More Nodes vs. Layers
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 5:15PM In this post I was not saying outright that nodal interfaces are better for compositing than After Effects's layered approach, but they do have distinct advatages—and not just for "high end" users. The thing is, After Effects could so easily have the best of both worlds, and allow users to use either or both method in any combination. If it did, it would be a tough app to beat.
Over the years I've wished for small improvements to After Effects's Flowchart View, to make it a better project navigation tool. But after spending some quality time using Shake, Nuke, and Fusion, I have changed my tune. I now feel very strongly that After Effects should have a pervasive and complete nodal interface, in addition to its layered comps.
For a microscopic example of why, witness a post from late last year, where for some reason I rose to a challenge posted on the After Effects list of creating a solar corona effect. It's a simple project, but it has a couple precomps and adjustment layers, so anyone wishing to learn how I created the effect is left to dissect the project file. Compare that with the Fusion version, and it's plain to see, even for those not accustomed to a nodal environment, what is happening where. The UI is so precisely descriptive of the process that no steps, no tutorial, and no arcane knowledge are necessary in order to grok the technique.
Nodal apps have a reputation for being "high end" and unapproachable, but I call bullshit on that. Take a simple example of displacing an image with some fractal noise. In a nodal system, this would be three nodes; a loader, a noise creator, and a displacement. Anyone, with any level of experience, would get this right on the first try in Fusion. But put the same problem to a new After Effects user, and watch them struggle. Once you start explain to them how, because of the internal order of operations, it is necessary to precomp the noise layer, you are asking them to imagine the nodal structure of their composite in their head.
After Effects users are visual people, but in this example After Effects has now eliminated any visual connection between the noise layer and the displacement effect. Sure, there are several places where you can see that "Noise Precomp" is used in "Comp 1," but the very fact that there are many places to check this is indication that there's no one good place like there is in Shake. One of the most important connections, between the Displacement Map effect (on Comp 1 layer 1) and the Fractal Noise layer (Comp 1 layer 2), isn't even shown!
Adobe, please give After Effects complete nodal capabilities. Look to Combustion and Toxik for inspiration. Both have layered comps, and both allow you to work without ever looking at the nodes if that's your choice. In other words, I'm not advocating changing anything (big) about how After Effects works—I am simply asking for the UI to show how After Effects works.
Reader Comments (15)
Stu,
When I was trying to figure out what compositor to get with my 1st production workstation G5 back in March '04 I wrestled with whether to get After Effects or Combustion for the very reason you write about. i was new to compositing so I thought it easier for me to see what I'm doing if I could switch to Combustion's Schematic Viiew (Nodal View). It has helped me a great deal to also understand what I'm doing in Conduit when I'm using it in Motion 2 also. I think at some point I'm going to buy Shake too.
More Channel support in After Effects would be pretty cool. That's one thing i like about Nuke. Really puts those OpenEXR files to good use.
Once upon a time I started my image manipulations in Photoshop and later found AfterEffects in the late 90s. So I am firmly from a layered tradition.
But when Apple made me aware of this application called Shake I quickly found how preferable the nodal thinking is when compositing.
The big difference to me is that nodal applications make you think in terms of elements affecting eachother. It is easier to "roll your own" if you think in terms of nodes.
Create a turbulence to displace a shot would in AE be more: find a turbulent-displace effect/plugin to apply to this video-layer.
I (and a co-worker) noticed a few years ago that most AE users never used "Displacement Map". Many people seem to have no idea what to do with it. "Why would I want one shot to displace another shot?" You wouldn't. You would want a custom element (a noise or pattern for example) to displace the shot. These people probably never thinks in terms of elements modifying other elements to create an effect. And that is probably due to the way layers work.
The same is true for channels in Photoshop. Few people use them to create custom "elements" that can be used to drive effects.
I used to think the screams for nodal possibilities in AE was bullshit, but the more I create 40 layer comps with five levels of precomps and duplicate layers used as mattes on other layers, I'm beginning to see the light. If precomping is the only way to achive many things in AE, the design needs an update, as precomposing forces you to, in effect, lessen the likelyhood you'll continue tweaking layers inside the precomps.
- Jonas
Amen to that. As much as I like the Adobe Apps, the folks at Adobe seem rather reluctant to make fundamental changes that would make their software more powerful. After Effects not having a node-mode is one example, Photoshops weak non-destructive capabilities is another one - adjustment layers are nice but there are so many things in PS that can only be done in a destructive manner, it's a shame. Let's hope they will listen to their users at some point...
The render pipeline is more complicated than the past but it's not that hard to understand, really. Basic things like instant sex are more involved with nodes, or even Premiere Pro. Most people don't get too complicated.
Nodes or even uber-twirl would be nice I suppose, but I'd rather see paint, roto and tracking fixed 1st.
Anyway, I guess the Shake-Motion baby will require AE to keep moving.
Rich
You say Adobe should offer the best of both worlds. All right, but how ? I only use AE so I don't know how the other apps do it. Some things timeline and other things nodal ? How would you represent your Fusion example as a timeline ?
The one thing I keep wanting nodes for is the ability to use an alpha matte multiple times w/o making multiple dupes of the layer (as jonas mentioned). Push the alpha (or another channel) of one layer into another. Basically, a 'set matte' that worked without pre-comping.
Actually, I thought of one more. I agree with jonas that pre-comping can be a pain, but one thing would help a ton in many cases - easy cross comp expressions. syncing cameras and values, creating a a null with effect controls in a top level comp that modifies values in sub comps. mmm....
I worry that moving to a more nodal UI would frankenstien AE too much. It's really great at what it does now. If there are ways to overcome the issues w/o dramatic changes, I hope the AE team tries that first. Every update has been stellar, so I have faith in them.
mes, take a look at Combustion for an example of how AE could become more nodal without changing its personality. AE already has a node view, but you can't do anything in it. I'm advocating taking AE's node view out of read-only mode.
And Rich, you are correct that some things make a ton more sense with layers. This is why I think AE sits poised on a huge advantage—so much of it works perfectly already. If it added nodal functionality it would rule all with a mighty yet gentle fist of ruling.
Danyx, check out Photoshop CS3 which has non-destructive filters.
how about just being about to take a chain of comps and being able to duplicate it.
so easy to do in a nodal program but with AE you have to dupe each comp and and the subcomps and relink the chain so that you have a complete dupe. a PITA in AFX that would be so nice to have.
Timeline and node graphs each have distinct advantages- advantages which may be lost in the attempt to homogenize them into one workflow.
Node graphs are often the superior toolset for tricky compositions, but not always- they present complexities that the user doesn't have to think about in a layer-stacking approach where things like timing are more easily manipulated. Adding node based functionality to After Effects (as a tandem GUI to the timeline) could detract much from the user experience. If you add a layer into a 3 layer timeline, what does the node graph look like? Is it 3 overs? Is it a Shake-style multi-node with 4 inputs? How about those 95 layer motion graphic comps? Do you really want to have to make the complex decision of how the node tree is drawn (Overs vs. Multi-nodes (and where the multinodes go in the comp)) everytime you drag a piece of footage into the timeline?
Thinking out loud here, my gut reaction would be for Adobe to allow expanding Precomps within the timeline. This would address the disconnect of going in and out of, writing expressions for and making changes to PreComps, a big plus in node based systems. But there's an obvious negative- it would appear you are adjusting something specific to that timeline, when in fact you are adjusting a Comp than may be instanced 100 times elsewhere. A dangerous feature which I feel sure Adobe has considered and probably passed on.
Secondly, give users a Node graph in which they can build their comps. A Layer based representation of a Node graph would not be too difficult to implement.
However, the reverse would be too difficult. Drawing a Node graph based on the Layer based work you do would simply be too much of an annoyance- there are too many ways to represent your work in a node graph and you would be forced to make many decisions (as to how the node graph represents your work) everytime you change something in the timeline. Though Adobe certainly has the development muscle to add this functionality to After Effects, my feeling is that it would not get used enough to justify the investment. I'm sure Adobe has seen 15 Node based compositing packages come and go and have shown tremendous restraint (rather than laziness) in not implementing this seemingly obvious feature.
The end result of my flawed argument would be Adobe would have to create two types of compositions: A node based composition and a timeline based composition, something I think it would be obvious that Adobe would avoid.
Forrest, I agree that there's only pain to be found with trying to show all of the workings of a layered comp with nodes. I'm advocating a combustion/flame/toxik-like approach where you can work with nodes if you want, or you can work with layers, and you can do both interchangeably. Node trees could feed into comps and vise versa. Effects applied to layers would be visible as nodes, but there would be no "over" nodes associated with comps.
In other words, this feature would enhance project navigation for those users who need it, change nothing for those users who like AE the way it is, and provide a complete nodal option for those interested in experimenting with that workflow with the fallback of layered comps being only a click away.
Just started using Shake as opposed to using AE regular.....
I just can't get my head round the nodal UI!!!
Where does my layer start and finish?...Too many noodles make me confused as to what's happening and when?...
I'm old school timeline, linear like! haha...
Arrrgh!Frustrating... Like the challenge tho!
So Adobe, quite a fews have gone by since this post. . . What's it gonna take? I would really hate for something to happen to the Creative Suite. . .
Ya know, one day it is walking down the sidewalk and a car just so happens to jump the curb. . . Would hate for something like that to happen to such a lovely family. . .