This is not a topic meant to start a flame war around which product is better. I use motion for most of my graphic work, but clearly AE has the advantage in 3rd party plug-in support. It would be wonderful to see companies like this stepping up and providing more robust plug-ins for Motion.

www.videocopilot.net/blog/2012/07/element-3d-is-now/

Up to CS6 (not sure if it's now included), Motion unbelievably had a few advantages in it's 2D/3D environment, with true reflections. But I doubt anyone here would deny the power of what's going on with Element3D, while Motion is still unable to do proper 3D text.

In a way, Motion development holds more exciting prospects than FCPX, but whether Apple sees the program as developing in this direction, or if they're happy for it to be a above average graphics design tool for editors is anyone's guess.

I think many people had hoped that elements of SHAKE would be brought over into Motion, but so far that's been unrealized.

Amazing stuff like this and great 3d motion tracking will have me continuing to use AE for certain kinds of job. I'd love to not need it, but Motion will need to step it up considerably for that to happen.

No flaming needed, it is the nature that After Effects is superior over Motion thanks to its compositing tools and 3rd party support. Yeah Apple took one in both feet no brining Shake tools into Motion.
Even so much I love Motion I might just start keeping using After Effects... Motion is more of module for FCPX.

But to the topic yes Element 3D is a new door for motion graphic artist in After Effects!

Price is also going to become an issue. Motion is so inexpensive now ($50), so it will be difficult for some people to justify spending more on plug-ins than they paid for the actual software.

Yes yes, I know it shouldn't matter to pros, but it could be an issue in reality.

Motion is a plugin/module for Final Cut Pro X.
Don't forget only the price for Motion as been dropped, plugin prices have been very stable.
Even the plugins for Motion more then the App I mean module itself.

I think things would be a bit different with this plugin if it could run on Motion. It's quite phenomenal what it's doing and comparing it's cost to the combined cost of Motion & a decent 3d modelling app I think it's a very good price, I expected it to be more before I looked.

simonpwood wrote:
I've actually found the opposite to be true. Because the base programs are so inexpensive, I find I'm MUCH more likely to buy plug-ins and filters for FCPX and Motion. I usually buy something like this for a specific job, and it's cost gets bundled in.

NocoDave wrote:
Let's be clear, this isn't a modelling program. You can import OBJ and C4D files.

Definitely, it looks to be a reasonably basic render engine with a more basic mograph style animation toolset, and model packs/material packs available too. This is what I'm judging the price on.

Its not as fully featured as what you get (that it's replacing) directly in C4d but it looks to be pretty much realtime and for the right jobs it looks great.

I'm looking forward to seeing what becomes of it as it develops over time, and would love to see it available for Motion.

The great thing about this would seem to be that you no longer need to do dedicated 3D model renders, and then export motion data to match move particle and title FX in AE.

This is probably the most compelling reason I've seen to work in AE for a while.

Though for much of the work I do, Motion still works exceedingly well. A tour through motionvfx.com shows just how great motion work can look.

But I would like to see either more built in motion tracking/3D object functionality, either built-in, or via 3rd party in the next major version.

Me too, but it doesn't quite have me just yet. For a lot of things I don't mind that the renderer isn't complete, it's a great compromise for certain work and for speed/playback. I'm curious about export times, but I recon it should be pretty good.

Get it supporting PLA and I'd be in there like a shot.

I don't we are going to see a 3D feature in Apples Motion, we would have seen something by now. It would satisfying to see a simpler 3D text extrusion in Motion.
Looking at the result Element 3D is pretty cheap and awesome solution for integrating 3D objects in motion graphics. Think about you can just tweak the position of your model in After Effects and don't need to render out anther sequence from your 3D app.

www.videocopilot.net/blog/wp-content/upl...Choppa_Get_In_wb.mov

I am impressed... Apple needs to watch this and rethink there Motion target!

Check out this sample!


Maybe After Effects is way to go?

Or VideoCoPilot needs to develop their plugin for Motion.

I'm not sure what the issues might be.- seeing as Motion clearly has the ability to understand 3d space like AE, and it's uses a 3rd party interface (like mFlare for example) you would think it would be possible.

But then again, mFlare isn't available for AE yet either, so perhaps there's some critical differences in how each one treats plug-ins.

It might be worth an email to Video Copilot inquiring about it.

The issue is that Apple Motion doesn't support 3D geometry like After Effects or Photoshop does.
We won't see anything like Element 3D until Apple adds this. Nope the 3D 2.5D space is not build for it. You are right Motion has mFlare but After Effects has Optical Flares (which we have seen in Transformers 3) and it is really amazing tool it is the customizable Flare tool at the moment.
Andrew is After Effects guy I don't see them making anything for Apple Motion.
I remember one quote when Apple released Motion 3... After Effects (hint Visual Effects), Motion (hint Motion Graphics). Maybe this is the reason for the choice of tools.

Don't forget to push Apple for this! Give them feedback!

That's interesting information about geometry support. Where did you find that?

Photoshop had 3D support for a while now, not sure since when but I am thinking since CS3 where you could texture 3D Objects and create simple Geometry and After Effects has 3D Camera tracking, extruded objects and 3D data support. Check the Adobe site for more info.
But Adobe has not been sleeping with this and it putting Motion in the dark.

Really? 3D tracking was only just added on in CS6, before that it was a 3rd party utility like Foundry's Camera Tracker. 3D extrude was also just added in CS6.

In my experience CS5.5 and Motion4 were both dealing in the same kind of 2.5D space- both lacking true 3D geometry support (basically opening 3D models). You could build basic 3d shapes out of flat planes in both programs. And in fact Motion had the leg up with true 3D refections, whereas CS6 required workarounds to active the same effect I could do with the flip of a switch in Motion.

3D motion data support is definitely a missing feature though, and one I'd like to see implemented.

I'm glad Apple spent the time to upgrade the interface for Motion5, and add the Rigging support for FCPX- that said, I really hope they have a big feature update coming for Motion6. There's many things I like better about Motion than AE, and I'd like to use it for more complicated jobs.

Took a look at the Optical flares plug-in for AE. Looks good. What's the big advantage over mFlare? The quality of the flares look pretty comparable. And they both allow you to track 3D lights.

Disproportionate Pictures wrote: Yup really thats what I wrote Photoshop had and After Effects has. But After Effects did had and still has better 3D support from other Applications. Disproportionate Pictures wrote:
Well the real advantage over mFlare is the performance within After Effects compared to mFlare in Motion, 3D calculation (not sure thanks to After Effects), Interface, more customizable (animated layers and the renders look a tick better nothing noticeable (again not sure if its the plugin or the App. itself).

I have mention the lack off customizability in mFlare and it was excepted but not sure if it really will come or not.

P.S. don#t forget to click that Motion Feedback for more 3D!!!