Re: Does Motion have After Effects potential?

The fact is AE does things that Motion doesn't, and Motion does things that AE doesn't. I'm guessing that will always be the case. How long has both Freehand and Illustrator been available? While I choose to use Illustrator and don't buy Freehand, I do realize there are some things Freehand that Illustrator doesn't.

So the question about whether or not Motion can replace AE can only be answered by each individual.

I don't like the implications I read sometimes (not pointing fingers at anyone here) that Motion is simple and is for people who don't want to learn a "real" motion graphics application. How long would it take for you to have a paragraph of text to break apart into individual letters after another word flies into that paragraph in AE? Is that a simple animation in AE? In Motion, it's a couple of behaviors applied to a couple of objects. The power inside Motion is awesome, not simple. The simulation behaviors are incredible and these things in Motion save me hours and hours and I'm doing wonderful treatments (like text treatments) for projects that I wouldn't even attempt for certain projects in AE because it would take me too long and I'd go over budget. Damn, I did a logo treatment with a particle emittor orbiting the company logo as it flew around the screen and the orbitting across the screen was done with a behavior. It's great stuff.

The bottom line is I'm now producing more impressive results in a lot less time because Motion is now in my arsenal. I don't know if, for me, I'll ever drop AE and only use Motion. That depends on what Adobe does and what Apple does. Who can predict?

Motion obviously needs an update to fix some bugs and in a version or two it will have some missing features.