• From: Norway
  • Registered: 2009-12-01
  • Posts: 1,465
  • User Karma: 248

Topic: After Effects -VS- The Foundry Nuke

Hey all.

I've been watching a lot of tutorials and comparison videos lately, and I've been contemplating whether or not I should start using Nuke. Now, before anyone tells me Nuke is expensive and they don't condone piracy, there's a free version of it, with a few limitations I can live with.

I've never used a Node-based system before, but judging by the videos, I'll agree it looks far superior to layers, when it comes to a logical workflow. The way you connect nodes to several others, instead of linking layers between comps, and the fact that you can easily spot which nodes are connected to what, looks like a hell of a way of working.

However, I'm a Creative Cloud user. I'll jump from Photoshop to AE to Premiere and back again without any hassle whatsoever, which means I don't have to do much rendering in between, which saves both time and space. My main fear is having to go back to rendering shots over and over again, as this tends to take insane amounts of time, and, again, space.

I also do a fair amount of actual effects work, not just comping. Obviously, with any effect, there's the need to comp it onto the footage, but with the projects I'm working on, it's mostly visual effects, like my "The Traveler" videos, which use a lot of flashy lights, like blaster bolts, lens flares and energy bursts. All good fun, but from what I gather, these effects might lean more towards motion graphics, which, evidently, is much easier to handle in AE.

Also, before anyone posts "Use both", Creative Cloud costs $49 per month, and in the very long run, a copy of FCP and Nuke might save me money, as opposed to using both.

So, let's discuss. I'd love some opinions from people who have used either, or both. Let's find out the benefits of both, and if there's a king, let's give the bastard a throne. I for one am currently in love with nodes, but I'm not sure this is where I'd want to go.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Red Deer, AB
  • Registered: 2009-11-23
  • Posts: 4,044
  • User Karma: 664

Re: After Effects -VS- The Foundry Nuke

Ill try to do a bigger post when im not on mobile. Tho saniss is probably s better source these days since he uses it more than me. But generally if im gonna do any sort of motion graphicy thing Id go to after effects, if im doing any sort of comp work Ill always go to Nuke. Always.

Tho the point is a bit moot since the stuff im doing is commercial work so i cant use nuke anyways.

ZangrethorDigital.ca

BigDamnArtist's Website

Thumbs up Thumbs down

  • From: Montpellier, France
  • Registered: 2011-12-05
  • Posts: 1,140
  • User Karma: 497

Re: After Effects -VS- The Foundry Nuke

Short answer: there's no king. Or actually, there are two kings who rule over two different kingdoms.

Nuke is way more powerful at doing compositing than AE is. It doesn't mean you can't comp with AE (just ask Teague, and AE has been around for compositing artists much longer than Nuke has), but Nuke has some very powerful tools AE just can't compete with - 3D tracking with an actual 3D space, for instance.

The thing is that Nuke gives you free rein to anything you might want to do. It gives you nodes that do specific things, and then you're free to combine them however the hell you want.

See, Nuke is not about applying effects to a single image you have right before your eyes. What happens is that certain nodes will create certain channels - for example, your plate is going to create R, G, and B channels. And then these channels will flow through the node tree connected to the plate, and each node they pass through will modify them - if said nodes are meant to modify RGB channels. Some nodes, such as the keying nodes, will create more channels; in this case, an alpha channel. This alpha will contain black and white information that has no effect whatsoever on the RGB channels until you decide so. Most nodes, such as the Blur node (which does exactly what you're guessing it does) operate on the channels you have specified. So I can use it to blur my image as well as blurring an alpha.

The way I see it is that AE is better when you quickly need visual results, while Nuke has a more scientific, precise approach to it. You'll do stuff with nodes for hours without even taking a look at the final result. Working cleanly is more important than working quickly.

In conclusion, the best possible configuration is to have both, because they're complementary. If that's not possible, then choose the one that's more relevant in your particular case. There's no general rule here.

In Tom's case, I'd stick with AE. The compositing work you need isn't very complicated, but you do need to be able to create visual effects that pertain more - as you said - to motion graphics.

Me, I could never have done the complex compositing work I did for my graduation film with AE only. But I couldn't have done all the motion graphics work with Nuke only either. So I genuinely needed both.

Last edited by Saniss (2015-09-04 20:13:20)

Sébastien Fraud
Instagram |Facebook

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down