Looking to replace After Effects, would Motion and/or Final Cut fit my needs?

[chrono1081]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to replace After Effects so I don't have a $20 bill each month. I don't use it often but when I do my needs are simple.

I use it mainly for importing an animation which is a series of still images (from a 3D modeling package), do some basic color correcting, maybe a light effect (like a vignette) and render it to a movie.

I do have different animation clips I need to combine, but not many. After Effects handled a few different clips and I assume Motion would.

For my needs above would Motion fit the bill? Does it work without Final Cut? I'm not opposed to buying Final Cut too if necessary.

 

[kohlson]

I believe Motion will work. Do some "How To Motion" searches for some of the things you need to do and watch how it's done to see if it's right for you.

 

[steve123]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to replace After Effects so I don't have a $20 bill each month. I don't use it often but when I do my needs are simple.

I use it mainly for importing an animation which is a series of still images (from a 3D modeling package), do some basic color correcting, maybe a light effect (like a vignette) and render it to a movie.

I do have different animation clips I need to combine, but not many. After Effects handled a few different clips and I assume Motion would.

For my needs above would Motion fit the bill? Does it work without Final Cut? I'm not opposed to buying Final Cut too if necessary.

From what you have described I believe Motion will do this.

 

[joema2]

...I use it mainly for importing an animation which is a series of still images (from a 3D modeling package), do some basic color correcting, maybe a light effect (like a vignette) and render it to a movie...

The fastest way I know to convert a series of high-res stills to a movie is using QuickTime 7 Pro and FCP X. The workflow is detailed in this MacBreak Studio video:

 

[chrono1081]

Thanks so much guys!

The fastest way I know to convert a series of high-res stills to a movie is using QuickTime 7 Pro and FCP X. The workflow is detailed in this MacBreak Studio video:

Thanks! I'll give it a look when I get home.

 

[pinholestars]

Motion will probably blow you away with how easy/simple it is. Sure it lacks some of the bells and whistles that AE has, but for the price, I gave up AE years ago.

Definitely check out rippletraining.com's motion page, fcp.co/motion, and the Apple Motion forums. Lots of guys who really know their stuff when it comes to making Motion do what you want it to do.

 

[pwhitehead]

Motion will probably blow you away with how easy/simple it is. Sure it lacks some of the bells and whistles that AE has, but for the price, I gave up AE years ago.

Definitely check out rippletraining.com's motion page, fcp.co/motion, and the Apple Motion forums. Lots of guys who really know their stuff when it comes to making Motion do what you want it to do.

Final Cut X and Motion 5 is for amateur users and not for professionals at all.. If you're doing personal home stuff for self pleasure, they're perfect. High end professional broadcasters can't use apples new programs because they don't have the professional features we need to get the job done right and efficiently.

 

[joema2]

Final Cut X and Motion 5 is for amateur users and not for professionals at all....High end professional broadcasters can't use apples new programs because they don't have the professional features we need to get the job done right and efficiently.

FCP X is often used professionally and the $100 million feature film Focus was edited entirely in FCP X: http://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/in-action/focus/

Other TV shows are edited on FCP X: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/new...he-rescue-gets-cut-on-final-cut-pro-x-for-nbc

Tour de France coverage edited on FCP X: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1480-editing-the-tour-de-france-on-final-cut-pro-x

FCP X used in enterprise-scale TV production: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/art...o-x-in-enterprise-level-television-production

The upcoming Tina Fey film "Fun House" is being edited on FCP X, as is the upcoming Science Fiction film Geostorm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostorm

 

[campyguy]

Tour de France coverage edited on FCP X: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1480-editing-the-tour-de-france-on-final-cut-pro-x

My only problem with that editing for the TdF production is they still haven't edited out Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin.

+1, thanks for the links to a thread lurker...

 

[laurim]

Final Cut X and Motion 5 is for amateur users and not for professionals at all.. If you're doing personal home stuff for self pleasure, they're perfect. High end professional broadcasters can't use apples new programs because they don't have the professional features we need to get the job done right and efficiently.

I am a freelance motion graphics designer and Motion is my primary design tool. My high 5-figure salary for essentially part-time work would dispute your "Motion is only for amateurs" snobbish assertion. Basically the only time I use After Effects is if I need to use a Trapcode filter for a special effect since Red Giant has chosen to not create a Motion version for their filters. And in that case, I usually create the element I need using that filter, output that special element as ProRes 4444 and bring it into Motion to continue with my project. People who say AE is sooooo superior simply don't know how to use Motion. Choose the tools that work best for what you do and your work style. Period.

 

[Unami]

Final Cut X and Motion 5 is for amateur users and not for professionals at all.. If you're doing personal home stuff for self pleasure, they're perfect. High end professional broadcasters can't use apples new programs because they don't have the professional features we need to get the job done right and efficiently.

oh, come on. i've been using fcpx for producing high end professional broadcast since 2013 - and motion does everything my broadcaster would ever need from after effects (although they use after effects). there are things (like audio tracks and a mixer) where other programs like avid work better out of the box in an eng-workflow, but fcpx usually makes up for it with speedy editing. besides, if you're really serious & "professional" about compositing, you'd rather use something like smoke or nuke and leave after effects to the amateurs.

 

[joema2]

Final Cut X and Motion 5 is for amateur users and not for professionals at all...High end professional broadcasters can't use apples new programs because they don't have the professional features we need to get the job done right and efficiently.

Here is a complete walkthrough of a seven-camera professional event that was recently edited on FCP X. They shot one terabyte per day using Sony field production cameras. FCP X was used to edit a four-hour, seven-camera timeline, of which they had three different versions open:

 

[handsome pete]

FFS, do all of these questions still have to turn into a FCPX/Motion is/isn't professional pissing contest?

To chrono, yes, Motion will suit you just fine for what you want.

To the FCPX/Motion is not a professional tool crowd, let it go. Who cares what other people use? It obviously works for a lot of people on a wide variety of work.

To the FCPX/Motion is the be all end all crowd, stop assuming that the nay-sayers just "don't understand." Sure, FCPX and Motion have evolved into great programs capable of great work. They are being used on some high profile productions, but still haven't been widely adopted in the industry and they may never be. There's nothing wrong with that either, but the industry is still dominated by Avid and Adobe. I'd love it if I could just ditch Avid altogether, but that just isn't happening any time soon.

People need to stop getting so defensive over something as trivial as a video editing software platform. Use what will get the job done most efficiently. This thread should have been over after the first two responses, before it turned into the same tired software debate.

 

[handsome pete]

besides, if you're really serious & "professional" about compositing, you'd rather use something like smoke or nuke and leave after effects to the amateurs.

People too often conflate After Effects as a compositor. It's not. It makes for a pretty solid compositing program, but is limited in its workflow (vs node-based compositors like NUKE). However, it's a really excellent motion graphics program.

 

[joema2]

...the industry is still dominated by Avid and Adobe. I'd love it if I could just ditch Avid altogether, but that just isn't happening any time soon...People need to stop getting so defensive over something as trivial as a video editing software platform. Use what will get the job done most efficiently. This thread should have been over after the first two responses, before it turned into the same tired software debate.

It's not about being defensive, it's about ensuring people have accurate and practically helpful information. That's a key purpose of this forum.

By "should have been over after the first two responses", that would mean post #3 by steve123 would be the last post. As you can see there was a lot of helpful, accurate information posted after that, and unfortunately some posts that were less so.

Re "the industry is still dominated by Avid and Adobe", if you mean editing in the Hollywood motion picture industry (that is typically what "the industry" means) -- that is definitely not so. It is dominated solely by one company -- Avid. Any presence by Premiere or Final Cut Pro X is strictly token. Almost every feature film is edited using Avid.

In the layers of film/video production below the scale of Hollywood, there is broad diversity of editing platforms. But this is a Mac forum so naturally there will be discussion about the pros and cons of those hosted on Mac. That is another purpose of this forum -- to air opinions and discuss things. That discussion often makes people think, do personal research, and re-evaluate their position. It can be a learning experience for everyone -- provided that thoughtful, productive discussion is not terminated without good reason.

 

[handsome pete]

It's not about being defensive, it's about ensuring people have accurate and practically helpful information. That's a key purpose of this forum.

By "should have been over after the first two responses", that would mean post #3 by steve123 would be the last post. As you can see there was a lot of helpful, accurate information posted after that, and unfortunately some posts that were less so.

Re "the industry is still dominated by Avid and Adobe", if you mean editing in the Hollywood motion picture industry (that is typically what "the industry" means) -- that is definitely not so. It is dominated solely by one company -- Avid. Any presence by Premiere or Final Cut Pro X is strictly token. Almost every feature film is edited using Avid.

In the layers of film/video production below the scale of Hollywood, there is broad diversity of editing platforms. But this is a Mac forum so naturally there will be discussion about the pros and cons of those hosted on Mac. That is another purpose of this forum -- to air opinions and discuss things. That discussion often makes people think, do personal research, and re-evaluate their position. It can be a learning experience for everyone -- provided that thoughtful, productive discussion is not terminated without good reason.

You're right, but I was mostly just decrying the discussion turning into the same old tired Final Cut pro/non-pro argument. It's legitimate in certain aspects, but not how it was brought up here. And you're right that Avid is dominant in the motion picture industry, but I was throwing broadcast into that group as well. And Adobe's biggest presence there is AE.

 

[chaosbunny]

Have a look at DaVinci Resolve: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve

It replaced FCPX for me. I actually prefer it for editing and it's amazing for color grading, in my opinion even better than what Adobe has to offer.

 

[v3rlon]

If your only need it to convert stills to video, can't your 3d package do that (sort of a hack)?
Render the stills, then re-render, but this time an animation with nothing but the stills as a textured background. Even thousands of frames render to ProRes 444 in a minute or so on the second pass, with no worry of lost progress from rendering the original stills.

NewTek's Lightwave does this (then again, NewTek's SpeedEdit will recognize a series of stills and make them into video also, but it is Windows only).

I am only just getting into Motion, but it seems pretty easy getting started.
Hitfilm from fxhome.com is another alternative to the Adobe subscription. It also includes some handy plugins for FCPX. Many are geared toward sci-fi/ fantasy effects, but creative types find all kinds of uses.