Motion vs AE at DVinfo.net

Mark Keck · July 18th, 2008, 07:43 AM

I'm somewhat new to Motion and have not ever used AE. I've seen several times, in many different threads, people mention that they use AE because Motion won't do what they need. So far, I haven't run into anything I can't do in motion; so my question is: what are all you trying to do that can't be done in Motion???

Thanks in advance,

Mark

Jeremy Doyle · July 18th, 2008, 08:18 AM

The biggest thing I notice is when working in 2.5d (or 3d layers as both programs would call it), in motion layers don't through shadows so it doesn't look like a completed interactive scene the way it would in AE.

Noah Kadner · July 18th, 2008, 10:08 AM

Also complex green screen compositing is better in After Effects or really in Shake than in Motion.

Noah

William Hohauser · July 18th, 2008, 10:37 AM

Motion does some things really well and easier than AE. The presets in Motion are great and some people can take off from these and create some amazing new effects. I happen not to be one of these people. Something about Motion puts up a mental roadblock where AE doesn't.

AE is a very well thought out program that's been around for a long time for a good reason. It provide you with many of the tools to create effects from scratch in a coherent manner. While AE has a steep learning curve, once you get past that it's a robust program. Photoshop really integrates nicely with AE.

It all depends on the sort of effect work you are doing. If you are doing graphics for shows, Motion might be the better program. I know people who do a lot of local commercial work with Motion. If you are doing matte work with motion tracking, AE probably is the better program.

Mark Keck · July 18th, 2008, 04:33 PM

Thanks all for the comments.

Jeremy, If I understand correctly, AE will project a shadow of a layer onto the layers underneath in 3d mode but Motion won't???

Noah, I would agree greenscreen in motion is laking... without a plugin that is. However, dvmatte is reported to be very much up to the task. I haven't tried it myself, but I've seen it's results and it looks very good. So AE can handle greenscreen well without a plug in???

Reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to get and learn for an amature like myself.

Jiri Fiala · July 19th, 2008, 04:00 AM

In my opinion, Motion is way better for generating stuff, creating BGs and such, while AE is leaps and bounds more controllable and better for intricate mograph and compositing.

They are slightly different beasts.

Mike Barber · July 19th, 2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiri Fiala

In my opinion, Motion is way better for generating stuff, creating BGs and such, while AE is leaps and bounds more controllable and better for intricate mograph and compositing..

My feelings, exactly. Motion, After Effects -- and I'll through Shake in there too -- are all geared towards different tasks. They do cover some common ground, but the way they work and what they excel at doing are still very different.

Mark Keck · July 20th, 2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Barber

My feelings, exactly. Motion, After Effects -- and I'll through Shake in there too -- are all geared towards different tasks. They do cover some common ground, but the way they work and what they excel at doing are still very different.

Mike, Jiri, Do you use both apps then??? I think you're right, but it seems to me that there is a significant overlap in what they can do and most just use one or the other for all their (completcated) effects.

Mike Barber · July 20th, 2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Keck

Mike, Jiri, Do you use both apps then??? I think you're right, but it seems to me that there is a significant overlap in what they can do and most just use one or the other for all their (completcated) effects.

I have experimented with Shake and Motion, but have worked with After Effects more than the others. I don't use either all that much, to tell you the truth; I'm an editor, not a motion graphics or VFX artist. I'll use AE for a few transitions or relatively simple effects, that's about it so far. I am starting to take a closer look at Motion 3 (which appears to be a large improvement from v1, which was the last time I touched it) for things like chapter titles, DVD menus, etc.

If Motion is serving all your needs, and you're comfortable with Motion's methodology, then there isn't really any compelling reason to look elsewhere, IMHO.

Mark Keck · July 20th, 2008, 05:15 PM

Thanks for the comments Mike. I'm mainly just trying to learn... to paraphrase what I originally asked "what are you trying to do in Motion that is easier, better, faster in AE???". I can't count the number of post where I've seen people comment on this, and I'm just wondering what I'm missing.

Nate Schmidt · July 20th, 2008, 07:00 PM

I find AE to give me more control, as the behaviors in Motion seem to give things a mind of their own. However if I dont' know exactly what I want Motion is great because all the content is a great starting point. AE allows the use of expressions which is a great way to control animations and link things together to make complex animations easier.

Jeremy Doyle · July 21st, 2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Keck

Thanks all for the comments.

Jeremy, If I understand correctly, AE will project a shadow of a layer onto the layers underneath in 3d mode but Motion won't???

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

July 18th, 2008, 07:43 AM	#1
Mark Keck Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Penang, Malaysia Posts: 123	Motion vs AE I'm somewhat new to Motion and have not ever used AE. I've seen several times, in many different threads, people mention that they use AE because Motion won't do what they need. So far, I haven't run into anything I can't do in motion; so my question is: what are all you trying to do that can't be done in Motion??? Thanks in advance, Mark Last edited by Mark Keck; July 18th, 2008 at 08:53 AM.

July 18th, 2008, 10:37 AM	#4
William Hohauser Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: New York City Posts: 2,650	Motion does some things really well and easier than AE. The presets in Motion are great and some people can take off from these and create some amazing new effects. I happen not to be one of these people. Something about Motion puts up a mental roadblock where AE doesn't. AE is a very well thought out program that's been around for a long time for a good reason. It provide you with many of the tools to create effects from scratch in a coherent manner. While AE has a steep learning curve, once you get past that it's a robust program. Photoshop really integrates nicely with AE. It all depends on the sort of effect work you are doing. If you are doing graphics for shows, Motion might be the better program. I know people who do a lot of local commercial work with Motion. If you are doing matte work with motion tracking, AE probably is the better program. __________________ William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation

July 20th, 2008, 07:00 PM	#11
Nate Schmidt Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Welland ON Posts: 515	I find AE to give me more control, as the behaviors in Motion seem to give things a mind of their own. However if I dont' know exactly what I want Motion is great because all the content is a great starting point. AE allows the use of expressions which is a great way to control animations and link things together to make complex animations easier. __________________ "We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

July 18th, 2008, 08:18 AM	#2
Jeremy Doyle Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brainerd, MN Posts: 287	The biggest thing I notice is when working in 2.5d (or 3d layers as both programs would call it), in motion layers don't through shadows so it doesn't look like a completed interactive scene the way it would in AE.

July 18th, 2008, 10:08 AM	#3
Noah Kadner Better than Halle Berry Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 435	Also complex green screen compositing is better in After Effects or really in Shake than in Motion. Noah

July 18th, 2008, 04:33 PM	#5
Mark Keck Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Penang, Malaysia Posts: 123	Thanks all for the comments. Jeremy, If I understand correctly, AE will project a shadow of a layer onto the layers underneath in 3d mode but Motion won't??? Noah, I would agree greenscreen in motion is laking... without a plugin that is. However, dvmatte is reported to be very much up to the task. I haven't tried it myself, but I've seen it's results and it looks very good. So AE can handle greenscreen well without a plug in??? Reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering if it's worth the effort to get and learn for an amature like myself.

July 19th, 2008, 04:00 AM	#6
Jiri Fiala Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Brno Czech Republic Posts: 453	In my opinion, Motion is way better for generating stuff, creating BGs and such, while AE is leaps and bounds more controllable and better for intricate mograph and compositing. They are slightly different beasts.

July 20th, 2008, 05:15 PM	#10
Mark Keck Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Penang, Malaysia Posts: 123	Thanks for the comments Mike. I'm mainly just trying to learn... to paraphrase what I originally asked "what are you trying to do in Motion that is easier, better, faster in AE???". I can't count the number of post where I've seen people comment on this, and I'm just wondering what I'm missing.