Shawn Miller
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
“Similarly configured Xeon workstation-class machines form PC vendors are actually more expensive that the Mac Pro”
Some are more expensive (like HP and BOXX)…. smaller integrators like Bold Data Systems (https://www.boldata.com/workstations) will build comparable machines at a lower price than Apple, and they give you a wider variety of choices for video cards and CPU.
Thanks,
Shawn
-
You don’t really need the clean plate. You can get away with using photograph(s). There are a lot of tutorials on sky replacememnt… videocopilot.net has the easiest ones in my opinion.
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/kramer_andrew/sky_replacement.php
https://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/advanced_sky_replacement/Shawn
-
No problem. 😉
Shawn
-
Ah, good news then. As Simon points out, most any 3D program can get you started here. Cinema 4D and Lightwave are good choices because they are relatively inexpensive and they both have animation, rigging and modeling tools built in. They both also have fairly large and active communities where you can get help. Here is a short list of inexpensive but good tools that you may want to check out.
https://www.moi3d.com (an insanely good NURBS modeling application)
https://www.projectmessiah.com/x6/index.html (3d animation and rendering)
https://www.3d-coat.com/ (an inexpensive modeling, paint and texturing tool)
https://www.pixologic.com/home.php (a more expensive modeling, paint and texturing tool)
https://fxhome.com/products/ (VERY inexpensive compositing and VFX software)
https://www.imagineersystems.com/products/mochapro (okay, this software isn’t exactly inexpensive, but it is hands down one of the best roto, tracking and removal applications on the market)
https://www.ssontech.com/ (IMO the best 3D tracking application on the market)
https://www.dvgarage.com/conduit-2 (the second least expensive node based compositor on the Mac platform)
You may also want to consider that there are other aspects of this kind of work that you’ll need to understand; compositing, tracking/matchmoving (3D and 2D), rotoscoping, 2D VFX, grading, HDRI photography, etc. So, as important as the tools are, you’ll certainly want to learn about theory, workflows and techniques. Here are a few resources to get you started:
Books (by no means an exhaustive list)
https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Up-Your-Shots-Filmmaker/dp/1932907424/ref=pd_sim_b_17
https://www.amazon.com/Film-Directing-Shot-Visualizing-Productions/dp/0941188108/ref=pd_sim_b_8
https://www.amazon.com/DV-Rebels-Guide-All-Digital-Approach/dp/0321413644/ref=pd_sim_b_7
Online resources (again not an exhaustive list, but some of my favorites)
https://www.cmivfx.com
https://www.fxphd.com
https://www.videocopilot.net
https://www.digital-tutors.com
https://www.lynda.comFinally, I wanted to address one of your original questions:
“…similarity in pricing and long term potential”
To be honest, if you’re after long term potential and growth related to VFX, you’re better off learning After Effects, Nuke or Digital Fusion (instead of Motion). They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but you’ll hit the limits of Motion a lot faster than you will with any of the other applications (IMO). 🙂
I hope this helps.
Shawn Miller
-
It depends on what you want to do, how much you’re willing to spend and how much time you want to spend learning. Can you give an example of the kind of work you want to do?
Shawn
-
“The particles cannot be composed with other layers in 3D…”
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Particles from PW can be composited with 3D layers… but they won’t interact with them. Is this what you mean?
“…and only “virtually” exist on a 2D plane,”
That’s how it (technically) works in AE and Motion (no matter what particle system is used)… these are not true 3D particles like RealFlow in Maya. There’s some very clever code going on that gives you the illusion that true 3D is happening… but it isn’t.
“while they exist in real 3D space in Motion”
Not exactly, if Motion had a “real” 3D particle engine that could interact with other layers and objects, it certainly wouldn’t be in real time.
“You cannot drive particles with expressions in AE, while you can use behaviors to drive them in Motion.”
If that was true, no one would use After Effects. In AE, any parameter that can be changed, can be used (driven, linked, etc.) with expressions.
Do a google search on “using expressions to drive particles in AE” if you don’t belive me. Or, you could just hit videocopilot.net: https://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/expressions/
Thanks,
Shawn
-
I agree, I think Shake is a great compositor. I wish Apple hadn’t killed it. I’m learning Nuke at the moment for just that reason.
“while AE’s scripting power means that ultimately it still trumps Motion overall – for now!”
Sure, it’s also possible that Conduit will overtake Shake at some point (though I’m a little peeved that DV garage pulled support for Windows). 🙂
Shawn
-
“I’m saying that because AE cannot do 3D particles”
Sorry, that just isn’t true, AE ships with 4 particle systems – One of them (CC Particle World) is a 3D system.
“and it does not have replicators or behaviors”
No, AE uses expressions…. which are extremely powerful. The only real limits are imposed by your ability to learn scripting and your imagination.
Thanks,
Shawn
-
“- Motion is much better for 3D, particles and motion graphics, because in Motion everything lives in a real 3D world instead of layers.”
Actually, it’s the same as AE… 2D layers in 3D space. I’m not sure what you’re basing the rest of your statement on. Is there something that you can share to help me understand why you say that? I haven’t seen anything “high-end” or complex done in Motion… I’m not saying it hasn’t been done, just that I haven’t seen it.
Thanks,
Shawn
-
“Vegas owners get no respect…”
True… but I think it’s fair to say that everything outside of Apple or AVID has had a hard time getting respect in the past 10 years. No matter how good or innovative Sony, Adobe, Grass Valley or others have been in the last decade… their accomplishments have seemed to go largely un-noticed or acknowledged by FCP or AVID users.
I think it’s telling that so many FCS3 users have had a native 64bit editing application at their disposal (because of the CS5 suite) for over a year, but never even bothered to try it (until FCP X). I also doubt that FCP has/had 70% of the editing market… I think 50% is a stretch… but 70%? Come on! 🙂Shawn