What about "motion graphers"

	What about "motion graphers" by Carlos Zapater on Jun 9, 2009 at 10:58:31 am I see people here use C* mostly for compositing. I wonder if i am the only one using it for motion graphics. You can imagine how abandoned i feel... not only for that but to the slow death of our program. But the main question for this post is... Is there a real alternative in motion graphics? Before C*2008 was launched i was giving an eye to AE, Nuke, Fusion and Motion 3. Nuke and Fusion are more compo oriented and AE did not convince me because its complexity in setting up a small render farm and its interface. So.. what else is left for us in the world of mo graph? Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Alan Okey on Jun 9, 2009 at 6:29:55 pm Buying Nuke or Fusion for motion graphics would be like buying a Ferrari to take trips to the grocery store. It might work, but it would be cumbersome because they're optimized for a different task and they're very expensive relative to AE or Motion. I think you'll have to just bite the bullet and learn AE, painful as it may be. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Phil Radelat on Jun 12, 2009 at 6:31:47 am >>I think you'll have to just bite the bullet and learn AE, painful as it may be.<< Yes and no, I dunno. Years back, good 'ol Kenny LaRue (lovely fellow, I have to say) made a series of training videos for combustion where he outlined, more than anything else, 'perspective" on doing motion graphics with combustion. Like compositing (as in motion picture work) motion graphics is all about mindset. More importantly, it's about how comfortable you are with a given program, in this instance combustion. If you have combustion under your belt, than it's a matter of applying principles to achieve goals. That's all. Really. You can take any number of AE motion graphics tutorials, and if you understand the mechanisms of the intended process, chances are pretty good you can replicate it in combustion. So that's a good place to start, really. Take any AE tutorial, and do it. There may be some exceptions to the rule, but if you're a savvy enough combustion compositor, don't worry, be happy! Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Carlos Zapater on Jun 15, 2009 at 5:26:52 pm I have Ken's DVD. And they helped a lot years ago. But the point is not me... but the program. I have a reasonable amount of experience with mo graph in C* and i think that the software had become tiny for me... I know that it is still as good as it was when we bought it but i want to evolve and i feel i reached the limit for C* years ago... it doesn't provide me with features that i want to include in my workflow (3d particles, 64 bits, more stability, improved OGL...) but i love the way i work with C*. So... is a hate-love story. That's the reason i was searching for an alternative. Tutorials are OK but what i need is software capabilities... ;) Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Phil Radelat on Jun 16, 2009 at 8:26:36 pm Well obviously you'd need to venture into After Effects. If motion graphics are your number one priority, and you're feeling constrained in combustion, it's a no-brainer. combustion's main strength are in motion picture compositing, even if it is somewhat dated and it's rendering engine is operated by a hand crank. It's workflow is better suited for that than AE in my opinion, but there's no denying the opposite is true of AE. Not that you can't do motion picture compositing in AE, it's done all the time, but obviosly it gets into personal preferences and particular production capability that may or may not be there for a given application. And there's no denying the wealth of third-party support for AE. I've always had a love/hate relationship with combustion, and a search through the archives will show exactly how much! :-D But it's a tool at your disposal if you want it or need it, and there are other tools available as well for whatever reasons may be needed. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Ivan S. Nagy on Jul 10, 2009 at 11:17:23 am I do a lot of motion graphics and know how you feel. Myself do not like the AE interface that much and have been looking for an alternative too. My problem is often that the time allotted to complete the sequence has been getting shorter. I used to have 3 days to produce a trailer or broadcast graphics sequence, now they want me to do 3 a day :-O Although I have learned to develop the creative ideas faster, I still see the rendering time as major obstacle. Yes, render farms are getting cheaper to set up, but I want to stay mobile, I travel for work and have my clients all over, do a lot over internet too. To answer your question, well, lately I have stumbled upon a motion graphics software that may have a solution for me. It is called VitaScene (http://www.prodad.de/gb/vitascene_std_details.html) and it uses GPU power instead CPU for rendering and thus many effects can be achieved in real time (provided that you have a fast graphic card). Works with both 16 and 32 bit too. At first I thought it was just a plugin (works with most commonly sofware, like AVID, AfterEffects and Vegas, but I was pleasantly surprised that they have a stand alone version too. Going to test it as plugin in Combustion too, could work through the AVID plugin. Who knows, with GPUs getting faster and more powerful, this may be one way to go? Anyway this was my 2 cents on the subject. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Carlos Zapater on Jul 10, 2009 at 6:05:32 pm Thanks a lot! I'll keep an eye on it. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Phil Radelat on Jul 12, 2009 at 5:11:30 am Hmmm, I have to say that Vitascene stuff looks cheesy, but i guess if it has enough production power, well... There was a movement a while back with an open source program called Jahshaka that used the graphics card to render as well. Something went wrong somewhere along the vine and it's development has stagnated. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahshaka Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Ivan S. Nagy on Sep 8, 2009 at 9:59:01 am Hi Phil, I was wondering what did you mean by "cheesy". Did you mean the interface or functions? As far as interface I agree, it looks a bit like windows 98, but the functions are ok for me. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index

	Re: What about "motion graphers" by Phil Radelat on Sep 8, 2009 at 4:24:43 pm What I meant by "cheesy" is the kind of examples given. It looks like something that you'd use on family videos or goofy YouTube videos or perhaps weddings, etc. It doesn't seem aimed at film or motion compositors, general professional compositing production per se. If the program itself is capable, however, than all power to it. If so it seems to me the program is not presented in the best light. Respond to this post   •   Return to posts index