AE or Shake???

M

Motherboard

Well-known member
which one do u guys think is easier to learn AE or Shake?
I had Combustion 3 but could never get arround it :( so I wanna stick to one program
that's gonna yield the best results.



thanx.
 
If you were having trouble with Combustion, then I would say stick with After Effects. I've never used Combustion, but I'm assuming it's more node based than layer based. Shake is mostly node-based with a timeline thrown in. It's much more powerful than a layer based program, but you can most likely achieve what you're looking to do with After Effects. And as MiniMan says, make sure you go through all of the tutorials by Andrew Kramer... he's really good at what he does.
 
To my knowledge and for your consideration Shake seems to be a dead end program. That means no more upgrades. AE on the other hand is still going to be around for a while.
 
But Shake will teach you how to do node-based compositing and for the price, it's definitely not a bad choice if you plan to take visual effects / compositing seriously at all. After Effects really isn't used for professional compositing. If you're really serious about node based compositing, pick up Fusion or Nuke.
 
to me both programs composite well......its whether or not you know how to use the features to make it look good in either program. I you AE mostly but take footage into Shake to do slow motion and remove camera shake because I think the frame blending looks way better. All personal preference.
 
thanx guys, I had already ordered FCS2 (because of motion) and Shake 4 when I saw this http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=116065

oh well I guess I'll have to mess with apple stuff for now, since it seems to be a trend in Hollywood to cut in FCP

my AE computer had a heart attack (I already had all of trapcode's plugs) that's why I decided to go with Apple, we'll see how that goes.

The combustion guy said all I needed was a verto grfx card (that was bfore Autodesk)

I do Experimental film and some music vids, so I just need it for green screen, tracking, 3D camera and particles.
 
Unix said:
thanx guys, I had already ordered FCS2 (because of motion) and Shake 4 when I saw this http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=116065

oh well I guess I'll have to mess with apple stuff for now, since it seems to be a trend in Hollywood to cut in FCP

my AE computer had a heart attack (I already had all of trapcode's plugs) that's why I decided to go with Apple, we'll see how that goes.

The combustion guy said all I needed was a verto grfx card (that was bfore Autodesk)

I do Experimental film and some music vids, so I just need it for green screen, tracking, 3D camera and particles.
Click to expand...
I think you'll be happy with what you're getting. There're a couple of books I recommended for you here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1123954&postcount=11
 
Unix,

Shake rocks. it's a little weird sometimes,
but it's a great way to learn and do compositing.

Once you've done a few tutorial chapters and are getting the feel for it,
get Steve Wright's amazing book "Digital Compositing for Film and Video".
The whole book gives node-based examples.

Les
 
I still use both.

Shake's compositing, keying and retiming/standards conversion is far superior to anything in AfterEffects.

However, creating your own effects? Nope - AE hands down. I'm not a big Motion fan either - probably because I know AE and can't wrap my fingers around why Motion does the things it does the way it does them... AND the new 3d aspect of Motion is just freaky... AE to the rescue!

CaptM
 
Node based compositing is far superior in my opinion. Shake is a good place to start since it is cheap. I would move to Nuke. I have both actually. Getting to like Nuke more and more.
 
You know... you really need to separate compositing apps from effects apps.

Yes, you can do compositing inside AE but you are limited (yes, limited) to what the 'effects' force you to do in After Effects. The comment about 'more plugins are made for AfterEffects' is really very - well, juvenile. The whole idea behind node based vs plugin based is the ability to control EVERY aspect of the script apart from effecting any other part of the script. You just don't have that control in AE. Sorry, but you don't. Pre-comping comps doesn't count because you can get WAY too lost in what you are ultimately looking at.

Again... I use after effects a LOT. But when I need some serious work done I'll go to Shake...

Case in point... was working on a TwoStrip/ThreeStrip look (40's-50's film (The Aviator) etc... a friend was working on it in Shake...

3strip.png


This worked great for HD material, but working in DV I needed to do a horizontal chroma blur in the middle of it... So I did! Where the heck would I have been able to stick that in the middle of some pre-built plugin?? Hmm?

CaptM

Where would I have stuck THAT
 
Great points as always Cap. It's a shame that these discussions always end up being a "my program is better than your program" debate. Can After Effects do compositing and keying? Sure. Can it do effects for video? Yup. So can Digital Fusion, Combustion, Shake, Inferno, Nuke, and on and on.

Instead of just supporting your app of choice, realize that each has its particular strong points. Node based software simply gives more functionality. Period. Does that mean that Digital Fusion or Shake are inherently better than AE? No, it means they are better at different things.

Your best bet it to learn both node based and layer based, and use each where it needs to be used. I can't think of one production house that limits itself to only one piece of software for video. They do that for good reason.

AE can do pretty much what all the other programs do, though it takes many more steps and can be a pain. Node based can do pretty much what AE can, though sometimes it can be overkill. So take the best of both worlds. For simple compositing of 3D, visual effects, or keying, you can use AE. For the more complex work or work where you need to have complete control, use Shake or one of the other node based apps.

Hell, I use Particle Illusion, AE, and Lightwave for the majority of my stuff, and when (and if) I need more power at my disposal, I will invest in more software, or contract out.

Lastly, people put far too much emphasis on plugins and filters. Unless a 3rd party plugin is doing something very specific that you can not accomplish natively within AE or any other software, you need to learn more about the software itself. Then at least you will have a better understanding about what is truly going on under the hood, and you work will reflect it.
 
Matt Grunau said:
Lastly, people put far too much emphasis on plugins and filters. Unless a 3rd party plugin is doing something very specific that you can not accomplish natively within AE or any other software, you need to learn more about the software itself. Then at least you will have a better understanding about what is truly going on under the hood, and you work will reflect it.
Click to expand...

AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!

Once there's a plugin for making coffee I'll start investing in them. (Except I too own the trapcode set and LOVE IT! - though those I see less as plugins but more of apps running inside AE framework)

CaptM
 
CaptainM,
Thanks for the input but what the hell does that diagram do. I keep looking at it and I'm so baffled ahahahahah.
Maybe one day I'll be able to understand. (got to hit the books)
 
As a note to what the Captain said in regards to two strip/three strip color treatment a la The Aviator...Rob Legato (the VFX supe on the movie) developed that three strip look in Photoshop and After Effects.

That goes to show you that it can be done in any program, and it IS done in any program, all it takes is an understanding of that program and creativity. I'm not knocking on what the Captain said or trying to say his Shake process is wrong...actually, Captain makes a good point in regards to the flexibility of nodes. My point is that the choice of software matters less when you take it in stride.

Also, what Matt said about plug-ins is very true. When I first picked up AE, I played with all the effects...when I started using it in production I stopped. There are very few plug-ins I use outside of the usual Levels, Curves, various channel plugs, UnMult, Keylight, and the occasional Particular, when it's called for. It's much more rewarding to dissect how to do something and understand it rather than slap a plug-in on it and call it a day.
 
Exactly right... and indeed my heartfelt point...

The key is knowing WHAT the process is. For the ThreeStrip knowing it's roots and every aspect of your operating program is the bottom line.

Threestrip was (layman's terms, so I might get the details wrong) was light thru a lens to a prism or splitter... Green went to it's own strip and magenta went to another strip that was able to record only two colors... red and blue. Together those were combined AFTER to give a color print. Basically, it's black and white in color.

So -- knowing that - how do you split the channels and combine and bring them back?

You don't go looking for someone else's plugin if one doesn't exist. Yes, Aviator is a classic example. These guys had to sit alone in a room with sliderules (figuratively) to figure this out.

The above shake script is ONE way they would have come up with it.

BTW -- here is an example of the twostrip from this scrip (material is just something I grabbed (DV) off my drive... (Zachary).

TwoStripjaggies.png


Yuk - jaggies... needed to do the ChromaBlur channel specific...

TwoStripChromaBlur.png


Again... know what you want to do - and know your program. (But this was all done in Shake... no need to go to any additional program to do channel swaps.)

hee

CaptM
 
siniarch said:
CaptainM,
Thanks for the input but what the hell does that diagram do.
Click to expand...

Don't worry -- that was kind of the point of my post. That's how plugins work. Someone sits down and breaks apart what they want and put it in a nice little package. We can convert this script into an FxScript plug for FCP.

But think of it this way:

Process flows like a business flowchart TOP to BOTTOM
At the top is your FILE IN (your raw material)
At the bottom is your FILE OUT (the ThreeStrip - TwoStrip etc)

Inbetween is the process.

Monochrome tabs split the channels (top)

The IAdd brings them back together (bottom)

Everything in the middle is what combines thru composite modes (ish).

Each node is an engine... or a single slider on an AE filter. Each node has controls to manipulate its engine.

CaptM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top