much easier in AE as well. You can also keyframe multiple clips all at the same time with ease, In premiere you'd have to nest everything together to even get close to do doing that and in most complex animations you don't want every object moving exactly together. Or you're forced to copy and paste keyframes on several clips which is somewhat annoying and doesn't always produce desired results. I also like the ability to hit a single key and hide everything except the things you actually already have keyframes on and hide everything else. In premiere no matter what you do it shows every category even if you're not keyframming in it.
AE also allows you to achieve fake DOF on filmed footage. It also allows you to use lights in 3d space which can't be done in Premiere. Anyways though I'm sure you're aware of the differences, I just wanted to explain more clearly what I meant.The light sweep in AE is great to use as well, so is the light rays effect when writing text on the screen. It really adds to your animations quite nicely. (Depending)
Like I said earlier though it all comes down to what you're trying to do I always look at it like this, whatever is the quickest/most effective tool for my goal is what I go with at the time. The way it generally works out for me is when I'm editing a promo and doing the graphic work for the promo I use AE, when I'm editing full shows I use Premiere. So 90 percent of my editing time per week is spent in Premiere Pro.
Please file a bugreport.
I have simular problems with the gradient in the Titler.
You might want to check if the problem stays the same when MPE is on and off.
I certainly agree with that you can't accomplish the same animations in AP as you can in AE. After Effects is a vast program with a wide array of tools for motion graphics. The examples that you gave show some of the differences. Where my workflow has changed a bit since the introduction of AP CS5 is staying inside AP for less ambitious multilayered composting, using Text, Vignettes created in AP's title maker and PS, Track Mattes, RT blurs, Adjustment Layers, Motion and Basic 3d. Because all of the items are accelerated with hardware MPE, it has been advantageous to get a better grip on these tools to push my skill set a bit.
I had a similar experience with AP's sound fx tools. I used to go out to Audition or Sound Forge to do most any audio adjustments. Sometime after Adobe started bundling the WORST AUDIO EDITING PROGRAM EVER(WAEPE), or Soundbooth I think they called it, out of frustration I started experimenting more with AP's sound fx. What I found was that AP's built in RT sound fx were so much better than WAEPE. Unlike WAEPE, it actually had adjustable controls and employed industry standard terms and concepts. Now I only go to Audition to work on seriously bad audio, most sweetening and adjustments are done in RT in Premiere. Premiere's Dynamics audio filter is a fantastic tool that I use on pretty much every voice track. It has a thoroughly adjustable compressor with volume boost, and a rock solid fully adjustable limiter that has a soft ceiling. You could never get that much control with WAEPE, which I think had a "Fix Audio" button, or "Voice" button. Seems that there was also a "Duh, Make Sound Duhh.. More Better" function, but the memory is vague and tinted red. WAEPE was the audio software equivalent of iMovie. I wonder if they made it for Mac users?
As for the topic at hand, I don't think that I am having the same issue with Gradients using CS5.5.
I've set three different spread values for the rectangles, call it centered, mid, and wide.
Are you getting different results?