Could someone please tell me what the difference is? I know AE allows you to import layered PS files and give animation to the different layers. Does Motion do anything similar? I'm getting a new MBP and once the UB of Motion comes out, I'm wondering if I shouldn't get this instead of AE. Thanks for the help.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motion and After Effects?
- Thread starter rusty018
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't used AE extensively, but i think I can help a bit. Motion seems to be pretty tightly integrated with the final cut suite... easy import/export with FCP and DVDSP. It's also simpler than AE. No Y-axis, thus true 3D animations are more difficult to achieve. That's about all I can say for now, I'm sure others will be able to answer more in depth.rusty018 said:
If you're using a MacBook pro (or any Intel-based Mac for that matter) to open AE, you'll get a sizeable performance hit... as AE isn't universal and won't be until the next version. Since AE 7.0 just came out, this means at least a year... maybe longer. This makes Motion the better choice, especially if as pdpfilms said, 3D isn't a big concern
Having said that, AE is an amazing program... SO MUCH MORE to offer beyond animating a layered photoshop file... and I prefer it to Motion for my main motion graphics work. I treat Motion as a plug-in to AE. The differences between the two are noticeable:
AE - $1,000, Motion - $299 (don't know if they sell it stand-alone anymore)
AE - 3D, Motion - only pseudo 3d with little control
AE - keyframe based, Motion - behavior based
AE - not universal, Motion - soon-to-be universal
The experts will be able to give you more detail.
-rjf
Having said that, AE is an amazing program... SO MUCH MORE to offer beyond animating a layered photoshop file... and I prefer it to Motion for my main motion graphics work. I treat Motion as a plug-in to AE. The differences between the two are noticeable:
AE - $1,000, Motion - $299 (don't know if they sell it stand-alone anymore)
AE - 3D, Motion - only pseudo 3d with little control
AE - keyframe based, Motion - behavior based
AE - not universal, Motion - soon-to-be universal
The experts will be able to give you more detail.
-rjf
Go with AE, Hands down.
Industry standard and it works with the industry standard graphic apps, Photoshop and Illustrator. (All Adobe apps)
Industry standard and it works with the industry standard graphic apps, Photoshop and Illustrator. (All Adobe apps)
rjfiske said:
True but Motion also has the ability to be keyframe based. Behaviors are only one component. Motion also has a graph editor for working with curves in animation, AE just adopted this.
I am using Motion more and more simply because I can do most of the stuff I typically do in AE in 1/2 the time due to the live workflow.
Also, I am not saying on is better then the other, I love them both but do find myself favoring Motion over AE due to the ease of integration and not needing to render every little adjustment.
Motion also works with all the "industry standard" applications.
Motion is for
MOTION GRAPHICS
AE is for
AFTER EFFECTS.
Let me splane:
Motion works on the principal of creating graphics and animated texts etc (though LiveType is still better in that respect, but they are bridgeable between the two anyway) using ALOT of your GPU to render the stuff.
its workflow is AWESOME for creating quick slick looking graphics for say commercials, newspots etc.
it can crank out stuff lickity split, whereas AE takes ALOT longer to do the same thing because of the way AE works with layers. Which in ALOT of cases is far superior. but when it comes down to professionals needing to create a TV spot in less than half a day, Motion is the best for it. There arent "behaviors, presets" for AE like there are for Motion, and in essence it makes things quicker, sometimes.
BUT it is NOT a video editor in any respect of the word, it creates more than edits video.
After Effects is just that. Use it AFTER you have cut your videos etc to add effects.
After Effects can do TONS more things than Motion, but you arent going to be cranking out any completed work in nearly half the time of a Motion workflow. I havent used Motion much because I dont do those kind of motion graphics (and when I do, LiveType suffices).
IMO Motion is LiveType plus the ability to do from scratch motion graphics and control them better.
LiveType is AWESOME, but its interface sucks and is missing ALOT of right clickable menus etc that Motion has.
MOTION GRAPHICS
AE is for
AFTER EFFECTS.
Let me splane:
Motion works on the principal of creating graphics and animated texts etc (though LiveType is still better in that respect, but they are bridgeable between the two anyway) using ALOT of your GPU to render the stuff.
its workflow is AWESOME for creating quick slick looking graphics for say commercials, newspots etc.
it can crank out stuff lickity split, whereas AE takes ALOT longer to do the same thing because of the way AE works with layers. Which in ALOT of cases is far superior. but when it comes down to professionals needing to create a TV spot in less than half a day, Motion is the best for it. There arent "behaviors, presets" for AE like there are for Motion, and in essence it makes things quicker, sometimes.
BUT it is NOT a video editor in any respect of the word, it creates more than edits video.
After Effects is just that. Use it AFTER you have cut your videos etc to add effects.
After Effects can do TONS more things than Motion, but you arent going to be cranking out any completed work in nearly half the time of a Motion workflow. I havent used Motion much because I dont do those kind of motion graphics (and when I do, LiveType suffices).
IMO Motion is LiveType plus the ability to do from scratch motion graphics and control them better.
LiveType is AWESOME, but its interface sucks and is missing ALOT of right clickable menus etc that Motion has.
Motion is crap in its current version. Interface is the worst.
Unless you are doing crappy car commercials and the like, us AE.
Its as quick as Motion if you know how to us it.
Unless you are doing crappy car commercials and the like, us AE.
Its as quick as Motion if you know how to us it.
faustfire said:
actually, i disagree.
motion is great if you're needing something extremely quick, for example, a bar showing an interviewee's name on a documentry... i use it for my student tv station's news shows, and i can push stuff out of it (because of it's FCP intergration) far faster than AE7.
AE7 is great for effects, 3D and suchlike.
and by the way, that annoying car advert was done in Shake. which, again, is totally different.
bigandy said:
Motion or After Effects would be overkill for something like that anyway though.... and Deko is better suited for that type of stuff anyway.
Motion's a strange app, I find it difficult to see where/what Apple are aiming it at. It has the potential to be really good, especially in Adobe's inability to seemingly want to push After Effects possibilities... instead it's little more that 'iMovie Eye-Candy'.
After Effects is much more customizable and can be overwhelming to a new user. I would highly recommend getting this book if you want to learn AE. I use AE a lot for DVD Menu animations and short intro. animations. AE also gives you virtual cameras, lighting, and a whole slew of other must have features. I would also highly recommend trying out the 3D Invigorator, 3D Stroke, Lux, and Shatter Plugins. The Particle playground can also do amazing things, such as create Matrix style motion graphics (letters and #'s falling). There is a big learning curve, but trust me, it is well worth it! Good luck with what ever you choose.
-Cory
-Cory
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.