Motion 3 vs. AE CS3

Motion 3 vs. AE CS3

by Osmin Camero

on Jul 3, 2008 at 4:12:16 pm

The company I am working for is just now getting into motion graphics. We have the Final Cut Studio package and have been looking to work efficiently by staying within the package. Our question is in regards to Motion 3. I know with Motion 2 the thing holding it back from After Effects was the lack of a 3D environment. Now that Motion 3 has 3D, do you feel that it is similar to After Effects? What are the major differences between the two programs?

Re: Motion 3 vs. AE CS3

by david bogie

on Jul 3, 2008 at 5:36:57 pm

[Osmin Camero] "I know with Motion 2 the thing holding it back from After Effects was the lack of a 3D environment. Now that Motion 3 has 3D, do you feel that it is similar to After Effects? What are the major differences between the two programs?"

Your main premise is not true at all. The applications are targeted at different users and at different outputs and workflows. Motion's 3d is fun but there are now shadows which is a real "what were they THINKing?" question for Apple.
If you need elegantly sophisticated motion graphics and seamless Hollywood-style effects (and a huge supply chain of third party effects systems) then you want and need After Effects.

If you need to turn things around in a hurry and don't need the superior level of third party support (or 3D shadows), Motion is for you.

This question has come up hundreds of times since Motion 1 was released. You can find comparative reviews on many video and effects forums.

My personal take is that my pro-After Effects prejudices prevent me from understanding and therefor appreciating Motion's paradigms. I hate and despise Motion's behavior-based system deeply and unreasonably. But I'm using it more with the passage of each new project.

bogiesan

bogiesan

This is my standard sigfile so do not take it personally: "For crying out loud, read the freakin' manual."

Re: Motion 3 vs. AE CS3

by Noah Kadner

on Jul 3, 2008 at 7:22:29 pm

If you can afford them- both have their strengths.

Motion's
Fast and very easy to make changes- no rendering
Powerful behaviors much more flexible than keyframing
Amazing built-in particles and titling
Fast 3D effects
Lots of templates

AFX's
More complex and powerful compositing
More mature 3D system
Much more Plugins available.
Stronger compatibility with more formats

But as I said you can easily use both on the same project and at their prices I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible to get both + Shake too.

BTW- neither are truly 3D- that is extruded objects with depth. Both are actually 2.5 D- think of floating postcards in space. You have a camera that moves in XYZ space but you are dealing with flat planar objects. Though there are plugins for AFX that alter this somewhat. For true 3D you need Maya, LightWave, Cinema4D, Blender, etc.

My FCP Blog. Unlock the secrets of the DVX100, HVX200 and Apple Color and Win a Free Letus Extreme.
Now featuring the Sony EX1 Guidebook, DVD Studio Pro and Sound for Film and TV.
http://www.callboxlive.com

Re: Motion 3 vs. AE CS3

by Stephen Smith

on Jul 11, 2008 at 8:38:24 pm

Noah is absolutely right. ([Noah Kadner] “If you can afford them- both have their strengths.”) I’m a fan of Motion but the project I’m currently working on required me to use AE because it could do what I needed. Could you image building a home with one tool.

That being said Osmin, if your just getting into motion graphics you probably don’t need what AE offers. Besides, you already paid for Motion.

Stephen Smith
Lone Peak Producitons

Check out my DVD Money Making Graphics & Effects for Final Cut Studio 2