Newb - interpolation of keyframes to ZOOM in smoothly?

I'm new to After Effects and have CS3.
What I simply want to do is zoom in some footage from 100% to 150%.
But I don't want the motion to be linear, I want it to be smooth and ramping up and ramping down so it doesn't look jerky.
Lets say I have my two keyframes, one on frame 01 that says "scale 100%"  and the other a second later that says "scale 150%".    The zoom movement is linear.
How do I change it to what I want ?

See this help section on keyframe interpolation. Should be also valid for CS3.
If you notice any differences in the interface, try Google search.

Similar Messages

  • Keyframing Pan/Zoom - How To Simplify?

    I want to do a simple effect where I start the clip centered at 100% and zoom to off-center at 120%. So basically, keyframing size and position over the clip's length.
    In order to do that, I do the following steps:
    1. Select the clip in the timeline
    2. Ensure the CTI is at the beginning of the clip
    3. Select the effects panel
    4. Open the position section and set a keyframe for size and another keyframe for position
    5. Go back to the clip in the timeline and hit "End" to ensure CTI is at the end of the clip (the "End" key doesn't move the CTI in the keyframing panel)
    6. Go back to the effects panel
    7. Set a keyframe for size and another keyframe for position
    8. In the monitor, use the frame to expand and move the frame as needed.Alternatively, type in a number in the zoom percentage field.
    That's a lot of freaking steps to do something that I do a lot!
    Ideally, I'd like to at least be able to click a single key and have PP automatically:
    Create a zoom keyframe at the first frame of the selected clip
    Create a zoom keyframe at the last frame of the selected clip
    Create a position keyframe at first frame of the selected clip
    Create a position keyframe at the last frame of the selected clip.
    Does anybody know of an easy way to do this? I would think keyframed Pan/Zoom has to be one of the most common effects, and I can't believe it takes so much mousing and clicking to do such a simple effect!
    I have a gaming keyboard, so I could program some keystroke macros, but I don't think I could program switching between panels so any solution would have to be entirely keyboard-based.
    TIA!

    That would definitely help, since it would avoid several trips back-and-forth between clip and effects.
    I have noticed that thing where the keyframing seems to go one frame past the end. Was never clear on what the deal was with that - like do you need to go back 1 frame or not, and if so, is that a feature or a bug? I've always gone back 1 frame, too.
    Something I found that looks promising is here.
    I wonder if I can select a clip and put in the 4 keyframes (Position @ start; Position @ end - 1; Scale @ start; Scale @ end - 1) and then save "Motion" as a Preset with Type = Scale?
    Then I could just apply that saved Preset Effect to any clip and automatically have the 4 keyframes added?
    ETA: Another site here seems to say that will work. They call it the "Ken Burns effect".

  • Keyframe interpolation/wobbly keyframe issue

    I was recently doing a test video with Trapcode Form. It was fairly simple, the particles behave in a few different ways with a camera getting closer and moving along the particles. However, whenever I try to keyframe the camera movements (either directly using the camera, or parenting it to a Null), I run into a few issues that I can't get rid of. For one, as soon as I activate a keyframe for one aspect of the camera or Null, when I change that aspect, the Preview image doesn't update. The camera will remain as it was, though occasionally it will update when I try to RAM-Preview. If it does work, and I try anything more than just two keyframes, the keyframes don't behave correctly at all. They get the infamous wobble and the camera changes sporadically where there aren't any keyframes. This only applies to Cameras and layers that I parent Cameras to. I don't have the same issue with other 3d layers. I have tried changing the keyframe spatial interpolation to Linear on all the keyframes, but they are either already linear, or it doesn't fix the problem. In my preferences, I even set my default spatial interpolation to Linear, yet still to no avail. I have restarted the project from scratch and still have the same problem every time. I posted this on CreativeCOW and one guy offered to open/render my file to see if it worked on his PC. He said he didn't have any issues, and that it rendered just fine. Any ideas of what the issue could be? I've been searching everywhere and can't seem to find anyone with a similar problem.

    First, turn off disk cache. Second, purge everything. Third, restart AE. If that doesn't fix it reboot.
    This almost certainly is a cached frames problem and not in some weirdness with the camera movement. If you look at the camera in another view you'll see that the camera is moving properly along it's path.

  • Hold interpolation & square keyframes

    Third keyframe should be square shaped. Am I wrong? Why AFX only shows square-shaped KF after adding a keyframe to a previous hold interpolation? Since between second and third keyframes there's no linear interpolation, shouldn't the third KF automatically change to square?
    Thanks.

    I can see how that might be confusing. The shape of the keyframe icon is determined at the time that the keyframe is created; changing one keyframe's interploation type doesn't change the icon of the ones around it. If you think that it should, that would make a good feature request.

  • Newbie, saving one keyframe as a swf

    Hi all,
    I'm sure this is a newbie kind of question.
    I've inherited a flash project @ work and I need to save a keyframe as it's own .swf file, but I don't recall how to get Flash to do just that.
    The flash .fla file seems to hold multiple keyframes that need to be saved as their own .swf files, which are referred to in the Actionscript by name.
    I've figured out the editing, but this business of keyframes i've forgotten how to manipulate.
    thanks guys

    Thanks!
    However, looking around the web, it seems the keyframes in my fla are actually individual Scenes. Apparently I can test a scene and save the little swf, it's supposed to create.
    But when I set the playhead on the Scene I want to test, and select Test Scene, it starts from frame zero instead.
    Now the question is, how do I get Flash to run a particular scene?

  • Easy way to set interpolation on keyframes?

    Say you have text flying in using scale and you want it to start out fast and slow down. When you go in and select Bezier for interpolation, you have to set the curve for the x,y,and z parameters. It is hard to select the right parameter and you have to end up turning the other two off to select the right one. Is there a way to select all (x,y,z) and move the Bezier curve for all at once?
    Thanks,
    John

    just drag-slect the point in the KF editor. All 3 KF will be selected and u can ctrl click it for bezier. They'll be all 3 set and u can drag the handle for all 3.
    In Motion u always have to drag select them to have them all.
    Federico

  • Sound booth newbie question i want cursor zoom off.

    I have an imac 2012.  I am using soundbooth, for zoom reason my cursor only wants to zoom.  I can't get it to stop any answers on how to do that?

    nevermind answered my question!

  • Zooming in on portion of clip (person) smoothly?

    As most of you know already I am working on a highlight video for a college football player.  I am trying to zoom in on this player at the end of a particular play - when the camera actually follows a different player in the opposite direction.
    I searched the forum, and found Hunt's instructions - to select the clip - click on edit effect, and then use the motion to zoom/scale and then use the position to pan. 
    However -- I only want to do this at the very end of this particular clip.  So - I split the last few seconds of the clip into a few smaller clips to apply the scale/zoom & position effects.
    This results in a bit of a choppy clip -- because to zoom in and pan to this player, the effects have to be gradually increased (as the camera is moving the other direction).
    Is there any way to "smooth" these together?  Or am I simply doing this totally wrong to begin with??
    Thanks guys!!!
    Kim

    I'm sure Bill intended for you to keyframe the zoom. If you put a Motion keyframe on your Properties panel timeline where you want your zoom to begin and then, a few seconds later, increase the Scale and Position to highlight your player, you'll get a smooth zoom in, starting at the point of the first keyframe.

  • MAJOR bug in Keyframe Interpolation - Motion 3

    Motion 3 (and maybe 2) has a severe keyframing problem where it will not allow you to perform proper "ease in" or "ease out" interpolation on keyframes for objects in the canvas. To best illustrate this, I'll explain exactly what I'm doing and how to produce the problem. I would encourage all of you with Motion 3 to try the same thing to see if you can duplicate the problem.
    1) Create a project (NTSC DV is fine) and drop a picture that fills the frame into the canvas.
    2) Align the picture so that the top edge of it is up against the top edge of the frame.
    3) Set a starting keyframe for SCALE and POSITION.
    4) Turn on keyframe recording then change the scale of the image as if you were "zooming in" on it.
    5) Reposition the image down so that its edge is once again up against the edge of the frame.
    6) In the keyframe editor, set your first keyframe's interpolation to "Ease Out" and the last keyframe's interpolation to "Ease In."
    7) Play back your timeline from the beginning. You'll notice that the movement dips the image down then up again in a strange "S" fashion rather than keeping the edge of the image on the edge of the frame. It is almost as if the keyframes for each property aren't aligned on top of one another.
    Try it with bezier or continuous interpolation. It does the same thing.
    Performing this same move works flawlessly in After Effects.
    Anyone had this problem before?

    hi,
    if you want to pin say the top left hand corner...
    Do exactly want you said but then in the keyframe editor select all of the keyframes and set their interpolations to Linear. Then it says absolutely still.
    You could also perhaps have moved the anchor to the point where you wanted it to lock, then you wouldnt have had to move it as well, only grow.
    regards
    adam

  • Making keyframing as smooth as behaviors (ease in AND out)...

    I try time and time again to get keyframes to be as smooth as behaviors with "ease in and out." No matter how I do it, bezier, ease in, ease out... the keyframes always jerk in one direction or another. Is there a way to have keyframes exhibit this "ease in and out" behavior? When selecting the keyframes in keyframe editor, it only offers an ease IN or and ease OUT.

    I'm more focused on camera-moves (no pun intended). Dolly, sweep, these all have "ease both" options which feel VERY organic. Without them I think 3d comes off as "digital," so I prefer to always use ease-both.
    When I start key-framing for major complex moves, I have to bezier the **** out of X,Y AND Z moves. It gets really overwhelming. I just would like the option to select all and choose -ease-both-, rather than have to set each one.

  • Sorry... newbie question: Zooming in on multiple layers

    I have about 20 layers of graphic artwork.
    How do I zoom in on them, and then zoom out again?
    using CS4

    You can do this different ways.
    You could parent them all to one object and keyframe the scale of that object up and down
    You could turn them all into 3d layers, add a camera, and keyframe the camera to move closer than further
    You could turn them into 3d layers, add a camera, and keyframe the zoom of the camera in and outYou could turn them into 3d layers, parent them all to one object, and keyframe the movement of that object closer and further in z space
    This is very, very basic After Effects stuff. I would highly suggest you start here and work your way through all of the linked resources. They will save you much frustration in the future.

  • Zoom Speed Variation

    I'm new to After Effects I've been struggling for a few days trying to get a smooth "zoom" in on a JPG photo. I keyframe the in point, go to the keyframe out point.and using "Scale" and "Position" zoom in the picture. When I render it the zoom starts out very fast and then slows way down by the end. I've tried adjusting "Keyframe Velocity", "Keyframe Interpolation" and "Keyframe Adjustments" to no avail.
    Is there any way to make the zoom at the same rate across the entire movie?

    Do exactly what you have done. Then select Scale in the timeline. Then go to Animation>Keyframe Assistant>Exponential Scale.
    This will set a keyframe at every frame and change the speed of the zoom effect to one that's more natural.
    The other option would be to turn the layer into a 3D object, add a camera to the composition, and then animate the position of the camera.

  • CS4 NOT capable of sharp displays at all zoom levels

    I must have been asleep, until now, and missed the significance and importance of what follows.
    In post #11 here:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375478?tstart=30
    on 19 March 2009 Chris Cox (Adobe Photoshop Engineer - his title on the old forums) said this, in a discussion regarding sharpness in CS4:
    "You can't have perfectly sharp images at all zoom levels.". Unfortunately, my experience with CS4 since its release late last year has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of this statement.
    What makes this statement so disturbing is that it contradicts an overwhelming amount of the pre- and post-release promotional advertising of CS4 by Adobe, to the effect that the OpenGL features of CS4 enable it to display sharp images at all zoom levels and magnifications. What is surprising is that this assertion has been picked up and regurgitated in commentary by other, sometimes highly experienced, Ps users (some unconnected with, but also some directly connected with, Adobe). I relied upon these representations when making my decision to purchase the upgrade from CS3 to CS4. In fact, they were my principal reason for upgrading. Without them, I would not have upgraded. Set out in numbered paragraphs 1 to 6 below is a small selection only of this material.  
    1. Watch the video "Photoshop CS4: Buy or Die" by Deke McClelland (inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame, according to his bio) on the new features of CS4 in a pre-release commentary to be found here:
    http://fyi.oreilly.com/2008/09/new-dekepod-deke-mcclelland-on.html
    Notice what he says about zooming with Open GL: "every zoom level is a bicubically rendered thing of beauty". That, when viewed with the zooming demonstrated, can only be meant to convey that your image will be "sharp" at all zoom levels. I'm sure he believes it too - Deke is someone who is noted for his outspoken criticism of Photoshop when he believes it to be deserved. It would seem that he must not have experimented and tested to the extent that others posting in this forum have done so.
    2. Here's another Adobe TV video from Deke McClelland:
    http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1021
    In this video Deke discusses the "super smooth" and "very smooth" zooming of CS4 at all zoom levels achieved through the use of OpenGL. From the context of his comments about zooming to odd zoom levels like 33.33% and 52.37%, it is beyond doubt that Deke's use of the word "smooth" is intended to convey "sharp". At the conclusion of his discussion on this topic he says that, as a result of CS4's "smooth and accurate" as distinct from "choppy" (quoted words are his) rendering of images at odd zoom levels (example given in this instance was 46.67%), "I can actually soft proof sharpening as it will render for my output device".
    3. In an article by Philip Andrews at photoshopsupport.com entitled 'What's New In Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Photoshop 11 - An overview of all the new features in Adobe Photoshop CS4',
    see: http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-cs4/what-is-new-in-photoshop-cs4.html
    under the heading 'GPU powered display', this text appears :
    "Smooth Accurate Pan and Zoom functions – Unlike previous versions where certain magnification values produced less than optimal previews on screen, CS4 always presents your image crisply and accurately. Yes, this is irrespective of zoom and rotation settings and available right up to pixel level (3200%)." Now, it would be a brave soul indeed who might try to argue that "crisply and accurately" means anything other than "sharply", and certainly, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, could it be taken to mean "slightly blurry but smooth" - to use the further words of Chris Cox also contained in his post #11 mentioned in the initial link at the beginning of this post.
    4. PhotoshopCAFE has several videos on the new features of CS4. One by Chris Smith here:
    http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs4/vid/CS4Video.htm
    is entitled 'GPU Viewing Options". In it, Chris says, whilst demonstrating zooming an image of a guitar: "as I zoom out or as I zoom in, notice that it looks sharp at any resolution. It used to be in Photoshop we had to be at 25, 50 , 75 (he's wrong about 75) % to get the nice sharp preview but now it shows in every magnification".
    5. Here's another statement about the sharpness of CS4 at odd zoom levels like 33.33%, but inferentially at all zoom levels. It occurs in an Adobe TV video (under the heading 'GPU Accererated Features', starting at 2 min 30 secs into the video) and is made by no less than Bryan O'Neil Hughes, Product Manager on the Photoshop team, found here:
    http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1686
    After demonstrating zooming in and out of a bunch of documents on a desk, commenting about the type in the documents which is readily visible, he says : "everything is nice and clean and sharp".
    6. Finally, consider the Ps CS4 pdf Help file itself (both the original released with 11.0 and the revised edition dated 30 March 2009 following upon the release of the 11.0.1 update). Under the heading 'Smoother panning and zooming' on page 5, it has this to say: "Gracefully navigate to any area of an image with smoother panning and zooming. Maintain clarity as you zoom to invididual pixels, and easily edit at the highest magnification with the new Pixel Grid." The use of the word "clarity" can only mean "sharpness" in this context. Additionally, the link towards the top of page 28 of the Help file (topic of Rotate View Tool) takes you to yet another video by Deke McClelland. Remember, this is Adobe itself telling you to watch this video. 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the video he says: "Every single zoom level is fluid and smooth, meaning that Photoshop displays all pixels properly in all views which ensures more accurate still, video and 3D images as well as better painting, text and shapes.". Not much doubt that he is here talking about sharpness.
    So, as you may have concluded, I'm pretty upset about this situation. I have participated in another forum (which raised the lack of sharp rendering by CS4 on several occasions) trying to work with Adobe to overcome what I initially thought may have been only a problem with my aging (but nevertheless, just-complying) system or outdated drivers. But that exercise did not result in any sharpness issue fix, nor was one incorporated in the 11.0.1 update to CS4. And in this forum, I now read that quite a few, perhaps even many, others, with systems whose specifications not only match but well and truly exceed the minimum system requirements for OpenGL compliance with CS4, also continue to experience sharpness problems. It's no surprise, of course, given the admission we now have from Chris Cox. It seems that CS4 is incapable of producing the sharp displays at all zoom levels it was alleged to achieve. Furthermore, it is now abundently clear that, with respect to the issue of sharpness, it is irrelevant whether or not your system meets the advertised minimum OpenGL specifications required for CS4, because the OpenGl features of CS4 simply cannot produce the goods. What makes this state of affairs even more galling is that, unlike CS3 and earlier releases of Photoshop, CS4 with OpenGL activated does not even always produce sharp displays at 12.5, 25, and 50% magnifications (as one example only, see posts #4 and #13 in the initial link at the beginning of this post). It is no answer to say, and it is ridiculous to suggest (as some have done in this forum), that one should turn off OpenGL if one wishes to emulate the sharp display of images formerly available.

    Thanks, Andrew, for bringing this up.  I have seen comments and questions in different forums from several CS4 users who have had doubts about the new OpenGL display functionality and how it affects apparent sharpness at different zoom levels.  I think part of the interest/doubt has been created by the over-the-top hype that has been associated with the feature as you documented very well.
    I have been curious about it myself and honestly I didn't notice it at first but then as I read people's comments I looked a little closer and there is indeed a difference at different zoom levels.  After studying the situation a bit, here are some preliminary conclusions (and I look forward to comments and corrections):
    The "old", non-OpenGL way of display was using nearest-neighbor interpolation.
    I am using observation to come to this conclusion, using comparison of images down-sampled with nearest-neighbor and comparing them to what I see in PS with OpenGL turned off.  They look similar, if not the same.
    The "new", OpenGL way of display is using bilinear interpolation.
    I am using observation as well as some inference: The PS OpenGL preferences have an option to "force" bilinear interpolation because some graphics cards need to be told to force the use of shaders to perform the required interpolation.  This infers that the interpolation is bilinear.
    Nothing is truly "accurate" at less than 100%, regardless of the interpolation used.
    Thomas Knoll, Jeff Schewe, and others have been telling us that for a long time, particularly as a reason for not showing sharpening at less than 100% in ACR (We still want it though ).  It is just the nature of the beast of re-sampling an image from discrete pixels to discrete pixels.
    The "rule of thumb" commonly used for the "old", non-OpenGL display method to use 25%, 50%, etc. for "accurate" display was not really accurate.
    Those zoom percentages just turned out to be less bad than some of the other percentages and provided a way to achieve a sort of standard for comparing things.  Example: "If my output sharpening looks like "this" at 50% then it will look close to "that" in the actual print.
    The "new", OpenGL interpolation is certainly different and arguably better than the old interpolation method.
    This is mainly because the more sophisticated interpolation prevents drop-outs that occurred from the old nearest-neighbor approach (see my grid samples below).  With nearest-neighbor, certain details that fall into "bad" areas of the interpolated image will be eliminated.  With bilinear, those details will still be visible but with less sharpness than other details.  Accuracy with both the nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolations will vary with zoom percentage and where the detail falls within the image.
    Since the OpenGL interpolation is different, users may need to develop new "rules of thumb" for zoom percentages they prefer when making certain judgements about an image (sharpening, for example).
    Note that anything below 100% is still not "accurate", just as it was not "accurate" before.
    As Andrew pointed out, the hype around the new OpenGL bilinear interpolation went a little overboard in a few cases and has probably led to some incorrect expectations from users.
    The reason that some users seem to notice the sharpness differences with different zooms using OpenGL and some do not (or are not bothered by it) I believe is related to the different ways that users are accustomed to using Photoshop and the resolution/size of their monitors.
    Those people who regularly work with images with fine details (pine tree needles, for example) and/or fine/extreme levels of sharpening are going to see the differences more than people who don't.  To some extent, I see this similar to people who battle with moire: they are going to have this problem more frequently if they regularly shoot screen doors and people in fine-lined shirts.   Resolution of the monitor used may also be a factor.  The size of the monitor in itself is not a factor directly but it may influence how the user uses the zoom and that may in turn have an impact on whether they notice the difference in sharpness or not.  CRT vs LCD may also play a role in noticeability.
    The notion that the new OpenGL/bilinear interpolation is sharp except at integer zoom percentages is incorrect.
    I mention this because I have seen at last one thread implying this and an Adobe employee participated who seemed to back it up.  I do not believe this is correct.  There are some integer zoom percentages that will appear less sharp than others.  It doesn't have anything to do with integers - it has to do with the interaction of the interpolation, the size of the detail, and how that detail falls into the new, interpolated pixel grid.
    Overall conclusion:
    The bilinear interpolation used in the new OpenGL display is better than the old, non-OpenGL nearest-neighbor method but it is not perfect.  I suspect actually, that there is no "perfect" way of "accurately" producing discrete pixels at less than 100%.  It is just a matter of using more sophisticated interpolation techniques as computer processing power allows and adapting higher-resolution displays as that technology allows.  When I think about it, that appears to be just what Adobe is doing.
    Some sample comparisons:
    I am attaching some sample comparisons of nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolation.  One is of a simple grid made up of 1 pixel wide lines.  The other is of an image of a squirrel.  You might find them interesting.  In particular, check out the following:
    Make sure you are viewing the Jpegs at 100%, otherwise you are applying interpolation onto interpolation.
    Notice how in the grid, a 50% down-sample using nearest-neighbor produces no grid at all!
    Notice how the 66.67% drops out some lines altogether in the nearest-neighbor version and these same lines appear less sharp than others in the bilinear version.
    Notice how nearest-neighbor favors sharp edges.  It isn't accurate but it's sharp.
    On the squirrel image, note how the image is generally more consistent between zooms for the bilinear versions.  There are differences in sharpness though at different zoom percentages for bilinear, though.  I just didn't include enough samples to show that clearly here.  You can see this yourself by comparing results of zooms a few percentages apart.
    Well, I hope that was somewhat helpful.  Comments and corrections are welcomed.

  • Is it possible to add keyframes without clicking?

    We just migrated from FCP to PR CC, and my editors are used to adding position and scale keyframes with a shortcut key stroke.  I haven't found a way to do this in Premiere without having to go to to the Effect Controlls and click on the stop watches for each motion option.  We edit a ton of photo montages, and having a quick way to drag our CTI to the beginning of a clip, press a key, go to the end of the clip, move/scale with the mouse in the program window and be done with it would be solid!
    Additionally, once we time the photos to the VO and have made our keyframes, we add our various transitions throughout the timeline.  When doing it this way,  the keyframes have to be re-adjusted to cover the transition frames before and after each clip so the movement through the transitions are smooth.  Make sense? 
    We have tried some plug-ins that try to help with this, but they mostly seem to add MORE options opposed to offering the 6 mostly used movements, in/out, out/in, up/down, down/up, left/right, and right left.
    If someone out there knows of such a plug-in, it would make our lives SO much easier!  I envision a sale-to-fit frame both vertically AND horizontally (filling the screen without pilar or letter boxing), then choose one of the 6 basic movements. 
    Then, if the magic developers could allow an editor to save customized transition pre-sets (like dissolve, blur dissolve, scatter, dissolve, flip, dissolve, etc.), and magically apply the presets to the clips on the timeline while auto-adjusting the keyframes to cover the extra transition frames, man, I'd be a happy camper. 
    Any suggestions on how to quickly slam through Ken Burns photo montages without having to click the mouse so many times would be greatly appreciated! 
    D•Mac

    Hey Villiam,  Kevin is referring to setting a movement on a photo setting keyframes (like zoom out to in), right-clicking on Motion, and choose save as preset.  This will put that movement into your presets folder under Effects.  I am going to try this on my next montage and see if I can find some efficiencies.  Thanks Kevin, that was a great tip!!! 
    Also thanks to Jim.  I spent like 30 min looking at all the keyboard shortcuts.  It's a little overwhelming to establish a solid shortcut format that a team of editors can learn and use.  I'm going to be trying the FCP short cuts, then go back to the default.  It looks like the PR default has a lot of existing and helpful shortcuts assigned already.  It's just going to take getting used to a new platform. 
    I'm still looking for tools and/or methods to allow an editor to assemble a 60 second montage with 10 photos, VO and music in 30 minutes.  It's going to be a challenge but I think it's possible with the right innovative process.  I'll still challenge anyone to find a way to quickly assemble a montage in an assembly line or template-based fashion using Adobe Premiere CC where there's on-screen text, advanced transitions, timed to VO, etc. 
    I think I'm dreaming for a tool to automatically do this within Premiere, while I think the answer for now might just be customizing motion presets and creating a favorites folder of transitions that can be dragged onto each clip.  I'll see if there’s a way to apply a set of transitions or motion presets to a series of photos on the timeline opposed to doing it one by one.  I can see this solution being important as video montages are becoming more popular in our industry, and the faster we can make them using a professional software package like Premiere the more prosperous we will be. 

  • How To Smooth "Ken Burns Effect"

    Hello,
    I have some stills that I am zooming and panning at the same time. For example, starting at the top right corner of a still and zooming out as well as panning right to left so that the still stays centered. Looks great so far except for the instant start and stop. To combat this, I have eased in and out on the panning keyframes as well as smoothed the scaling keyframes. But now, instead of being nice and smooth, the motion is zig-zagging left and right when it gets close to each keyframe. Anyone dealt with this issue? I've heard that animating the anchor point may eliminate the jittery effect?? Please advise! Thanks!

    Is your sequence interlaced?
    If so, try converting it to progressive (Field Dominance = None)

Maybe you are looking for