Guys, I don’t want to believe that I’m only one person who see “ease in/out” in “Close Your Eyes Typography” project. Is it my imagination? I’m not saying that you need to select all keyframes and press F9. Go to Graph Editor and play with curves… I do not know how this term sounds in English… “springy” motion?.. When an object moves down and then moves back a little bit. Look close at “Close Your Eyes…”, it’s full off such things.
I just don’t want to believe that you don’t see the difference between animation in “Close Your Eyes…” and 3Ddym’s project.
@DOGMotion. Of course there’s good animation and bad animation, but keyframes being eased or not is irrelevant to it. This is what I was saying before. From a purely aesthetic / stylistic point of view, there is ample reason to use uneased keyframes and it’s futile to assert that uneased keyframes are fundamentally indicative of bad animation.
Think of electro-bands that use a very reduced sound – stripped down 8-bit sounding synthesisers. Sure they could use a lush string section swelling in the background, but they choose not to… they prefer the reduced sound – and it sounds cool. Animation that uses reduced, mechanical movement that bumps to a stop has a lot going for it in the right context too. To be honest, animations that put a gratuitous and lazily animated bounce on every element for no reason in particular are far more irritating to my eye. They just show no restraint.
@3Ddym – your next step is to go to support and request that the reviewer who reviewed your project give you an unambiguous reason for why it was rejected – I think you’re owed that. Let us know how it goes.
Some bad thigs that I noticed:
1. Bad animation, no “easy in”, “easy out”, you just set two keyframes and forget about it.
2. The video fits to the music perfectly, but it’s useless for buyers. Texts are running too fast. There is no chance to read it, only if you hear voice over.
1. The fact that keyframes are not eased does not make them “bad” animation.
2. That depends how the project is built. If you can easily adapt it to your own music, it’s great.
I think that this is a good piece of work, even a very good piece of work by general Videohive standards. The animation is lively, dynamic and interesting. It’s well laid out. It grows and varies whilst keeping a homogenous style. It’s simple and although it sits clearly inside a kinetic type genre, it’s a well executed example of it. I can’t imagine that this was rejected on quality grounds. Maybe there’s a technical issue or copyright issue. Is the track free to use?
There have been a few quality things rejected in the past that didn’t deserve it. Videohive’s top selling item by Maupa was initially rejected because there were too many 3D logos on the Hive. Bad decision. He fought for it and got it through. It has since gone on to earn something like $60,000 dollars (and counting).
Typo stuff is rather difficult. Expressions give you pretty much no access. You can change the source text with expressions, but that’s about it (and there are a couple of bugs in there).
Scripting gives you some more access, but not loads. I actually haven’t checked the latest scripting updates to see if there’s more access to layout stuff. I’m pretty certain you can change the font using scripting, but there’s a lot of layout stuff inside a text block at an individual character level.
For Me it is definetly “JAWS” because I used to watch it when I was a kid and funny enough I still do. I really love the characters including the “Shark” their dialogue and the sudden surprises coming at you during the movie. (Maybe not anymore with today’s standards but still great for me) A fun movie to watch. And of course I just love Sharks.
Jaws is brilliant, but I’m going to go for Coppola’s “The Conversation”, a brooding, slowly unfolding thriller from 1974. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conversation
Hi, how do you deal with expressions and different languages of After Effects? Do you know some tricks to avoid that error? I made a search on internet and found this sript on aescripts, does anybody uses? It seams like a good solution. http://aescripts.com/expressionuniversalizer/
You can either use universalizer or you can write universal expressions directly.https://vimeo.com/19484488
More details… – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p
Disadvantages of 24p
In general, 24 frames-per-second video has more trouble with fast camera motion than other, higher frame rates, sometimes showing a “strobe” or “choppy” motion, just like 24 frame/s film will if shot as if it is video, without slower camera panning & zooming motion. It is therefore not well-suited for programming requiring spontaneous camera action or “reality” camerawork.
Sure about that? Ask Mr. Spielberg.
But point taken, for live sport or something like that interlaced NTSC or PAL is ideal. What you use depends on the context…
From the Wikipedia article you linked, I think Charles Poynton has the last word, though:
24p compared to 30p
As Charles Poynton explains, the 24 frame/s rate is not just a cinema standard, it is also “uniquely suited to conversion to both 50 Hz systems (through 2:2 pulldown, 4% fast) and 59.94 Hz systems (through 2:3 pulldown, 0.1% slow). Choosing a rate other than 24 frame/s would compromise this widely accepted method of conversion, and make it difficult for film producers to access international markets”.
all of us here in the USA use/prefer 29.97/30fps 23/25 looks too choppy in comparison on our monitors
All of us? Everyone in Hollywood prefers 24fps of course… oh and the makers of all those big HBO TV productions also shoot at 24fps. I’d bet that most high end commercials are also shot at 24fps in the US too. There are some feature films now being shot with a much higher frame rate, but they seem to have been met with mixed feeling. It’s hard to say whether the association of higher frame rates with cheap production is learned or if there’s something inherent.
But the rule is that 24fps tends to look classy like a feature film, whereas 29.97fps and any interlaced format (i.e. NTSC 59.94Hz or PAL 50Hz) tends to feel rather cheaper like video.
When feature films are screened on US TV, they use a 3:2 pulldown and disperse 23.98 frames of film per second over 59.94 fields of TV per second using an uneven cadence (some frames cover three fields, others cover only two – as a US viewer you’ll be used to it and won’t generally notice, unless there’s a very smooth, fast camera move)
The transfer of film to PAL is rather higher quality in that one picture covers exactly two fields (running at 50 fields per second) and the picture cadence is completely accurate. However, since 25 doesn’t divide into 24, films transfered to PAL are generally 4% shorter.
The varying frame rates were originally based on the frequency of the alternating current – that’s why Euro-TV runs at 50Hz and US TV close to 60Hz. NTSC reduced the field frequency to 59.94Hz later with the introduction of colour, to stop the color carrier signal interfering with the sound carrier signal and making interference patterns on the screen.
In summation: NTSC 29.97fps is for the US, Japan, most of south America. PAL 25fps is for Europe, India, China, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay. Film 24fps is universal.
TV Standard by country (SECAM is a 25fps 576/1080 line system very similar to PAL)
(incidentally, 23.98 is the frame rate that film is slowed down to to exactly fit the frame rate of NTSC TV using a 3:2 pulldown – any editor needing to insert 24fps material into an NTSC timeline will know how to deal with this, so best to use a nice round 24 and not scare anyone off! )