My Apple representitive said that Motion wouldn't work too well on a G4... like, compatible with G4 and G5's, but seriously made with the 64 bit G5 architecture.

I know it can't run with real time rendering on the G4, but will it run sluggishly with my set up?

Powerbook G4, 1.5 Ghz, 1 GB RAM, and the 128 Mb ATi Radeon 9700

I could run to my Westworld and ask them to install it on a Powerbook, but... acess to the store is about an hour and 20 min's away... asking here is just much easier... for now.


Thanks.

This site has some performance stats:

http://www.barefeats.com/motion.html

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

I've used it on a G4 867 Mhz, which is the minimum processor that it requires. It ran fine.

Make sure you look at the minimum system requirements before you buy it. It has pretty strict graphics cards requirements. I made the mistake of buying it without paying attention to that, and discovered that it couldn't run on my Powerbook.

I don't know...
...The link given to me kinda' said that it would be very luggish, but then again; that's compared to a top of the line G5, or a G5 in general.
And then JW says it works swell, depending your video card is good enough.

Feels like it's definatly one of those things that I'm gonna' have to check out by myself.

Thanks though, guys.


Actually, wait!

What would you guys recommend? After Effects, or Motion. I know they aren't "officially" competing products, but as far as I know they essentially have the same features and functions.

Aww... screw it. I've tried Motion on a G5. It's interface kicked the crap outta' AE... my opinion.

Yeah, definitely Motion. AE is a powerful program but is bloated and hard to use. Stick with Apple.

AE is a great app. Don't brush it aside so quickly.

Having AE skills in the assistant editorial marketplace (especially in the commercial world) is highly appreciated.

AE isn't really "bloated" per se...its just a huge graphic effects app that can do pretty much anything with the right plugins.

I don't know how to use AE that well at all. (I'm just an Avid editor) But the people I know who do know it very well can do some amazing things.

For example, in the Interpol "Slow Hands" video that I did - if you guys have seen it - the close up shots of the the debris floating in mid air was done in After Effects. The director took the stills of the debris that I chose and put them over a clean "plate" and then slowly moved the images in a 3d space. It is a pretty awesome effect if you guys have seen the video.

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

p.s. - my Interpol video is actually in the Music Video section of the Apple Muisc Store in iTunes. Check it out...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Studentfilms.com,

Like I said, it's powerful. There's no denying that. But if there are alternatives out there that are just as powerful and easier to use (and aren't bloated), then that's what should be used. If we keep using stuff just because it's the industry standard, then things will never change. Out with the old, in with the new.

Oh, but the best reason to buy motion definatly has to be the relativly small price tag. Especially when compared to the inflated tag of AE.

motion is like iMovie. It's simple, graphic UI, that does what it does really well. AE offers more controll and a larger aray of features. But the UI isn't quite as intuitive and there's not much in terms of real time (which is what motion is best at).

Also, note with that link Josh gave you, those tests are render tests--testing the cpu, not the video card. They don't show anything about what real time stuff each setup has.

I have motion. It's fun. But I don't have a G5 with the hot video card so it really doesn't have the RT that's the big selling point. I still prefer my twisted combination of shake, AE and commotion.