[Shawn Miller]

Hey Jim,

Titles, lower thirds and transitions are easy in AE… but they’re probably easier to do in Motion. Having used Particular and the cousin to Motion’s particle engine (Particle Illusion), I can tell you that Particular is much deeper… unless the Motion 5 particle engine has been re-written or uses a different library than M4. FYI, Video Copilot is coming out with a new particle plugin for AE, so you may want to stay tuned for that.

Thanks,

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

Hey Jimmy, when you say that Motion surpasses AE (without) plugins, what do you mean? Are you talking about functionality or workflow? Are you saying that there are things that AE can’t do that Motion can?

Thanks,
Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

“…it gives you even more 3D capabilities like being able to import actual scenes from 3D apps like Cinema 4D.”

To be clear, AE doesn’t actually import scene files from C4D as in 3D geometry, textures, lights etc. C4D can export 2D render passes(color pass, ID mattes, depth mattes, vector blur, global illumination, etc.) + position data into special project files for AE, Motion, Fusion, Shake and Combustion (for compositing). The only way to (sort of) get 3D geometry into AE is via the Zaxworks plugin or through Photoshop… but even then, you’ll still only get 2D layers, the 3D models will be manipulated by Zaxworks or Photoshop.

To the OP: “Don’t they both do essentially the same thing?”

Yes and no (though, not being a Motion user, you may want to take my opinions with a grain of salt)… there is some overlap in features (keyframes, blending modes, built in effects, etc). But where they part ways (IMO) is in design philosophy. Motion is designed for editors and folks who don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of VFX and motion graphics… you want something fairly slick very quickly, Motion is for you. After Effects is designed for motion graphics and VFX professionals (mostly mograph folks though). If you want to build complex animation systems, 100+ layer composites and complex VFX, then AE is for you. Some will say that Motion has 90% of AE’s functionality, but folks I know who have used both (with advanced AE knowlege), tell me it’s more like 50%.

Again, I could be wrong… I haven’t used Motion before, so I rely on what I’ve seen in tutorials and what other advanced AE operators have told me. 🙂

Thanks,

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

To answer your OP, that fire was made with Turbulence 4D.

https://www.jawset.com/gallery_tfd.php

To answer your last post…

“I am just curious with companies like https://www.ringoffire.com/ are they using custome software or is this all achievable using Cinema 4D”

Yes and yes… high end shops use custom software along with off the shelf software to create those amazing shots. The good news is that you can achieve silimar results with any of the off the shelf packages (like C4D, Modo, Maya etc. (plus plugins)), however there is a catch… it’s a lot harder to do by yourself, and it takes a fair amount of time to even understand how much you need to know, in order to pull off the shots you want to create (if that makes sense).

“Maybe there is some school I could really pick up some great advice and training”

This is where the fun begins. Here is a list of some of the resources I’ve found valuable over the years – I hope others will chime in and share more:

https://www.fxphd.com/
https://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/
https://www.cmivfx.com/
https://cineversity.com/
https://videocopilot.net/
https://www.digitaltutors.com/11/index.php
https://www.lynda.com/Member.aspx
https://www.vfxtalk.com/
https://www.totaltraining.com

Thanks,

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

“I think Mark Pigott is right..”

Oops, meant to give credit to Brent Dunn. 🙂

[Shawn Miller]

I can confirm that CS4 does import XDCAM footage natively. I think Mark Pigott is right, you probably just need to import the video directly from the BPAV folder.

Thanks,

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

Hey Michael,

This is my preferred way of working. I cut in Premiere Pro and shuffle to and from AE via the Dynamic Link. I only render when absolutely needed and/or at the very end. But Dave is correct, you can open entire PP projects in AE.

Thanks,

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

“Or you control everything (action, light) and you have the team and TIME to get what you want, or you may end up with a bunch of beautiful shot that you won’t be able to put together.”

I couldn’t agree with you more, Rafael. However, I would like to make the point that you can achieve deep focus with the AF100 as well, so it’s not as if you have to use shallow DOF… you just have the option, should you choose to use it. 🙂

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

“Nope and that’s not what I was suggesting. It takes time and money to skillfully work with shallow DoF”

Certainly… I guess that was my vague way of saying that poor shooting skills and lack of restraint by some people, shouldn’t influence the purchasing decision of a this camera. 😉

I think it’s worth keeping in mind that the the AF100’s sensor isn’t as large as most of the DSLR cameras, so DOF isn’t as shallow… that may be one reason it’s so easy to focus (IMO). If you get a chance, I highly recommend getting your hands on one a few hours… you might be surprised at how easy it is to control DOF and focus… or you might completely hate it. Either way, I think it’s worth checking out. 🙂

Shawn

[Shawn Miller]

“…Sure, shallow DoF is nice, but not when you don’t have a monitor, or a camera assistant to pull focus…”

Actually, the AF100 is pretty easy to focus with the provided LCD and peaking features… a lot easier than the HPX500 with the histogram. I normally use a 7 inch monitor, but I have used the camera without an external LCD and have not had issues. If focus is an issue, there’s no rule that says you have to shoot wide open with a telephoto lens. 🙂

“..Personally, I’m sick of seeing videos filled with pointless rack focuses and a never ending search for focus. Sheesh…”

Not really camera’s fault though, is it? 🙂

Shawn