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 [email protected], "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 >
