Maya for Motion Graphics

[nemirc]

Maybe you'd get a little more input if you tell us what the works are about?
(sorry for the mindless question :p )

[andre_alder]

Hi nemirc,

Thanx for your reply..........

I have to create a lot of flying logos, teasers... something like ESPN motion graphics..........

Later
Andre

[nemirc]

Originally posted by andre_alder
Hi nemirc,

Thanx for your reply..........

I have to create a lot of flying logos, teasers... something like ESPN motion graphics..........

Later
Andre

As far as I know, animating logos shouldn't be harder than setting up a few basic expressions and/or keyframe animation.

Maybe you'll need dynamics but most animation scripts and tools I've seen are char-anim-oriented.
Just the way I see it :rolleyes:

[andre_alder]

Thanx nemirc,

But, could you tell me where I can find some animation scripts and, maybe, you could adivice me abot choose one or aonther....

later
Andre

[nemirc]

Originally posted by andre_alder
Thanx nemirc,

But, could you tell me where I can find some animation scripts and, maybe, you could adivice me abot choose one or aonther....

later
Andre

Most of the scripts I've seen (the majority of the scripts I've found) I've found in HighEnd3D (http://www.highend3d.com)

[DesignDawg]

Here's what I suggest:

If youa re doing motion graphics, get After Effects. For the 3D logo stuff, get Zaxwerks Invigorator for After Effects. Try it out. You may find that you don't even need Maya. Probably A LOT of the 3D logo stuff you see on TV that you think is really cool was done with Invigorator.

Even if you still want to go the Maya route, I would suggest that you still invest in After Effects and Invigorator. You can create your models in Invigorator and import them into Maya. As far as taking someone's logo and making it 3D goes, you will not be able to TOUCH Invigorator with Maya alone. Even with BevelPlus, you will get better models out of Invigorator. It actually started as a Maya plug long ago.

Ricky

[boomji]

hi,
without the zaxwerks plugin design dawg recommended you will "SUFFER" doing logos in maya.

b

[DesignDawg]

Amen to that. Of course, I'm just agreeing with someone who just agreed with me, so it's pointless. --Except for this: If After Effects is not part of your pipeline, there is also a standalone version of Zaxwerks Invigorator. I think it may be a little more expense (too lazy to look right now.)

Ricky

[andre_alder]

Hi folks,

Well...... I am working with Combustion and Shake, and there is no Invigorator avaliable for Combustion nowadays.... :thumbsdow

Thanx anyway...................

Ad

[nemirc]

Originally posted by andre_alder
Hi folks,

Well...... I am working with Combustion and Shake, and there is no Invigorator avaliable for Combustion nowadays.... :thumbsdow

Thanx anyway...................

Ad

I use combustion for compositing (I've used Shake a little but I am used to combustion already) and I find it to be very nice for compositing.

Some people says "afterFX is the standard for broadcast production" (although most of them are Adobe employees :D ). By using Maya and combustion you should be able to do the same kind of stuff, but it would take a little more work (as far as I've heard, Invigorator is specially designed for logos and stuff like that).

Remember. It's the artist, not the tools (although the tools help a lot from time to time :beer: ).

Maybe you can get your hands on an Invigorator version for Maya :scream:

[DesignDawg]

Hmmm...

Weird. I JUST SAID there is a standalone version of Invigorator. You do not need After Effects.

THERE IS A STANDALONE VERSION OF INVIGORATOR.

There. :)

And, for what it's worth, (little, I realize), I am also a Combustion user, but only for Compositing, roto, masking, paint, and occasionally particles. I can not IMAGINE using Combustion for motion graphics. EXCRUCIATING. I would be looking for a new career if I were forced to use COmbustion for motion graphics. It's just not geared for it, IMO.

Ricky

[nemirc]

Can the standalone version of invigorator do the complete work by itself? I mean, modeling, rendering and optical FX?
:drool:

[Hugh]

Originally posted by nemirc
Some people says "afterFX is the standard for broadcast production"

<shudder>

They do? :annoyed:

If you like After Effects-style compositing (layers, etc), then I'd suggest going with Boris RED - much nicer to use than After Effects, and very good for logos and motion graphics...

For 'proper' compositing (ack, someone's going to have a go for that one), I'd go for Combustion on a low(ish) budget, or Digital Fusion on a higher one (or Shake if you're working on a Mac)

[nemirc]

Originally posted by Hugh
<shudder>

They do? :annoyed:

If you like After Effects-style compositing (layers, etc), then I'd suggest going with Boris RED - much nicer to use than After Effects, and very good for logos and motion graphics...

For 'proper' compositing (ack, someone's going to have a go for that one), I'd go for Combustion on a low(ish) budget, or Digital Fusion on a higher one (or Shake if you're working on a Mac)

I've barely used afterFX so I wouldn't know if it really deserves the title of "standard for blah blah".

I do more compositing than motion graphics and commercial logos so I am with combustion :applause:
I've used Shake a little bit (the last Windows version, a long time ago) but I just can't seem to get used to it :surprised

[Hugh]

I've never had the chance to use Shake, but I much prefer node-based compositing to layer-based...

When I'm using Combustion, I generally work in the schematic view.... But if I had the choice, I'd use Digital Fusion as my main compositing package...

[Kaiser_Sose]

I have recently had the oppurtunity to use Shake and I like it alot better than digital fusion

They are similar though

[Per-Anders]

people that say after effects is the standard... well... they're just right that's all. it is the standard because it is the most widely used. but it's not the bar standard against which all others are measured. i would say in afx favour it has a phenominal number of plugins, and is very easy to use, however it's not the fastest thing on the market and it's not the cleanest thing out there, but it gets the job done.

[nemirc]

Originally posted by mdme_sadie
i would say in afx favour it has a phenominal number of plugins, and is very easy to use,

That's exactly what people says. Exactly. :bounce:
IMHO, I don't think that afterFX could be compared to "the big ones" such as Shake or Inferno :surprised

[Hugh]

To be honest, Shake and Inferno can't really be compared....

As I see it, there are three classes of compositing software:

Low price software: After Effects, Combustion, Boris RED
High price software: Digital Fusion, Shake
V High price hardware: Flame, Flint, Inferno (FFI)

Each of these categories is used for different things... Whether a studio is client-based or not (clients wanting to see results immediately - the studio would probably go for a FFI system, whereas if it's more internal, they'd go for something like Shake or Digital Fusion)

Anyway, as always, it's the artist not the tools that really counts..... (although the tool does obviously make a difference...)

[DesignDawg]

Actually, it's kinda careless to lump Combustion into a class separate from FFI just because of price. If it has to be classified, it should be right in there with those two, because, it is not at all, as you say, for entirely different purposes. It's pretty much just like FFI. As a matter of fact, people often refer to Combustion as "Flame on a PC." Now, don't get me wrong: Combustion IS severely throttled back from its big brothers.... But it's a speed thing only, and intentional on Discreet's part. If you could buy a package just like a FFI for $1000, and run it on a $1000 machine, and it was just as fast as FFI.... Nobody would buy FFI. But, with OpenGL and very careful, knowledgeable use, using tricks that, for some reason, people just don't talk about much, you can get some really spectacular performance out of Combustion as well.

And as for After Effects: I don't really think it should be argued as to wheter it's better than Shake or other hard-core comnpositors like that. After Effects is not really geared to be a compositing powerhouse! It's a BAD BOY for motion graphics. VERY powerful in skilled hands, and one of the most reliable pieces of software ever made. It IS the industry standard.... FOR MOTION GRAPHICS. Not so much for compositing.

And Boris Red..... Ugh. That is about the ugliest, most dumbed-down Fisher Price "My first plugin slapper-on-er" app I have ever seen. It's just a vehicle for very dated-looking, ugly plugins. Look through the gallery. You won't really find a whole lot of broadcast-quality stuff. Maybe none, depending on how picky you are.

Ricky

[playmesumch00ns]

Shake 2.5 all the way. I could murder Jobs for discontinuing the Windows version. What, you think I'm going to but a pieceofcrap Mac just for using one program? Doesn't matter how good it is.

[gallo]

to get back to the original reason for this post(motiongraphics using maya), i would say the mothergooser script would probably be the most valuable for doing motion graphics. I also can't believe some of the posts I'm reading. If you have maya why would you invest anymore money into programs that just do 3d text. Maya could do what they do and more. as far as what compositing and fx software is best, that's all about how much money you have to invest and what you'll be comfortable using

[DesignDawg]

If you have maya why would you invest anymore money into programs that just do 3d text. Maya could do what they do and more.

WRONG. So wrong. Wrong. Maya CAN do MORE than what Invigorator can do.... But it can not do WHAT it can do. I promise you. It has nothing to do with proficiency in Maya, it has nothing to do with laziness.....

Plain and simple: If you want to do what Invigorator does (create 3D models from illustrator files), you can NOT do it nearly as well, nearly as clean, narly as dependably, nearly as flexibly, or, most importantly, even orders of MAGNITUE nearly as quickly as invigorator if you are just using Maya alone.

Try it out sometime, if you have a need for it. There is a demo version.

Ricky

[nemirc]

Originally posted by gallo
to get back to the original reason for this post(motiongraphics using maya), i would say the mothergooser script would probably be the most valuable for doing motion graphics. I also can't believe some of the posts I'm reading. If you have maya why would you invest anymore money into programs that just do 3d text. Maya could do what they do and more. as far as what compositing and fx software is best, that's all about how much money you have to invest and what you'll be comfortable using

Sorry for the mindless question... but what's the mothergooser script :surprised :drool:

[danylyon]

I do motion graphics for TV too.. I'll have to agree that AE is quite the standart.. I think mainly because of it's easy way of animating. I haven't used anything else though.

I've never heard of Invigorator.. thanks a lot for the suggestion! This might come in handy.. although 3D text isn't as trendy over here.

I'd suggest you have a look at RENDERPAL (www.renderpal.com). It's a free little program, which I use a lot for rendering mutliple scenes over night.

And learn dynamics.. good shading.. & mental ray. That's what I use on a daily basis.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.