FORUMS: list search recent posts

Correction - After Effects render times

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Simon Ubsdell
Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 9:58:16 am

In a reply to Oliver Peters on another thread below, I described some figures for rendering out of After Effects that weren't up to date. Having made sure I was working with the very latest version, courtesy of the Creative Cloud, here are the revised figures which are significantly better than the results I had been getting before the update.

The test was a very simple project of 4 seconds duration set to 1080p at 29.97fps with five video layers, no filters, top video screened over the other four which all reduced to 44% scale and laid out evenly. Project settings were set to 32 bit float as this was a comparison test with Motion 5 which only operates in 32 bit float.

Here are the new results:

H.264:
Ae - 1m 25s
Motion - 4s

ProRes 422:
Ae - 1m 23s
Motion - 4s

10bit Uncompressed:
Ae - 1.16
Motion: 5s

OpenEXR:
Ae - 1.33
Motion - 1m 28s (Motion uses Compressor to render OpenEXR sequences)

Apologies for the misinformation in the original post.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 1:06:19 pm

Of what did the render test consist?


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 1:14:38 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Of what did the render test consist?"

Er - this as mentioned in the post above:

The test was a very simple project of 4 seconds duration set to 1080p at 29.97fps with five video layers, no filters, top video screened over the other four which all reduced to 44% scale and laid out evenly. Project settings were set to 32 bit float as this was a comparison test with Motion 5 which only operates in 32 bit float.

As I pointed out in my original post but forgot to reiterate here it was not very scientific at all - just a random thing I did as a result of something that Oliver mentioned.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 1:19:40 pm

I am an idiot.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 1:48:49 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I am an idiot."

Not at all ;-)

Surprising result, though. or is is just me that's surprised? Motion is rendering an identically configured project more than 16 x faster the latest most up-to-date version of Ae? Does that seem right?

(Of course it's perfectly possible my test was fundamentally flawed and I'm happy to be proved wrong, but it really does look like a major discrepancy in performance that's not about a few percentage point of difference.)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 2:00:16 pm

that is surreally fast. It should be reason enough alone to seriously consider it.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 2:27:49 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Surprising result, though. or is is just me that's surprised? Motion is rendering an identically configured project more than 16 x faster the latest most up-to-date version of Ae? Does that seem right?

(Of course it's perfectly possible my test was fundamentally flawed and I'm happy to be proved wrong, but it really does look like a major discrepancy in performance that's not about a few percentage point of difference.)"


What are your memory and multiprocessing settings in AE? If you turn on "Render Multiple Frames Simultaneously" and allocate about 2GB of RAM per CPU, you should see a speedup in H.264 renders. With AE, you really have to find the right balance between RAM and CPU usage to get the best performance during rendering time. I would be happy to try rendering out the same AE project if you send it to me.

Thanks,

Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 2:38:33 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Surprising result, though. or is is just me that's surprised? Motion is rendering an identically configured project more than 16 x faster the latest most up-to-date version of Ae? Does that seem right?"

There are a couple of reasons why Ae might be underperforming so dramatically.

Are you using multiprocessing for the After Effects renders? There's a little bit of overhead involved here for Ae to launch multiple instances of its renderer. This clearly pays off for long renders, but adds significant time relative to short renders. Of course, not using multiprocessing also costs time because your system resources will not be fully utilized.

Ae is hamstrung by the lack of 64-bit QuickTime APIs. There's a performance penalty for using QuickTime format that Adobe's MediaCore architecture can't process natively (such as ProRes). A 32-bit helper application reads these file via QuickTime API calls and passes the decoded frames back to Ae over the computer's network stack. Motion can use 64-bit AVFoundation, but that's not cross-platform so Adobe seems to choose to avoid it.

But even if these factors were tuned for Ae, I'd still expect Motion to render this test faster because of its design. Ae's rendering architecture is somewhat old-fashioned, and faster approaches are possible on today's hardware. Scaling is a great example of something that a GPU can do dramatically faster than a CPU.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 2:56:08 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Are you using multiprocessing for the After Effects renders? There's a little bit of overhead involved here for Ae to launch multiple instances of its renderer. This clearly pays off for long renders, but adds significant time relative to short renders. Of course, not using multiprocessing also costs time because your system resources will not be fully utilized."

In answer to your and Shawn's question, I didn't use multiprocessing for this test precisely for the reasons you describe - the results would have been truly horrendous on a timeline this length. In fact, I did have a stab at this but gave up not wanting to skew the test adversely ...

It's the same as what happened to Motion with the OpenEXR render where it had to farm it out to Compressor - what took the time was not the render (which was typically fast) but the parcelling of the job.

(I have to say that most of my projects are of fairly short duration though reasonably high complexity which is why the multiprocessing route doesn't really work for my situation as a general rule. I typically need to render many iterations of similar short projects so you can see the problem.)

And the purpose was really not to try and show up any issues with Ae (though I'm sure that's how you guys are probably looking at it) but rather to show that Motion is no slouch at rendering, though to be honest I do think the playing field was reasonable level in this case - but then I would say that!

As I said, this was not meant to be a scientific test - I'd be happy to see other people's experiences with similar scenarios run on more rigorous lines.

But I'm afraid I'd have to bow out from running any more renders myself - I think I'd rather stick pointy objects repeatedly into both eyes. It's not my idea of a fun thing to do ;-)

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Walter Soyka
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 3:23:56 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "And the purpose was really not to try and show up any issues with Ae (though I'm sure that's how you guys are probably looking at it) but rather to show that Motion is no slouch at rendering, though to be honest I do think the playing field was reasonable level in this case - but then I would say that!"

Sorry, I was trying to explain, not defend, Ae's renderer. It's slow and that's why it loses badly to Motion in this test, but I wanted to point out a couple of things that might be making it even slower in this specific case.

I think you are showing a totally valid criticism of Ae. Try this same basic experiment in Premiere on a hardware MPE-capable system and I think it will run circles around Ae.

Motion's renderer is pretty stunning. Full float and fast, with color management? No complaints from me there!


[Simon Ubsdell] "As I said, this was not meant to be a scientific test - I'd be happy to see other people's experiences with similar scenarios run on more rigorous lines. "

I think it will be hard to come up with a test that's "fair" to both products because their renderers are so different. Real-world, end-to-end comparisons of entire workflows might be equally hard but more meaningful.

And there's plenty of opportunity for Motion to win there, too. It's not my go-to tool, but it's certainly capable of good work. You're right to shine a spotlight on Motion so people can evaluate it fairly.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Dennis Radeke
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 3:41:59 pm

...Thanks Walter for asking some of the same questions I might have asked.

As stated, it's difficult to come up with completely fair tests between any two applications like these. Nevertheless, it's neat to see and consider.

Dennis - Adobe guy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 3:53:09 pm

[Dennis Radeke] "As stated, it's difficult to come up with completely fair tests between any two applications like these. Nevertheless, it's neat to see and consider. "

Hi Dennis

I'd totally agree and I did mention a few times that I thought it was totally unscientific and probably unfair as a test.

On the other hand, it does create a sample situation that is appropriate to the kind of extremely short form projects that I have to get through every day and from that point of view it was a surprise to me that there would be such a meaningful discrepancy.

This is in no way to disparage Ae and all the cool stuff it can do but it does suggest to me that I am probably better off sticking with Motion for these kinds of short-form projects not just for the real-time capability that enables me to create faster but also for the significant render advantage that is going to have a real impact on how fast I can get the job out of the door, which is ultra-critical for the work we do as a company.

If I have a dozen iterations of a project that each need rendering in order to complete the job it's very meaningful to me that I can get them done in a couple of minutes as against 30 minutes or more.

But I still very much like using Ae (who wouldn't, else where would this forum be?!!) and will continue to do so where the complexity of the project justifies the extra time I now know it is likely to take.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Todd Kopriva
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 3:57:04 pm

FWIW, we've got people hard at work overhauling the guts of After Effects. We know that speed---both rendering speed and responsiveness of the UI---is something that matters to every single person who uses After Effects.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 4:01:02 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "There is no doubt Ae is and will continue to be a powerful workhorse and industry standard, but I do hope it gets some performance tweaks."

[Todd Kopriva] "FWIW, we've got people hard at work overhauling the guts of After Effects. We know that speed---both rendering speed and responsiveness of the UI---is something that matters to every single person who uses After Effects."

I've seen quick responses before, but this might be a record. ;)


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 7:48:06 pm

[Todd Kopriva] "FWIW, we've got people hard at work overhauling the guts of After Effects. We know that speed---both rendering speed and responsiveness of the UI---is something that matters to every single person who uses After Effects."

Hi Todd

I really don't mean to be snarky (and thanks for responding at all) but has this really not been raised as in issue before now in Ae's exceedingly long history?

I've always loved everything about Ae - great fun to work with in every respect - but the lack of any real time performance (not to mention glacial render times) was always a huge issue for me and I can't believe I've been alone in this.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index


Todd Kopriva
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:16:22 pm

> I really don't mean to be snarky (and thanks for responding at all) but has this really not been raised as in issue before now in Ae's exceedingly long history?


Yes, and we've been doing major work for years to address these concerns. The port tp 64-bit for CS5, the creation of the global performance cache for CS6... these are giant engineering projects that have been pointed at improving performance. Have they done enough? No. That's why we're doing more. Specifically, right now we're focused on improving threading so that the UI isn't blocked against taking input from you when there is other processing (e.g., rendering) going on. This will make working in the application much more responsive.

BTW, the fact that I'm able to tell you about things that we're working on is a change because of the move to the subscription model of Creative Cloud. Infuriating accounting laws regarding revenue recognition prevented this kind of transparency under the old perpetual license model. Also, because we have a focus on retaining subscribers, we are able to focus more on these under-the-hood improvements rather than (perhaps not so useful) eye candy.

For more details about that second paragraph, see this from Aharon Rabinowitz:
http://allbetsareoff.com/2013/06/an-update-on-creative-cloud/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:24:36 pm

[Todd Kopriva] "BTW, the fact that I'm able to tell you about things that we're working on is a change because of the move to the subscription model of Creative Cloud. Infuriating accounting laws regarding revenue recognition prevented this kind of transparency under the old perpetual license model. Also, because we have a focus on retaining subscribers, we are able to focus more on these under-the-hood improvements rather than (perhaps not so useful) eye candy."

Thanks very much for the reply, Todd, and for the link to the Aharon Rabinowitz piece which makes a great (and balanced) case for the Cloud.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Paul King
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 8, 2013 at 4:54:34 pm

This should have been done before implementing CC.
You're already getting paid for this software and the rendering engine has been sub par for the last 3 versions.



Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 3:57:47 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Surprising result, though. or is is just me that's surprised? Motion is rendering an identically configured project more than 16 x faster the latest most up-to-date version of Ae? Does that seem right?"

On a fundamental level. Yes.

Motion, from it's very inception, was conceived as a "real time" environment. Giant quotes on real time.

Ae, being a much older application with a far larger legacy, couldn't have been real time.

Putting the global cache aside for a moment, Ae's basic ram preview structure hasn't changed much. Knock the resolution down, ram preview, tweak/adjust, ram preview, do a best render. Adding Global Cache back in, this mitigates some of the re-ram previewing (therefore speeding up the overall time it takes that would be spent rerendering the same frames unnecessarily), and it is an awesome feat of engineering, but it doesn't go towards making Ae operate differently from how it was conceived.

There is no doubt Ae is and will continue to be a powerful workhorse and industry standard, but I do hope it gets some performance tweaks.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 4:39:42 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion, from it's very inception, was conceived as a "real time" environment. Giant quotes on real time. Ae, being a much older application with a far larger legacy, couldn't have been real time."

Quoted for truth.

I appreciate Adobe's sensitivity to the legacy and the ecosystem. It's hard to strike a balance when everyone wants new shininess, but I think the Ae team should be commended on the stability and steady evolution of Ae as a platform.

A very practical and recent example of that stewardship: look at how careful they were to gather feedback before changing keyboard shortcuts [link].


[Jeremy Garchow] "Putting the global cache aside for a moment, Ae's basic ram preview structure hasn't changed much. Knock the resolution down, ram preview, tweak/adjust, ram preview, do a best render. Adding Global Cache back in, this mitigates some of the re-ram previewing (therefore speeding up the overall time it takes that would be spent rerendering the same frames unnecessarily), and it is an awesome feat of engineering, but it doesn't go towards making Ae operate differently from how it was conceived."

It's pretty amazing how far Ae has come in 20 years. It's a big credit to the development team that their vision two decades ago was flexible enough to accommodate all the development that's happened since.

I get a little frustrated when I see people (not you, Jeremy, and not here) complaining that there have been no significant updates to Ae since version x back in the day, when in fact Ae is constantly advancing, both with user-facing features and under the hood.

Specifically here, I'd agree with you that Ae still fundamentally renders the same way as it always has, but I also see the global performance cache as proof that Adobe can make very deep engineering changes without breaking anything user-facing.

I think that's quite impressive and it gives me a lot of hope that Adobe can avoid big disruptions while continuing to make really the large improvements Todd alluded to.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 4:59:55 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think that's quite impressive and it gives me a lot of hope that Adobe can avoid big disruptions while continuing to make really the large improvements Todd alluded to."

If there is anything to be confident in, it's Adobe's engineering. The major biggies (at least for me) in performance tools like the roto brush and others, are the tip of the ice berg. I would imagine, and maybe the Cloud model will help with this, that the team can get it done without too much disruption. Hopefully, the Cloud allows some focus in these areas.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 5:21:50 pm

Interestingly enough, I just got an update yesterday for Photoshop CS6, both the 32- and 64-bit versions. I was rather surprised to see that they're still working on any CS6 products...

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Todd Kopriva
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 5:24:40 pm

We've said repeatedly that we're still doing bug fixes for CS6 and keeping it alive for new operating systems and such. We're still selling and supporting it. I'm working on a CS6 update for After Effects right now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 6:02:14 pm

Can I change My cs 6 window to Mac?

Ricardo


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 6:07:43 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "Can I change My cs 6 window to Mac?"

See Request a platform or language swap [link].

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 7:27:49 pm

Hi Todd,

Thanks for the info and your hard work.

[Todd Kopriva] "We've said repeatedly that we're still doing bug fixes for CS6 and keeping it alive for new operating systems and such. We're still selling and supporting it. I'm working on a CS6 update for After Effects right now.
"


Does this mean that we can look forward to CS6 working beyond 10.9 on the Mac? Don't want to put words in your mouth, but that could be a very big thing for many.

Thanks again.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Todd Kopriva
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:20:17 pm

> Does this mean that we can look forward to CS6 working beyond 10.9 on the Mac?


It's impossible for us to see that far into the future, since Apple doesn't tell us the details of their future operating systems.

We're working now to make sure that CS6 works on the next version of Mac OSX (the one after 10.8). Beyond that, everything is opaque to us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 9:49:47 pm

Todd,
Thanks for your response re CS6 beyond 10.9. Might be some hope there. I suppose things have always been a bit opaque when it comes to the next version after a new OS, in this case after 10.9.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1.3, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Joseph W. Bourke
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:06:16 pm

Hi Todd -

I wasn't trying to be confrontational - I've been running the CS6 Master Collection for well over a year, and haven't noticed any bugs in my usual software tools (AE, PPro, Audition, AME, and Illustrator), so I assumed that development was over. You know how it is - when you're not having any problems, you assume no one else is. I don't think I've done a single bug report on CS6.

Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 7:43:13 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion, from it's very inception, was conceived as a "real time" environment. Giant quotes on real time."

Sorry, but the "giant quotes:" mean you don't subscribe to the notion that it provides any real time capability?

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 7:49:17 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Sorry, but the "giant quotes:" mean you don't subscribe to the notion that it provides any real time capability?"

When Motion was first released, it was billed as a real time environment, even touting live video mixing.

While you could get away with some things, there wasn't full frame rate real time, especially when you started adding axis changes with blur.

Motion 5 is different and it does decently well, it seems.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 7:58:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "When Motion was first released, it was billed as a real time environment, even touting live video mixing."

You see, that's where you have the better of me - I spent a number of years thinking Motion was way beneath me so I was somewhat late to the party ;-) Interesting historical perspective though - maybe compared to the landscape at the time the claim had some value.

[Jeremy Garchow] "Motion 5 is different and it does decently well, it seems."

Again I sense a very distinct note of disparagement - decently well compared to what? Surely you mean pretty sensationally well compared to the market leader which can be somewhat disappointing in the real-time stakes??

Not wanting to pick holes in your comments (especially since I know you don't entirely object to it in principle) but Motion gets an absurdly raw deal around the COW, a lot of the time from folks who haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about (not wanting to mention any names or quote any of their more extreme comments), that i really do feel it's important to try and redress some of the balance.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:22:52 pm

[Simon Ubsdell] "Interesting historical perspective though - maybe compared to the landscape at the time the claim had some value."

It had a bit of value, it was also really easy to hit the performance wall with just a few behaviors.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Again I sense a very distinct note of disparagement - decently well compared to what? Surely you mean pretty sensationally well compared to the market leader which can be somewhat disappointing in the real-time stakes??"

Sure, Ae's RAM Preview system is my least favorite part of the program.

Having to Ram preview through simple pan and zoom for still images seems down right dated. Real time adjustments with minimal keyframing is pretty good in Motion.

[Simon Ubsdell] "Not wanting to pick holes in your comments (especially since I know you don't entirely object to it in principle) but Motion gets an absurdly raw deal around the COW, a lot of the time from folks who haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about (not wanting to mention any names or quote any of their more extreme comments), that i really do feel it's important to try and redress some of the balance."

For me, it has always been stability. Motion crashed on me so much over the years, I gave up on it. Ae is much better in this regard.

Also, for the way I use Ae and how I would use Motion, is that I usually deal in edits, or at least parts of edits.

I am not a motion graphics designer, but I use Ae more for compositing, keying, track/roto/mask, image repair/conceal. Frequently, I will edit, and then send the entire edit in tact over to Ae. It is currently easier for me to get an edit in to Ae from any NLE including FCPX, than it is to get an edit in to Motion 5 from any NLE, including FCPX.

I also do text work in Ae as the text layout system is so easy. FCPX has solved a lot of this natively with the new text tool.

So, for me, it is a workflow and stability issue. I have poked around with Motion 5, but until I can get an edit in to it, it's hard for me to spend much time with it as I am not sure if the time will be well spent.

I do love the Motion Templates, though. That is a really handy system.


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:37:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Real time adjustments with minimal keyframing is pretty good in Motion."

I suspect you haven't used Motion "in anger" for a while - you can make crazy adjustments to almost anything in real-time and the darn thing will just keep on playing merrily through.

[Jeremy Garchow] "For me, it has always been stability. Motion crashed on me so much over the years, I gave up on it. Ae is much better in this regard."

Again, I just don't feel that this represents the reality of Motion 5 - I work in it intensively most days and crashes are pretty much non-existent. Ae on the other hand I find crashes on me a more frequently ... not sure why. Maybe I just drive it harder ...

[Jeremy Garchow] "Also, for the way I use Ae and how I would use Motion, is that I usually deal in edits, or at least parts of edits.

I am not a motion graphics designer, but I use Ae more for compositing, keying, track/roto/mask, image repair/conceal. Frequently, I will edit, and then send the entire edit in tact over to Ae. It is currently easier for me to get an edit in to Ae from any NLE including FCPX, than it is to get an edit in to Motion 5 from any NLE, including FCPX.
"


I see where you're coming from and that absolutely makes sense. As far as I'm concerned if I have any compositing, keying, track/roto, etc to do, then I shoot straight on over to good old Shake where I know I can get it done faster and more accurately than in anything else - no doubt partly down to long familiarity. Unlike you though I never have to deal with exporting sequences so I can see that Ae is the obvious answer for you in this case.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I also do text work in Ae as the text layout system is so easy."

Text is all fine in Ae and you can do most things pretty well, but this is the area where Motion shines above all others - trust me, Ae feels really clunky by comparison. Overall I do more text work than anything else so I've tried a lot of different ways of working and I'm finding that Motion knocks the socks off everything else.

[Jeremy Garchow] "So, for me, it is a workflow and stability issue. I have poked around with Motion 5, but until I can get an edit in to it, it's hard for me to spend much time with it as I am not sure if the time will be well spent."

I totally hear on the "getting an edit" across front (what's keeping Apple?), but I really can't agree that there are any stability issues of any kind with Motion 5. For me it's a rock - a rock that just blasts through almost anything I throw at it, if you'll excuse the preposterous mixed metaphor.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 8:44:55 pm

do you know - you really are kind of selling it there. I'm setting aside a day for a proper muckaround.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Simon Ubsdell
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 9:30:30 pm

[Aindreas Gallagher] "do you know - you really are kind of selling it there. I'm setting aside a day for a proper muckaround."

This gives me a nice warm feeling in what is left of my heart.

And also great trepidation - imagining the remorselessly hilarious savaging that will be coming my way if you are at all displeased with your adventures in MotionLand.

Simon Ubsdell
http://www.tokyo-uk.com


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 5, 2013 at 9:47:53 pm

good god - I wouldn't dare. I would get hosed with good grace and vastly superior, if self deprecating, software knowledge.

no indeed - rantyandy has limits.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

andy lewis
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 6, 2013 at 12:46:56 am

Does this mean that we can look forward to CS6 working beyond 10.9 on the Mac?

We're working now to make sure that CS6 works on the next version of Mac OSX (the one after 10.8). Beyond that, everything is opaque to us.


The one after 10.8? That's 10.9 right? Why be so vague about the name? Unless... oh dear god no.


Return to posts index

Todd Kopriva
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 6, 2013 at 12:47:56 am

As an Adobe employee, I am not in a position to comment on names of future Apple products.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Kopriva, Adobe Systems Incorporated
After Effects quality engineering
After Effects team blog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 6, 2013 at 12:55:14 am

[Todd Kopriva] "As an Adobe employee, I am not in a position to comment on names of future Apple products."

A funny guy in another thread called it "Sex Panther".

Let's just go with that for now.


Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 6, 2013 at 7:49:47 pm

hey - sixty percent of the time - it works all the time.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Gabe Strong
Re: Correction - After Effects render times
on Jun 6, 2013 at 5:23:08 am

I absolutely love motion. It's like actually FUN to play around with. The 'link' behavior allows you to
do something very similar to the 'pick whip' in AE. There is a ton in the program, really. It's not AE, but
it is a heck of a lot closer than it has any business being, when you consider how new it is. Lights, cameras,
'Pseudo 3D', motion tracking, masking, keying, a lot of the same stuff AE does. Plus you can expand it
with plug ins, Zaxwerks Invigerator is pretty neat. Stephan Smith here at the COW had a great Motion DVD
and I think it's still for sale. I bought it a couple years ago and learned a TON. Seriously, for $50
I honestly think that dollar for dollar it may be the best value in software for a small video shop that
you can buy.

Gabe Strong
G-Force Productions
http://www.gforcevideo.com


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]