apple shake 4

merc

merc

Well-known member
im bout to buy and i was just thinkin bout goin with apple shake 4 instead of after effects. its half the price, yet from what ive seen a better program. it is used by real hollywood studios to make real movies, such as lord of the rings, and king kong. am i missing somethin here, or is shake really the better way to go?
 
It depends on what you want to do with the program. Shake is better for compositing work. AE is better for motion graphics. Shake is half the price because Apple declared it EOL (end of life) last year. Meaning no further development to the software. But at $500 it's a heck of a deal. The learning curve for Shake is steeper. AE uses a layer/timeline workflow which is somewhat intuitive for editors used to working that way. Shake uses a node based workflow which is difficult to get the hang of at first but a powerful way to work once you understand it.

What type of work do you plan on doing with your effects program?
Vfx or Mograph?
 
merc said:
im bout to buy and i was just thinkin bout goin with apple shake 4 instead of after effects. its half the price, yet from what ive seen a better program. it is used by real hollywood studios to make real movies, such as lord of the rings, and king kong. am i missing somethin here, or is shake really the better way to go?
Click to expand...
Shake is far inferior to After Effects, it lacks much of the power and flexibility offered by AE, and doesn't have anywhere near the number of plugins available. Just because you've seen it used on big budget projects doesn't mean it's better. For the record, if you look at the special effects credits on this list you can get an idea of some of the films AE has had a hand in.

Even if you add the features available with Apple Motion to those you get with Shake you still don't equal the power or flexibility available with AE... anyone who tries to tell you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. After Effects is MUCH more than just motion graphics.

While it may get a bad rep from some because of its interface, it's got a long history of doing good work in the industry, and simply has the most power and greatest feature set (not to mention large number of available plugins) of any compositing package...

If I were going to look at any other possible replacement for AE, I'd probably consider Nuke or Fusion over Shake, as they are still in development, and as such will continue to get better, but AE is still a more powerful solution -- once you get your head around how everything works.

A word on Layer vs Node layouts: Combustion offers both layer and node based views, AE offers just layer, and most of the others are node based. Layer based is a pretty structured not too difficult to get your head around concept. Like with an NLE or Photoshop, layers that are higher are (generally) higher -- or closer to -- the "camera" (position from which the overall image is drawn). This tends to make a layer based environment easier for those used to working in an NLE a bit easier, because it's still sort of the same kind of concept.

Node based, on the other hand, initially seems a bit foreign. But, once you realize how it works it actually makes more sense. Each node is an element of the composition. Most nodes have an input and an output. You could think of them like components in a stereo system, or effects pedals a guitarist might use. They are connected together in a chain. Each node affects the signal coming out of the end of that particular chain. Rather than audio as in my analogy this is a visual "signal". For large compositions it becomes easier to work with, because you can see what is connected where, and how each piece of the composition is being created through its series of components on the chain. In a layer based environment, these may be hidden in precomp layers or the like.

So, again much like when choosing an NLE it really is going to be more personal preference. They all basically do the same thing (combine multiple images or pieces of an image into one complete image), some have more bells and whistles than others. But to be perfectly clear -- After Effects has more power, more features, and more third party add ons and support than shake or any other solution.
 
merc. both programs have been used in the making of major motion pictures. they are both very good at doing what they are designed to do. but they are not video editors, and you wouldnt use either of them alone to cut a film in. What the real question at hand is "what do you need this auxillary software to do?", and then im sure you can do alot of research by visiting the manufacturer site for each product, and seeing what the benefits and drawback of each might be as far as whether they will fit your needs or not. If you dont have any needs or know what youll need from the software at this time then i wouldnt even suggest purchasing it right now. just stay with an editor until you have a need(s) for another software piece to step in and fill some gaps in your workflow to bring your visions to its potential.
 
Learning Shake would be like learning Latin. Novel, but not necessarily practical. If you're under 55, get AE. :)
 
Don't forget all the support that is available for AE. There are numerous tutorials and forums where you can get support when working on a piece or if you don't understand something. I can't say I've seen that for Shake....
 
Having used both After Effects and Shake fairly extensively, I can tell you this:
Shake is a powerful program, however as far as actualy "effects" go, there is nothing that it can do out of the box that After Effects is unable to do. In fact, After Effects can do quite a bit natively and intuitively that would take forever in Shake.

When I got really into VFX work, the first program I really learned inside and out was Shake. However, when I finally took the time to really learn After Effects, I was amazed at how it sped up my workflow. There is alot of functionality in After Effects that just makes things so simple. When you add al lthe plugins that come with it out of the box, to me it's a no brainer.

Shake was great because it allowed me to really learn the inside and out of compositing. The other neat part is when working with nodes you can essentially build a tree of nodes to create an effect and copy and past it onto other video files to repeat hte same effect. It's also a cool way of keeping organized. However, you can do pretty much the smae thing by copying effects settings in after effects. Another nice feature of Shake is the command line scripting, but being that I'm not working on a Unix box doing a bunch of work from the command line, I'd prefer jsut to have the simplicity of After Effects.

I'd really recommend if you want to learn shake, instead of spending 500 bucks buying it, go get a copy of the Apple Pro Training book for Shake. It comes with a demo version that is fully functional. Do the tutorials in the book, and if you still think you want to use shake, pick up a copy and enjoy.
 
joshtownsend said:
Plus AE is going to support native p2 files in a few weeks........Sorry for the repeat, I'm just excited.
Click to expand...

for cs3? is ithis going to be an update to download or something?

@merc: i was asking the same question as you at the start of the summer and decided to go with AE. the deciding factor was the support and amount of tutorials available for free online. what good is having VFX software if you can't figure out how to use it without dedicating your life to it for a year?
 
Unix said:
dang it I just ordered Shake 4 and Final cut studio 2 :(
Click to expand...
I don't see any problem there. With the Motion 3 and Shake you should be able to do just about anything you want. I would recommend looking into the Apple Pro Training series for Shake and Motion if you aren't familiar with the programs. People are making it out as a bear to learn but it isn't nearly that bad. It is a node based system which is definitely different than a timeline system but it is also VERY powerful with a couple of really great keyers.
 
Im not trying to be rude but your wrong. AE isn't more powerful simply because it has particles. For compositing, tracking, and rotoscoping you cant beat shake. Shake until 2 years ago was a 3,000 dollar app and before that it was 9,999. I have used both extensively and Shake paint, tracking, roto work is unsurpassed. The paint is even better than the 3,000 NUKE. Shake is a PURE compositing app. AE is a mo-graph app meaning motion graphics. For purely compositing you wont beat Shake. Its node base is far more powerful than the layer base of AE. Any experienced compositor will tell you this. If your gonna be compositing a film like Lord of the Rings, which used Shake, you need a node system. LOTR would have 1000's of layers and searching through those layers is impossible. with a node system every single node is layed out in front of you ready to be soloed just by a click. clicking on a node brings you back to the media before it was ever touched or you can look at it at certain steps thru the process So as far as a pure compositing standpoint AE comes nowhere near shake. If you want particles and motion graphics with Lots of pretty text animations than AE is for you. TO me, after being in the industry for many years, have found AE to e used on commercials and Shake more on 2k and 4k films. Lets see AE handle a 4k workflow. And Shakes render pipeline is twice that of AE. Shake render pipe is meant for many many computers stringed together. With shake i can render backwards if I want, like frames 80-40. i can render only certain frames like 10-30, 78-100 etc. So you see, Shake is a far more sophisticated app when it comes to compositing. I don't think LOTR and King Kong would of made it through with AE. And Shake has plug in that are just as good as AE, even better. Shake also has Sapphire sparks etc.
 
Let's not get started into a pissing match or I will simply close the thread.

Shake does what it does.

After Effects does what it does.

Both are very good in what they are DESIGNED to do.

Shake is used in many feature films.

After Effects is used in many feater films.

Shake can handle a 4k plate.

After Effects can handle a 4K plate. (that's a simple fact)

Shake is natively better at compositing and not as good with motion graphics and fairly equal in visual effects.

After Effects is natively better with motion graphics and not as good at Compositing, and is fairly equal in visual effects.

Bottom line is what you like you workflow to be. An expert in After Effects blow out of the water anything that an intermediate in Shake can do, and vice versa.

They both can do the same jobs, sometime it's faster and easier with one, sometimes with the other. It depends on what you are working on.


But to say that After Effects is not used, is under-used, or rarely used in feature film making is flat out wrong. Anyone who thinks that needs to have a little chat with Mark Christansen. AE is used extensively in Hollywood, as is Shake. The are just used for different things.




and emeek, with your first few posts, you may want to start things of with a little less confrontation. I can guarantee you won't last here very long if you walk about being an antagonist.
 
Last edited:
Shut the thread down? Why, because i talk about Adobe? You call me bias and your name is Adobe Demigod? Did you read the post on page one? Let me quote it for you. "er Effects has more power, more features, and more third party add ons and support than shake or any other solution. Now i was no more rude than this guy. but of course you say nothing to him because he favors adobe? AE cant compare in a PURE compositing since. You ask ANY pro compositor and they tell you Node based is faster and better for composites. No way do i want to use AE on a 1000 layer project. Can AE Handle OpenEXR, the ILM file format? Shake can. And like i said. Shakes render pipe is 3 times that of AE. I have used both a lot and i Have the right to correct people or voice my opinion. I wasnt trying to start anything, i was just being honest. you all act like AE is god and its twice as good as shake and you could not be more wrong. Name me some hollywood hits AE has used. SHAKE has won 7 VFX grammies. What about AE? I know your an Adobe fan but you need to understand that AE wasnt made for just compositing like Shake was. Could i say shake is better at particles than AE? NO. And AE is not better at composting. No iMult or Displacex or iDiv's or iAdd or Truelight. I need convolve zblur and zdefocus and plug ins are canned effects. compositors dont like canned effects. they script there own in AE and shake. the scripting in shake is awesome. dont forget it was used in harry potter as well. Its resume alone should tell you its more equipped for film than AE. AE is GREAT.. im not dissing AE at all. I didnt comment to start a flame war. But you guys seem to be vastly thinking layer base is as good as node in compositing. Bottom line. 7 Academy Awards for VFX. if this was an adobe boosting comment i bet you would let it stand. And the guy on page one was putting down shake so i defended it. no one else is but when you talk about AE you get threatened to be booted? Not very good sportsmanship. Im not swearing or cussing or making a fool, just saying stuff you dont agree with. i never insulted anyone or direct my comment at any one person. And you need to have a chat with peter jackson
 
emeek77 said:
Shut the thread down? Why, because i talk about Adobe? You call me bias and your name is Adobe Demigod? Did you read the post on page one? Let me quote it for you. "er Effects has more power, more features, and more third party add ons and support than shake or any other solution. Now i was no more rude than this guy. but of course you say nothing to him because he favors adobe? AE cant compare in a PURE compositing since. You ask ANY pro compositor and they tell you Node based is faster and better for composites. No way do i want to use AE on a 1000 layer project. Can AE Handle OpenEXR, the ILM file format? Shake can. And like i said. Shakes render pipe is 3 times that of AE. I have used both a lot and i Have the right to correct people or voice my opinion. I wasnt trying to start anything, i was just being honest. you all act like AE is god and its twice as good as shake and you could not be more wrong. Name me some hollywood hits AE has used. SHAKE has won 7 VFX grammies. What about AE? I know your an Adobe fan but you need to understand that AE wasnt made for just compositing like Shake was. Could i say shake is better at particles than AE? NO. And AE is not better at composting. No iMult or Displacex or iDiv's or iAdd or Truelight. I need convolve zblur and zdefocus and plug ins are canned effects. compositors dont like canned effects. they script there own in AE and shake. the scripting in shake is awesome. dont forget it was used in harry potter as well. Its resume alone should tell you its more equipped for film than AE. AE is GREAT.. im not dissing AE at all. I didnt comment to start a flame war. But you guys seem to be vastly thinking layer base is as good as node in compositing. Bottom line. 7 Academy Awards for VFX. if this was an adobe boosting comment i bet you would let it stand. And the guy on page one was putting down shake so i defended it. no one else is but when you talk about AE you get threatened to be booted? Not very good sportsmanship. Im not swearing or cussing or making a fool, just saying stuff you dont agree with. i never insulted anyone or direct my comment at any one person. And you need to have a chat with peter jackson
Click to expand...


First of all, please start using paragraphs. My left eye started bleeding halfway through your post.

Second, Shake didn't win 7 awards, the people using it did.

Third, relax. It's the internet :)
 
Well, Meek does have a point...

AE is a great program. I use it for quick composites. Something that need less than say 20 layers. It does what it needs to do. Motion graphics wise, yeah. I can toss something nice together in a few minutes.

But for heavy duty compositing, nothing beats node based. I use Nuke now, which has won an academy award as a program.

Depending on what you want to do, there are strong points on both. Use Nuke to composite a film (or Shake), use AE for small compositing and motion graphics.
 
AdvanTech said:
First of all, please start using paragraphs. My left eye started bleeding halfway through your post.

Second, Shake didn't win 7 awards, the people using it did.

Third, relax. It's the internet :)
Click to expand...


Ha! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)




Oh, and my name isn't Adobe Demigod, it's Matt. And the Adobe Demigod "title" is an inside kind of tounge in cheek thing with me an another member here.

I suggest you re-read oneinfiniteloop's post again. Maybe read it four or five times. Then do some deep breathing. Unlike AdvanTech, I couldn't even get through your entire post before my eyes were strained. And take his advice. Relax.

And let's be clear on something. I wasn't bashing Shake, you its users, or its accomplishments. I know what Shake can do, and respect the hell out of both it and so many of my friends that use it. All I did was point out that After Effects is not the uber-inferior package that so many people who don't use it make it out to be. I don't need to talk to Peter Jackson, I wasn't and never even so much as implied that there was anything wrong with Shake.

You, on the other hand, are trying your hardest to prove why Shake is better. It's not better, it's different. That is the real difference in our posts.

Lastly, go back to the beginning of this thread and read what people have said about both. And for crying out loud, I'm not trying to attack you or your software.

And if we are going to keep on discussing, let's bring Digital Fusion into the fray. That's one hell of an app too.

:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Just add 2 more cents to this soiree...

Why are we discussing a dead app? Unless you have $50k to license the source code, any shake users should hop on another ship.

emeek77 said:
No iMult or Displacex or iDiv's or iAdd or Truelight
Click to expand...

I find this quote rather amusing as well...it seems, and I'm NOT trying to bash you, but it seems that you have limited knowledge of compositing within AE if you can make such a statement. All those nodes' functions are available in AE one to one, with the exception of Truelight, which AE handles differently with a much more developed color management system...BUT, it can still do the same thing Truelight can do.

And another fallacy you pointed out, AE can handle OpenEXR just fine. Actually, with the purchase of a very cheap plug-in from fnord software, you can access multi-layer OpenEXR files, something I'm not sure shake can do.

And, lastly, the quote you mentioned about "more power, more features, more third party add ons, support...", well, if you think about it, it's kind of true. AE can handle a much broader spectrum of workflows, from motion graphics to compositing to effects to whatever. It obviously has more features, but that is irrelevant because most seasoned users of any program only use a handful of those features, third party add-ons and support is a no brainer. So, I wouldn't take such offense to something that is clearly steeped in common sense.

So...blah, blah, blah...it doesn't really matter, use the tool to get the job done, who cares, it's just software. And for the record, I'm a shake and AE user, I use both on projects simultaenously, so no calling me out on that :)

Let's all have a drink...all this seriousness is stressing me out on a Friday, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top