oly32
Level 1 (4 points)
Video

Q: Newbie needs to know: Motion or After Effects?

I work for a large corporation as a "one man band" video producer creating content for our website and social media channels. I am 1 of 4 "one man bands" and (luckily) the only one who works on a Mac with FCPX. However, there is a push to expand our skills by learning After Effects-- our company is heavily tied to Adobe. My question is-- what's easier to learn, AE or Motion. I consider myself a decent editor, but by no means elite at FCPX, and I certainly have ZERO experience creating any type of graphics or animation that goes beyond very basic stuff contained within FCPX.

 

Any suggestions or advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.5)

Posted on Sep 1, 2016 10:12 AM

Close
oly32

Q: Newbie needs to know: Motion or After Effects?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

  • by fox_m,

    fox_m fox_m Sep 1, 2016 9:32 PM in response to oly32
    Level 5 (5,497 points)
    Video
    Sep 1, 2016 9:32 PM in response to oly32

    Motion has a learning curve, no doubt. It is nowhere as steep as AE. Motion has a single one-time purchase cost. AE is pay every month for the rest of your computing life. There is precious little you can do in AE that cannot be accomplished in Motion (if you get to know it well enough). There is a considerable amount of things you can do in Motion that is nowhere near as complex or difficult to do compared to doing the same kind of effect in AE.

     

    If you're editing in FCPX, then you would want to use Motion. If you are using Premiere, then you'd probably be better off with AE.

     

    You ought to find out if you actually have any kind of choice in the matter first.

  • by Karsten Schlüter,

    Karsten Schlüter Karsten Schlüter Sep 1, 2016 9:36 PM in response to oly32
    Level 7 (32,656 points)
    Video
    Sep 1, 2016 9:36 PM in response to oly32

    oly32 wrote:

    ....our company is heavily tied to Adobe. My question is-- what's easier to learn, AE or Motion. ...

    Allthough I'm an outspoken fan of Motion5, publishing plugins almost weekly, I wouldn't say M5 and AE are on same eye-level, when it comes to 'operational area' ... a few things to consider:

    • for 'swapping' parts of a FCPX project back'n forth with M5 you need a 3rd party $$ tool, AE is fully integrated in the CC suite ....

    • M5 is no 'painting' app, you need 3td party $$ apps for a full range of design tools (but M5 supports the layer-structure of psd files), again advantage of AdobeCC

    • for simple graphical work (titles, animated lower-thirds, spot-healing…) AE is completely overdone

     

    to the advantages of M5 ..:
    • costs, cheap 50$, done.

    AE is rent only - no monthly pay = no access to your intellectual property

    • perfect integration, 'plug-in-isation' of effects, titles, generators. Need a company-own lower third? Done once, used many in FCPX, even without installed M5.

    • huge scene of plugin-makers, free and commercially

    • due to 'behaviours', instant creation of complex animations (gravity, particles, tracking)

    • works on under-powered systems (like mine …) flawless, AE 'eats' hardware...

    • … easy to learn

     

    Just watch any tutorial of Andrew Cramer/videocopilot.com (he's awesome!) and compare to any tut from Mark Spencer/rippletraining.com (his free 'Motion in under 5 minutes' series at YT) ....

     

    management summary:

    easier, faster, cheaper = Motion5

    more elaborated, more complex, much more to learn = AE

     

    but not comparable, too diff. in operational use.

  • by David Bogie Chq-1,

    David Bogie Chq-1 David Bogie Chq-1 Sep 2, 2016 12:49 PM in response to oly32
    Level 7 (25,772 points)
    Video
    Sep 2, 2016 12:49 PM in response to oly32

    I have used After Effects since it was CoSA. These days, I rarely use anything more than about 5% of its most fundamental capabilities and I have never even gotten close to understanding, and therefore being able to use, its higher functions (parenting, expressions, scripting, Mocha tracking, integration with that professional 3D modeling app).

     

    After Effects is h u g e. Unbelievably deep, rich, and complex. AE makes Photoshop look simple and Motion superficial by comparison.

     

    And, as Karsten, notes, the applications are only similar in appearance. The reasons you use to rationalize having either one are just not the same: you have After Effects because you are an effects house (or because your boss thinks you should be an effects house); you have Motion because you are a video house.

     

    Get Motion, you're going to enjoy it.

     

    Get After Effects only if you plan to use it for 75% of your working day. If you spend most of your time in FCPX and not building effects, AE is a waste of money and the source of endless confusion and frustration.

  • by Karsten Schlüter,

    Karsten Schlüter Karsten Schlüter Sep 2, 2016 9:29 PM in response to David Bogie Chq-1
    Level 7 (32,656 points)
    Video
    Sep 2, 2016 9:29 PM in response to David Bogie Chq-1

    David Bogie Chq-1 wrote:

    ... or because your boss thinks you should be an effects house); you have Motion because you are a video house. ...

    hahaha, excelllent phrased!

     

    actual real-life example:

    Mark's re-enactment of the Stranger Things title sequence ....

    I could bet high sums, that the original is done in AE or Maya or whatever high-profile software, and not M5.

    And he's doing it with a 50$ software in under 10min (okayyyy, not the first time ....)

     

    Didn't mention Pixelmator and Affinity Photo (both <50$) as Photoshop replacements, and excellent Motion partners ... same story.

    (aside, if you do real pre-press, color-separations et al, in-house...)

     

    'Image' is one thing boss' like.

    But fast&cheap they like more ........