a silly fantasy?!

I would like Blackmagic to BUY After Effects from Adobe and make it one of the connecting modules!!
Then I would never have to use Fusion again! Eghhh!

OK...I'm done being ridiculous.

I can feel what your feeling, how difficult to create simple thing in Fusion and how easy to create a complex thing in After Effect.
BUT, Ae is Ae, and Fusion is Fusion. Both of them have their own method to create a thing.

If you happen to be on MacOS, Apple's Motion is very fast and easy to learn.

I would love to see Andrew Kramer adopt Fusion and redo his tutorials… that would be awesome! In the meantime, there are a number of YouTubers that do a pretty good job showing some amazing techniques in Fusion.

a silly fantasy?!

Yes. Yes, it is.

how difficult to create simple thing in Fusion and how easy to create a complex thing in After Effect.

Wellll...

Nodes are not better! Why do I have to have a merge node to create the simplest thing? Fusion, or as we like to call it - CONFUSION - is a cluster &%$^ compared to the wonderful simplicity of After Effects.
Yes, Andrew Kramer taught me so much - but he would throw-up before using Fusion. It is so hard to create the simplest graphic. And what's this stuff about "follow" and all these other hidden gems. I mean, there's so much wrong with ConFUSION it would take forever to explain it all.
I love Resolve as an editor...I'll make a graphic in AE and bring it into Resolve...which is really no harder than going between After Effects and Premiere Pro.
Come on Blackmagic - give us a simple nice text module so we don't have to use Fusion.

Nodes are not better! Why do I have to have a merge node to create the simplest thing? Fusion, or as we like to call it - CONFUSION - is a cluster &%$^ compared to the wonderful simplicity of After Effects.
Yes, Andrew Kramer taught me so much - but he would throw-up before using Fusion. It is so hard to create the simplest graphic. And what's this stuff about "follow" and all these other hidden gems. I mean, there's so much wrong with ConFUSION it would take forever to explain it all.
I love Resolve as an editor...I'll make a graphic in AE and bring it into Resolve...which is really no harder than going between After Effects and Premiere Pro.
Come on Blackmagic - give us a simple nice text module so we don't have to use Fusion.

A better title editor for standard titles - OK - could be useful. Replacing Fusion with After Effects? The following is a few years old but spells out the 'why' use Fusion. I'll bet Andrew could do more with Fusion than with After Effects.

Why, do you think, the most respected compositing programs in the movie world, are node-based?
No, not Fusion, and not cheap.

Why, do you think, the most respected compositing programs in the movie world, are node-based?
No, not Fusion, and not cheap.

Not Fusion? Maybe not since Nuke but Fusion still has a legacy of top-notch VFX (see the short YouTub video I posted above). I know you aren't hating on Fusion, Uli - you are just pointing out that the VFX world uses node-based tools and that they are not cheap (neither was Fusion when it was owned by Eyeon software).

Here in Germany it's rather Nuke or Flame, but I don't know about Hollywood.

Anyway, I understand that it's not so easy to wrap your head around a node-based compositor when coming from After Effects.
I came from Softimage Eddie (on UNIX) an eternity ago, so it was not so easy for me to learn After Effects., but I had to when it was the only compositing accessible to students.

Come on Blackmagic - give us a simple nice text module.

That I totally agree with and I'm a fusion User/Teacher

How would your perfect text-module look like?

How would your perfect text-module look like?

I let BlackMagicDesign answer that question

But this is a solid answer : viewtopic.php?f=33&t=178193&p=934545&hilit=calvary#p934545

Neither one - AE or Fusion - is better or worse than the other but they do lean into different brain halves.

Node based Fusion triggers more of the left brain (logic), AE is more intuitive and better suited for creative working brains.

It's just a tendency, everyone can get used to either app, but for some it's harder to work with something like Fusion than for others.

I let BlackMagicDesign answer that question

well that's kinda lazy and not helpful.

reason i asked is that i bet after effects also isn't your perfect titler. And i think fusion could be that (well nothing is perfect), with some adjustments, or macro's which you can access in the edit page, instead of "buying after effects". That just doesn't make sense.

No, this is basically a biased POV since the beginning...

Actually, one is always afraid to seem too radical, and that's a legitimate behavior (plus it would probably be more convenient and fair for other readers). Consequently, no one won't ever be bold enough to tell "this is better than that etc..."...
Now, why is there still any kind of competition out there ? I mean, the deep core of it...

Come on, be honest : as soon as the comp starts to be just a little more complex, in one of these 2 challengers you'll to make pre-comp a precomp of a precomp, and/or potentially scroll the hell of your mouse to find the tiny detail you wanted to reach at a specific point....
Just compare real medium to complex compositing projects where you treat every parts very specifically : even without wireless nodes (which as you know would blow all the discussion here), you'd navigate flawlessly from one part to another, and wire anything from any nod to any other flawlessly too in a node based app.
For me, this is what's really at stake : stacking tracks for these jobs is a real no go at a certain point.

But ok, A better than B is no way to chat about that. I admit each one will have its own opinion on what "the certain point" would be. For me, it's pretty soon in the project I'd say

So if we talk about graphics and basic compositing stuff, no problem, as in Apple Motion BTW. You'll do matte painting, set extensions, sky replacements, ... but as soon as different assets have to be treated separately first AND merged together afterwards, come on, AE can't compete at all with Nuke or Fusion.

People like opposing and creating competition. For me here, the stacked tracks mandatory is a no go.

And yes, it was a silly fantasy

Neither one - AE or Fusion - is better or worse than the other but they do lean into different brain halves.
Node based Fusion triggers more of the left brain (logic), AE is more intuitive and better suited for creative working brains.
It's just a tendency, everyone can get used to either app, but for some it's harder to work with something like Fusion than for others.

This is specifically what I disagree with (no offense of course) : no, it's not a question of what suits better or look and like or overall personal feeling, I think that some jobs cannot be done at all on AE. Like... no way... see ?

What about third party? MotionVFX has tons of titlers.

AE is more intuitive

Pfft!

"Intuitive" is NOT a word that rightfully applies to After Effects. Whether Fusion or AE, you need training to use it well.

(My experience, anyway.)

AE is more intuitive

Pfft!
"Intuitive" is NOT a word that rightfully applies to After Effects. Whether Fusion or AE, you need training to use it well.
(My experience, anyway.)

I suspect he writes "more intuitive" because he actually means "more like the classic NLEs designs I feel comfortable with".
But the truth is almost anybody working with nodes had worked on tracks based NLEs before, it's very likely that an NLE was around before a node app occurred later on for some reasons. I didn't have the feeling I was a guy made for nodes when I started, so this is not a point for me.
However, what was quickly and easily understandable, is the pain coming from situations like you have to almost excavate files from multiple precomps made "somewhere above" on a track left for half an hour, just to use just a bit of smoke of it, or a 3D asset part you have to see again just for a moment.

Usually, this is the time you understand that basically wiring what you need from where it still exists, with an xF node in the middle, is a solid WF for some kind of jobs...

That would be a such waste of ressource if it happened lol.
I would prefer to see Adobe losing milked cowstumers and come to Davinci Resolve (and the BMD ecosystem).

Then have BMD make an even better software.

That's one of my fantasy, to see those who want to rent everything to everyone to disappear.

In my opinion, the big problem with this discussion is that most of the time, new users don't understand what Fusion is design for. Then they immediately compare it to AE...
After Effects is primarily a motion design software. Yes, you can make compositions on it, but as already highlighted here, in any complex comp you quickly realize that it has a terrible workflow for that. There are even some plugins to bring nodes to it.
Fusion is exactly the opposite. Yes, you can do motion graphics with it, but it's not its strong point, because It a composite tool...
One way to solve this situation, again in my opinion, is not to make fusion more similar to AE, but to improve the keyframe workflow in the editing tab and put masks as a clip effect...
If DR handled keyframes better (not even Fusion is so good), you would have in practice, basically the same type of worflow that AE have.

@Raphael - Agreed.

i think we can all agree that working with keyframes in the edit page could theoretically be a little better

Well if you like After Effects and don't want to pay its ridicules subscription fee, then HitFilm Pro from FXHome is the best alternative with virtually zero learning curve for After Effects user. They also have HitFilm which is the free version.

https://fxhome.com/product/hitfilm

I have the Pro version and after using it for a month, I canceled my After Effects subscription and never looked back.

With 40+ years in pro imaging of various types, I've got a couple points.

First, "intuitive" is a *very* individual thing. Never assume what is "intuitive" for you is the same for any other human.

Second, both nodes and layers are graphical models for the processing of the image. That's all, really.

I've been around massive layer stacks that their creator could open in subsections, and show picwhips and all other processing order things quickly and clearly.

I've also seen utter messes of layer stacks. Well, like mine. I am definitely not a highly experienced Ae guru.

And I've seen monster node trees that were also clear and easy to figure out.

But I've also seen medium sized node ... morasses.

What works easiest for you, simply works easiest for you. And thankfully there are other apps and processes for those who think differently.

Everyone's mileage *always* varies.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

I agree that "intuitiveness" has more to do with each user's background than with the tool itself. However, I also agree, that there are better workflows than others for specific jobs.
Example: Motion Design is much more focused on keyframes than composite, so it makes much more sense have a workflow based on timelines.
The big problem is that DR has not yet managed to implement a good keyframe solution in its timeline, not Fusion itself.
My fear is this constant search to make Fusion something it is not design for to "please" a new user base, while what it really IS, is being left aside.
What Fusion really needs is to improve the way it handles channels, especially custom channels. Incorporate a series of fuses that have already existed in Reactor for years to improve workflow, etc...
And not invest in Titles...

Having used both extensively I think node based UI abstraction is superior to layer based one.

When layer based comps get deep they become difficult to comprehend. Node compositing is easier to trace and wrangle in environments where multiple compositors are collaborating on a shot.

Can you imagine another page dedicated to motion graphics rather than compositing? So a 'Motion' page whose strengths are in layered images and titles and all sorts of 2D stuff? Would I want BMD spending development resources on that? Probably not, unless it was wrapped into a Titler on steroids.

I find the MotionVFX 'plugins' are good enough if I'm too lazy to develop my own Fusion tools but you never know what BMD has in mind. They certainly surprise me with features I would never have thought of asking for, lol.

@Steve Alexander

Probably not. It would just be a waste of DEVs' time and would make the workflow even more complex. That's why I think the big focus should be on better implementing keyframes in the edit tab.
This together with masks like clip effects is more than enough to create Titles, in my opinion.

That would be a such waste of ressource if it happened lol.
I would prefer to see Adobe losing milked cowstumers and come to Davinci Resolve (and the BMD ecosystem).

Then have BMD make an even better software.

That's one of my fantasy, to see those who want to rent everything to everyone to disappear.

Somebody used the term "Titler on Steroids"! Love that. I've been reading all your opinions and you are a smart group of people. And I'm not a (con)Fusion hater...not at all. When I can figure out how to do something in it, I am amazed. LOL.

I'm basically an editor (and colorist) that needs to make splashy graphics to impress my clients. I can't be sitting there thinking - why is that black background OVER the graphic - which I eventually figured out. But in AE you simply bring the graphic title OVER the background. Nothing to figure out.
And yes...please BlackMagic - give us a titler that's at least better than Premiere Pro.

I would leave Adobe in a heartbeat - but I need Photoshop and Illustrator as well as AE. Clients usually send me their logo from Illustrator and want me to break it up and fly it around. Which is so easy in AE.

But thanks everyone for your words of wisdom. Now, where is that Titler on steroids??!!

Why, do you think, the most respected compositing programs in the movie world, are node-based?
No, not Fusion, and not cheap.

Not Fusion? Maybe not since Nuke but Fusion still has a legacy of top-notch VFX (see the short YouTub video I posted above). I know you aren't hating on Fusion, Uli - you are just pointing out that the VFX world uses node-based tools and that they are not cheap (neither was Fusion when it was owned by Eyeon software).

Is this a joke? Most shots in that clip are comped in Nuke. The most recent movie that usually is brought up as a demonstration of Fusions might is from 2011 (Anonymous), that is 12 (twelve) years ago. This isn't to say Fusion isn't capable, but false impressions are easy to make, which that video is trying to do by flashing all the Nuke comp work as if it were done in Fusion. Why not demo shots actually comped in Fusion...?

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/produc ... on/credits

This doesn't mean Nuke is not way more used, but here is an official credits which wouldn't exist if it was shamelessly faked, and is more accurate and up-to-date than the famous anonymous breakdown (which I still really like BTW)

There is a difference between using software for roto and using it for comp. If it was used for roto or stereo conversion or whatnot, show those aspects. Showing final comp as Fusion work is misleading. Martian for example had stereo conversion work done by Prime Focus using Fusion, interesting stuff and worthy of any demoreel.

All these movies could be in a demoreel for MS Word too.

I personally don't give a **** about who is more used or not...
I just posted the only credits page BMD put online.

I posted a video above which was pretty much faithful to reality and don't need more, but just for those who would like to know...

Fusion is the best