After Effects vs. Motion

[GregJ]

I'm asking this of the FCP forum as well:

Newbie question: How does Motion compare to After Effects?

I have access to both, although my Mac setup (with FCS2) is newer and much more powerful than my After Effects setup, which is Pro 6.5 on an older laptop.

If I didn't have time to learn both--which I don't--which one should I concentrate on learning?

Or is it apples and oranges?

[MiniMan13]

After effects is WAY better than motion, hands down

[dougspice]

What do you need to do? After Effects has a lot more diverse capabilities than Motion does. If you plan on doing any visual effects compositing or work of that nature you're probably better off learning AE. If you strictly need to do motion graphics, you might find that Motion is faster, more intuitive, and easier to learn. However, the user base is smaller, so it's harder to find others who will be able to help you through weird problems.

[Matt Grunau]

It may do you well to learn both. The two programs aren't very similar at all. Motion reminds me more of something like Illusion. Lot's of presets and dedicated motion graphics work.

Whereas After Effects is not only for motion graphics, but also is Photoshop for video, something Motion is most definately not.

Motion looks like a cool app, and for what it does, it gives great results. I would think of it as something that you would use to generate elements to be combined in After Effects with live footage or other generated elements/footage.

[GregJ]

To answer your question, my needs, at least right now, are pretty modest. I want to add some production value to training and industrial videos. Later on I'd like to do the same for indie shorts and micro-to-low budget features.

[Nik Manning]

After effects is WAY better than motion, hands down
Motion is WAY faster than After Effects , hands down.

If you are doing a lot of graphics work that is just a little to much for Final Cut go with Motion. Think of it like this, by the time you learn all the features in After Effects Motion 4 will be out. :) Honestly this late in the game I would start with Motion 3 and a couple of plugins. If you hit a wall then consider getting AE but most folks won't need it now.

Motion is like After Effects without expressions,keylight,3d layer shadow casting,brainstorming, and extensive adobe program integration.

After Effects is like Motion without realtime compositing,layer grouping,gigantic 3D particle system, behaviors,and extensive Final Cut Pro integration.

So there you have it. Now you can make an informed decision.

[oneinfiniteloop]

As a motion graphics professional, I can't wrap my head around Motion...personally it's a far cry from being an AE competitor. Matt summed it up nicely...Motion is good at what it does, but falls short in many areas. The layer system it uses is cumbersome and I've never "gotten" it. AE does have layer grouping, it's called Pre-Composing, works a little different, but it works.

Like Matt also said, Motion falls short when working with video too, whereas AE you can do a larger variety in one project. That is one of it's strongest features, being able to handle motion graphics, typography, visual effects, etc all in one package. No other software can compare in that respect. Plus, if you ever want to work in motion graphics & visual effects (some places) professionally, AE is a requirement, Motion is an afterthought or barely an added bonus.

But...different strokes for different folks...it is just software, it's all about you in the long run. Give me a Rostrum camera and some paper, glue, and colored pencils and I'll make something comparable to what can be done in AE & Motion.

[milksac]

Or is it apples and oranges?
Because the interface and workflows are so different it is like apples and oranges.
Get in there, roll up your sleves and give each program a good work out. Pick the one you're most comfortable with.

[yia]

guys, what about color correction....which one does a better job.....

[yia]

hello......any one......oh sh!t

[dougspice]

There are more overall tools and plugins available for After Effects, and it's a more accepted tool for the job. However, you may find Motion to be quicker and more responsive. I guess it depends on whether you mean actual color correction (for which neither is all that great, but After Effects is better) or color grading (where you're just going all-out with a style and don't care too much about consistency.)

[Matt Grunau]

There are more overall tools and plugins available for After Effects, and it's a more accepted tool for the job. However, you may find Motion to be quicker and more responsive. I guess it depends on whether you mean actual color correction (for which neither is all that great, but After Effects is better) or color grading (where you're just going all-out with a style and don't care too much about consistency.)

I use Illusion, which is a GPU based 2D particle generation program, and it runs a hell of a lot faster than AE just like Motion does. I've found it to be a very valued part of my software "arsenal".

But it is does what it does because it is meant to, just like Motion. AE does not, again because that is not what is meant to do. Sure, AE is good for mograph work; we've all seen Kai's work, and that in itself speaks volumes, and we have seen the intergration and use directly with 3D with the examples oneinfiniteloop as shown, advised on, and given his input.

As far as color correction, AE is very good in that regard I have found, if you simply use two adjustment layers set to curves and correct as you would via Photoshop.

Even better, export a frame of video to Photoshop, do you color correction there (as done in the book "Adobe Photoshop for VFX Artists" by Lopsie Schwartz), save as a .psd with adjustment layers an open the .psd as a composition in AE. Then, you can simply apply the adjustment layers you used to color correct directly to your footage! It works wonderfully. For color correcting in AE, I now always use Photoshop as the go between, because the adjustment layers transfer across, and because I have more latitude in Photoshop.

The more I have looked into it, the more I have been impressed with Motion, mostly because of this thread. It can do some simply awesome things, but again, not in the manner of AE, more like a program dedicated to a very designated and defined base of effects (though they can be modified, again, like Illusion) for strictly and only mograph work.

It's still a hell of a program, and if I could use it in my arsenal, I sure as shi!t would.


But in the end, it is not or will never be a "Photoshop for Video" the way AE is. That is what Shake is for.


Still a good program.


Kai, you use a Mac, and we all know your prowess with AE. We haven't heard from you about Motion. Weigh in please.

[Burlesque]

I would go for AE.