I'm testing CS6's new video features. One issue I found is that when I add panning to text, it does not pan smoothly. It seems like the kerning is adjusted slightly for each frame and it looks pretty bad. I could fix the problem somewhat by rasterizing the text, but then I lose the ability to make changes to the actual text.

Is there a better option for making text pan smoothly in CS6 videos?

  • 2
    It is possible you are seeing several problems at once: 1) vsync not enabled might give a ripple/shimmer effect; 2) the vectors are calculated and then rounded (quantized) to integer values for display on a pixel grid (the screen). Normally this is not too much of a problem, but in motion you may be seeing the effect of 24/48/60 rounding errors per second; 3) you may be seeing something along the lines of a telecine effect from the framerate not matching the monitor refresh. A potential solution for 2) is try a higher pixel count (2x) and render down for output. – horatio Jan 16 '13 at 16:06
  • 2
    Video? My main gripe was PhotoShop has always been that it tries to do too much for too many people. This seems to support that theory. ;) – DA01 Jan 16 '13 at 17:27
  • 1
    This is probably better suited at video.stackexchange.com – Saaru Lindestøkke Mar 7 '14 at 11:58
  • @horatio, it might my noteworthy that the v-sync problem only exists if the text is panning up-down, but since OP talked about kerning changing, the text is probably moving left-right. – mrchaarlie Aug 5 '14 at 18:34
  • This is a nontrivial problem to debug.IT can be cause d by hardware settings, or insufficient preview speed etc. Its also caused by hinted edge drawing and its also caused by lack of motion blur. And finally temporal aliasing is a really nasty thing to debug, because it goes deep into how humans perceive things, as well as signal theory. – joojaa Sep 3 '14 at 9:10

To put it bluntly: "Don't use Photoshop to animate things."

To elaborate: When you see, say, a movie in the cinema, it runs about 25 frames per second. Entire thing is more complicated, but let's say every frame contains 1/25s and that 1/25s is as well exposure time of each frame (Need to learn about exposure time?). When something is moving in front of camera, it's representation on the frame is blurred. This is why we perceive that motion as smooth.

This is called a motion blur and when digitally animating text, or anything for that matter, it is good idea to create it artificially. Movement without motion blur will appear jaggy and at faster moves will betray illusion of movement created by fast changing images.

There is another reason why you might see this in PS, as text moves, vector enters pixels in different time on different places. Fact, that vector of text does not fit pixel grid exactly is normally covered by anti aliasing, but when text moves, it can be betrayed to the viewer. (This is very, very simplified explanation) Again, software meant for animation has tricks to solve this.

I don't know if PS has some motion blur tools, but it would be really wiser to use After Effects or other more suitable software.


I know it doesn't answer the question, but basically After Effects is a MOTION GRAPHICS program... the working interface is like Photoshop and Flash, but you pump out ... MOV files, image sequences, PSD sequences etc.

so you'd have to install AE and maybe watch a video on the GUI... if you are familiar with Adobe you're going to feel at home in AE.

what I think you want to do is this: export your PSD files as individual layers create a comp in AE to the size and time you want (everything in AE is Rastered so have all your stuff at the largest size possible before putting it into AE) then ... you drop your layers into the movie comp, just like you would in Photoshop...

once the layers are there... you can set keyframes for their positions and animate them as you wish.

if you are going to be doing motion graphics (making photoshop or illustrator stuff MOVE) then you want (i would say need) to use AE.

AE is made to add effects to video, its literally a Special Effects application but it will treat still images just like movie files.

you'll also find that a lot of effects in AE just ... look better than they will trying them in PS... the main example is anything with light... light in AE looks... real.

I can't give you a full tutorial on AEE here but, again... if you are competent with how Adobe's programs look and work, then you'll settle into AE quickly.

Good luck B


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.