PDA

View Full Version : Nuke and After Effects



rcallicotte
11-23-2011, 09:22 PM
I need to learn to be able to know a genuine skill. I know many people here on this site are professionals, who have definite experience I do not have and I'm hoping you will be willing to give me your opinions...maybe even your advice.

Both After Effects and Nuke are incredible programs. So, I'm not debating which is better. Except I can't afford both. I love Lightwave and will stay with it, but am contemplating either AE or Nuke. What do you think would be the best to learn? Let's say a year or two from now - what would be most beneficial to a 3D / 2D illustrator, arch-visualizer or assembly line media creator?

nickdigital
11-23-2011, 09:27 PM
I only have experience with AE and mild experience with Nuke. AE is used a lot in my group. AE is easy to learn.

IMHO AE is more of a tool to do motion graphics and animation whereas Nuke is more about compositing. AE can do compositing too, and it does it well though programs like Nuke and DFusion are probably a bit more robust in that area.

wesleycorgi
11-23-2011, 11:19 PM
Is Fusion a consideration, too? I've been an AE user and wanted a true 3D compositor. So I made the leap to Fusion. Fusion also recently dropped their pricing model.

That said, if I had to choose only one, it probably would be AE it is an affordable option when lumped together with the rest of the CS Master bundle.

rcallicotte
11-24-2011, 05:24 AM
@Nick - Thanks for your explanations. This is useful to know. It makes my decision harder, since I want both. LOL

@Wesley - I looked at Fusion, but I must have missed the pricing model. AE does seem like a very good product.

My biggest concern - learning something that doesn't work well with Lightwave or that could have worked more seamlessly. Lightwave can do a lot of things well.

UnCommonGrafx
11-24-2011, 05:35 AM
http://www.vfxwizard.com/software/lightwave-to-after-effects-exporter.html

AE. It works well with LW.

I see the two as inseparable: get them both at some point. Even if it's just the demos. Nodes versus a Film approach, i.e., stacks/layers. THAT'S what you would be learning: where things are and how a stack compares to a nodal setup.

I have the old fusion and it's still a treat.


I would suggest the Adobe Master collection because of all the tools inside. Seldom a dull moment. Make some money with it. Buy Nuke.

ivshinclub
11-24-2011, 06:14 AM
Definitely the choice for Eyeon Fusion - its interface is easier to learn than Nuke. You can composite the images and video. You can composite multiple layers of one image (channels). Full support for gamma correction and 32 bit images. Although Nuke flexible and under it more plug-ins, but it created a stoned guys - sometimes absolutely impossible to understand the logic of the work process ...

papou
11-24-2011, 06:31 AM
i love fusion too.
But i have to admit that if i have to choice an app that can do both Compositing And Motion Graphics i have to choice AE.
Because AE is not a robust compositing tool but it can do it, it can do editing well too.
In Fusion, it's a pain in da *** to do motion graphics or Editing but it's the best for compo.

UnCommonGrafx
11-24-2011, 06:45 AM
yes, better to buy Fusion with that earned money.

rcallicotte
11-24-2011, 06:49 AM
Thanks guys! This is all so helpful.

Sarford
11-24-2011, 07:00 AM
I think this realy depends on what you wanna do with the compositing software.
Do you just wanna slap together a few render passes and soup it up a little; buy AE, it is a great program for simple compositing and some motion graphics.
Do you want to do some serious compositing work, maybe also some compositing for clients, then go with Nuke.
With learning Nuke you can also freelance as a Nuke artist, though Nuke is quite expensive and has a yearly maintenance fee.

rcallicotte
11-24-2011, 08:34 AM
Is that what you used on your demo reel and some of your gallery? Did you use Nuke?



I think this realy depends on what you wanna do with the compositing software.
Do you just wanna slap together a few render passes and soup it up a little; buy AE, it is a great program for simple compositing and some motion graphics.
Do you want to do some serious compositing work, maybe also some compositing for clients, then go with Nuke.
With learning Nuke you can also freelance as a Nuke artist, though Nuke is quite expensive and has a yearly maintenance fee.

nickdigital
11-24-2011, 09:40 AM
I don't know if Fusion or Nuke have IK but there's this script for AE which we use a lot.
http://ik.duduf.com/

I don't know if you're a Flash user but Flash works with AE pretty well too.

bbuxton
11-24-2011, 09:57 AM
If you start with Aftereffects, Conduit 2 is a good simple nodal compositing add-on.
http://www.dvgarage.com/conduit-2

rcallicotte
11-24-2011, 09:04 PM
Thank you very much. "Conduit is not Windows compatible." - Darn, though. :) I'm using Windows...

wesleycorgi
11-25-2011, 11:22 AM
If you start with Aftereffects, Conduit 2 is a good simple nodal compositing add-on.
http://www.dvgarage.com/conduit-2

Yes, Conduit is great for green screen work, even for live streaming stuff. Fortunately, I'm on Mac. But I use Fusion via Parallels.

tburbage
12-02-2011, 07:49 PM
I need to learn to be able to know a genuine skill. I know many people here on this site are professionals, who have definite experience I do not have and I'm hoping you will be willing to give me your opinions...maybe even your advice.

Both After Effects and Nuke are incredible programs. So, I'm not debating which is better. Except I can't afford both. I love Lightwave and will stay with it, but am contemplating either AE or Nuke. What do you think would be the best to learn? Let's say a year or two from now - what would be most beneficial to a 3D / 2D illustrator, arch-visualizer or assembly line media creator?
I would recommend After Effects in that context. If you had said you have ambitions to be a full time professional 2D effects artist or compositor, Nuke seems to be the hot ticket right now, though I suspect it and Fusion are pretty close in terms of general capability.

bassmanjam
12-02-2011, 10:52 PM
I started in AE like 10 years ago. It's a good all-around program and pretty easy to get up to speed with. I transitioned to Nuke a few years back for film work and now go back and forth. When doing serious compositing, I would pick Nuke any day over AE. However when mograph is concerned, AE still has an edge.
It's rarer anymore to find freelance jobs as just an AE artist. You can, however, find stuff being just a Nuke artist. It depends on what area of the market you would like to be involved in and the clients/budgets you want to work with.

precedia
12-03-2011, 12:36 AM
Both After Effects and Nuke are incredible programs. So, I'm not debating which is better. Except I can't afford both. I love Lightwave and will stay with it, but am contemplating either AE or Nuke.

I'm not sure if you want to learn the general concepts behind compositing or details about a specific piece of compositing software.

However, if money is an issue you may want to consider the compositing component of Blender (free).

Blender's compositor, for example, composite nodes (http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-242/blender-composite-nodes/), appears to be feature rich enough to allow you to learn some fundamental concepts and do actual compositing work without parting with your money too soon.

There is a full textbook on Blender's compositor available on Amazon called "Blender Compositing" (http://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Blender-Compositing-Roger-Wickes/dp/1430219769).

rcallicotte
12-05-2011, 06:50 AM
Thanks for more info. What I need to learn is an understanding of the integration of and composition with the various 3D tools. From what I can see this is how to actually get the job done - understanding. This apparently takes time. :D

djwaterman
12-05-2011, 07:43 AM
Here's something to consider, of course Nuke is the big deal film compositing machine, and like Fusion it is a node based compositor, think of your nodal texture set up and imagine something similar with visual element all being funneled towards a final visual output.

After Effects is different, it's big advantage is you can work on many shots from a sequence all placed into the project, if you want to work this way.

In general someone using Nuke would be working on one shot at a time, whereas AE can be used as a kind of editor with a bunch of shots lined up on a timeline, all able to be updated and altered, feeding into each other.

AE feels a bit like Photoshop with movement, and it's good when you want to put together a sequence all in the one place.

The Node based compositors are more for working one shot at a time, (although there are AE artists who work one shot at a time as well, because an all in one project inside of AE can grow huge and cluttered and only make sense to the person who created it).

If you just wanted to do shots and get into high end compositing, you would go for Nuke.

This is regardless of AE being capable of doing high end compositing as well, it's more an industry thing and there is more scope to push bounderies in something like Nuke.

But if you are more of a content creator, making little presentations , doco's, music videos, motion graphic sequences, then AE is pretty cool, and with a few plugins it also links back and forth with LW. I have been using AE for years and there's still so much I haven't used or explored, I watched guys fumble around to get things out of Nuke that are a no brainer in AE, but then I've also watched them do impossible things that are beyond AE's scope.

AE is a bit like LW in that it empowers the single artist, whereas Nuke is more like a sophisticated skill-set you bring to someone else's production pipeline.

That's my attempt to describe it, please consider the fact that I've barely touch Nuke myself so I may be a little biased in my view.

Anyway just spend some time over at Video Copilot and see if that looks like the sort of way you would like to work, or if your aspirations are more high end film, then probably just learn Nuke.

Once you get into compositing, you will never look at 3D the same way, you will realize that the 3d render is just a starting point. You could do an under water submarine sequence where the sub is just rendered dry, and then add all the water, caustics, foam, bubbles, lighting and haze inside of your compositing app. Smoke and fire, glows, all that stuff never needs to be solved in the slow painful world of 3D, you can do it all better and in close to real time in the composite. It really frees you up.

rcallicotte
05-16-2012, 12:49 PM
DJ, this explanation is priceless. All the help in understanding is coming even more to focal point, as I see and understand the 3D world better. Living in the Midwest of the U.S. is sort of like being in the wilderness of Mojave with all of the 3D action happening next door in LA - but maybe it's possible to learn something to be useful. I'm learning AE, for now, and looking hard at Fusion and Nuke.

I think the reality is making money - once this happens, deciding where to take all of this will make more and more sense; not because money is the issue, but because practicality is.



Here's something to consider, of course Nuke is the big deal film compositing machine, and like Fusion it is a node based compositor, think of your nodal texture set up and imagine something similar with visual element all being funneled towards a final visual output.

After Effects is different, it's big advantage is you can work on many shots from a sequence all placed into the project, if you want to work this way.

In general someone using Nuke would be working on one shot at a time, whereas AE can be used as a kind of editor with a bunch of shots lined up on a timeline, all able to be updated and altered, feeding into each other.

AE feels a bit like Photoshop with movement, and it's good when you want to put together a sequence all in the one place.

The Node based compositors are more for working one shot at a time, (although there are AE artists who work one shot at a time as well, because an all in one project inside of AE can grow huge and cluttered and only make sense to the person who created it).

If you just wanted to do shots and get into high end compositing, you would go for Nuke.

This is regardless of AE being capable of doing high end compositing as well, it's more an industry thing and there is more scope to push bounderies in something like Nuke.

But if you are more of a content creator, making little presentations , doco's, music videos, motion graphic sequences, then AE is pretty cool, and with a few plugins it also links back and forth with LW. I have been using AE for years and there's still so much I haven't used or explored, I watched guys fumble around to get things out of Nuke that are a no brainer in AE, but then I've also watched them do impossible things that are beyond AE's scope.

AE is a bit like LW in that it empowers the single artist, whereas Nuke is more like a sophisticated skill-set you bring to someone else's production pipeline.

That's my attempt to describe it, please consider the fact that I've barely touch Nuke myself so I may be a little biased in my view.

Anyway just spend some time over at Video Copilot and see if that looks like the sort of way you would like to work, or if your aspirations are more high end film, then probably just learn Nuke.

Once you get into compositing, you will never look at 3D the same way, you will realize that the 3d render is just a starting point. You could do an under water submarine sequence where the sub is just rendered dry, and then add all the water, caustics, foam, bubbles, lighting and haze inside of your compositing app. Smoke and fire, glows, all that stuff never needs to be solved in the slow painful world of 3D, you can do it all better and in close to real time in the composite. It really frees you up.