[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But AE is still the tool of choice for pros but probably not worth getting unless you really need some of the advanced features, as it would require not just an investment in $ but also a big investment in time learning to use it well. No kidding! The last time I used it regularly was under OS9... I look at the current version, and my eyes just bug out. It's not the least bit intuitive (though I'm sure the power features make up for it). Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
why bother paying for either ? just dl the bt save your money for beer On Jan 11, 2008 1:08 PM, Bill Streeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would say that unless you are going to do some hardcore motion graphics Motion should suit you fine. You ca do a lot of really amazing stuff with Motion. But AE is still the tool of choice for pros but probably not worth getting unless you really need some of the advanced features, as it would require not just an investment in $ but also a big investment in time learning to use it well. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com www.billstreeter.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
I would say that unless you are going to do some hardcore motion graphics Motion should suit you fine. You ca do a lot of really amazing stuff with Motion. But AE is still the tool of choice for pros but probably not worth getting unless you really need some of the advanced features, as it would require not just an investment in $ but also a big investment in time learning to use it well. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com www.billstreeter.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
I don't do a lot of FX, but I use Motion for keying and compositing. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, rudy.jahchan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GALACTICAST has been produced on Motion since the Robojew episode. And if anything we have improved in quality. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
Coming from Galacticast that's a pretty strong endorsement for Motion! ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
After Effects has become a standard. There's no way around that. But Motion 3 is a remarkable and under-used tool. As someone who always preferred Combustion to After Effects I'm finding it a delight, though it isn't quite a fully featured app. Motion is no longer the imovie of motion graphics, and in some respects (esp. workflow and interface) it surpasses its rivals. It would be a shame not to see how far you can push it. But a lot of this depends on what you want to do. If you're going to do serious rotoscoping, you probably need After Effects. Otherwise I'd use Motion: it's a good app, and you already have it. Then if you find it underpowered for your needs D/L the free 30-day trial for After Effects. A lot of people now use FCP and Motion for most of their work, and go to AE only for specific tasks if they need it. All of these apps - Combustion, After Effects, Shake, Motion - do some things better than others even though they try to be comprehensive. I say start with what you've got, then pick the next one, if you need it, based on the specific things you need to accomplish. Brook ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
I would say that unless you are going to do some hardcore motion graphics Motion should suit you fine. You ca do a lot of really amazing stuff with Motion. But AE is still the tool of choice for pros but probably not worth getting unless you really need some of the advanced features, as it would require not just an investment in $ but also a big investment in time learning to use it well. Bill Streeter LO-FI SAINT LOUIS www.lofistl.com www.billstreeter.net --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
GALACTICAST has been produced on Motion since the Robojew episode. And if anything we have improved in quality. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
Thanks for all of the feedback! I guess the biggest thing I need is the motion tracking. I spend many many hours keyframing stuff over video in FCP. - Verdi On Jan 11, 2008 3:27 PM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't do a lot of FX, but I use Motion for keying and compositing. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, rudy.jahchan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GALACTICAST has been produced on Motion since the Robojew episode. And if anything we have improved in quality. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, rudy.jahchan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GALACTICAST has been produced on Motion since the Robojew episode. I guarantee you Noah Webster never envisioned those words being put together in a sentence. ;) Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
Motion has single-point motion tracking as well as 4-point motion tracking. http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/motion/ Click where it says Match Moving and Tracking. -- Bill BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for all of the feedback! I guess the biggest thing I need is the motion tracking. I spend many many hours keyframing stuff over video in FCP. - Verdi On Jan 11, 2008 3:27 PM, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't do a lot of FX, but I use Motion for keying and compositing. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, rudy.jahchan rudy.jahchan@ wrote: GALACTICAST has been produced on Motion since the Robojew episode. And if anything we have improved in quality. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi michaelverdi@ wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
[videoblogging] Re: Motion 3 vs After Effects CS3
Ive only used Motion 3 so cant compare properly, my guess would be that either should suit most people quite well, especially if they dont know what they are missing. There's bound to be things that each do better in some way, and that may cause an AE expert to grumble about something Motion doesnt do, and vica versa. I certainly like the Motion user interface and behaviours, and both products are probably getting better due to competition between them. As you are getting Motion anyway, Id stick with it unless you run into something specific that you need to do that it doesnt offer. Im still at the early stages of learning it, and compositing in general, I havent learnt how to talk about this stuff properly yet, but it seems like motion does more than most people will ever need. Running quartz compositions inside motion is also proving to offer additional flexibility power. The brick wall Ive always run into is when I want more actual 3D than these apps are really designed to handle. They do 3d compositing but I want stuff thats more like 3d model rendering, 3d landscapes etc. If I manage to say anything useful about the detail of this stuff and my experiments, it will be on mutantquartz.com. But its probably not what most people would wish to use these tools to create, so may be totally irrelevant to you. Id love to hear more about what sorts of things you'd be wanting to use AE or Motion to achieve. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have experience with these two? I imagine that AE is better but I'm wondering if the new 3D capabilities of Motion 3 will be enough (since it come with final cut studio which I'm already getting) and another $1000 for AE won't be necessary. What will I be missing out on if I only get Motion? Thanks, Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
