Now Motion is 3D... how does it compare to After Effects?
 

Well, not that I know much about that kind of software, but I'm interested.

What are the main differences between After Effects and Motion?
I've read many previous threads with the same question, but everyone anwered: Motion doesn't do 3D.

Now that it does, what are the main differences between Motion and After Effects? Is After Effects still more powerfull? Why?

Remember, I don't know much about these types of software, just curious to learn.

Bonus question: how does Shake fit in between them?

Thanks and best regards,

In the sense that it has the xyz axis, yes motion 3 has 3d.
However all the particles are 2d, and the text is 2d.
Unless someone figured out a way to make these 3d objects,
Motion is still years behind AE.

Motion actually can do 3D particles, and there are some work-arounds for 3D text elsewhere on the web. After Effects can still do a lot more, but for a casual user I would recommend Motion, as the interface is more intuitive, and the real-time design make putting something together very easy, at least in my opinion. Shake on the other hand is more for high end compositing, so things like keying footage, tracking and matchmoving etc... Motion and AE can do these things too, Shake is just what the big boys use.

I love Motion 3, I never cared for After Effects, but Motion 3 really put me over.

And yes, particles are 3D, you have to enable it when working with the particle.

Thanks for responses.

haha, WOW, how did I over look that.
I must have taken my idiot pills yesterday or something