Author Topic: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion (Read 7072 times)

derby · « **on:** November 22, 2022, 08:21 »

Hi all,
It's more than a year that I'm working on animation for stock, going from something very simple like animated text banner ("happy new year" and things like this...) to more demanding jobs. nothing that could be compared to professional experts, but animations with some more complicated effects like particles or fractal noise.

I'm happy with After effects, as it seems to me an incredible machine to create quite anything you have in mind, but AE it's also expensive, and I'm looking for some good cheaper alternative.
I'm start testing Davinci resolve that has the Fusion section that seems really good, but I can't understand if I can recreate in Davinci fusion all the possibilities that I have in AE. For example, a simple text animation with light effect seems much more challenging to do than in AE. But probably it depends on my newbie status with Davinci.

Is there some here that can give me opinion about the two software? I'm not talking in general difference, that are obvious and I can see by myself; I'm asking specific opinion for creation of animated clip for stock: the speed of workflow, the plugin available for both, and the flexibility of both software.

Thanks for your opinions!

chillbilldill · « **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2023, 16:38 »

Coming from a lifelong Adobe software users, Davinci Resolve is better. Never thought I would switch away from Adobe, but I like Davinci more. It just feels nicer to navigate, and looks better too.

jjneff · « **Reply #2 on:** February 22, 2023, 05:43 »

Resolve is more fun to use and more powerful, get use to the tool and you will love it.

helloitsaaron · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2023, 15:52 »

Personally, I'm a huge fan of Resolve. I'm also a Mac user.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2023, 10:30 »

What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

MotionDesign · « **Reply #5 on:** December 15, 2023, 13:26 »

For animation and motion graphics i think AE is #1, easy to use, lot of plugins, lot of tutorials.
BMD Fusion is more a compositing tool (with some motion graphics capabilities)

Zero Talent · « **Reply #6 on:** December 15, 2023, 13:55 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 10:30

What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

No subscription and free lifetime updates.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2023, 14:05 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 15, 2023, 13:55

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 10:30
What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

No subscription and free lifetime updates.

My question was of a technical nature.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #8 on:** December 15, 2023, 14:26 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 14:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 15, 2023, 13:55
Quote from: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 10:30
What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

No subscription and free lifetime updates.

My question was of a technical nature.

Check YT. There are many examples meant to answer your question.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzkKJkbWtQ

I have all the apps from Adobe (for free), but I prefer to use Davinci Resolve for video editing. The only drawback I am facing is no 10-bit ProRes export on PCs (only on Macs). But I export lossless uncompressed temp files from Davinci and use Adobe Encoder (also free from Adobe) to generate ProRes, before uploading. Actually Encoder is the only Adobe app, besides LR and PS that is useful to me (OK, the PDF editor too

)

stoker2014 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2023, 17:58 »

Why upload 10-bit ProRes to stocks? Why upload ProRes to stocks at all? Files take up a lot of space.
h.264 in 8 bits is quite enough for buyers on stocks.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2023, 18:40 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 17:58

Why upload 10-bit ProRes to stocks? Why upload ProRes to stocks at all? Files take up a lot of space.
h.264 in 8 bits is quite enough for buyers on stocks.

Corect. Content matters more than anything.

But if I have the option to offer better quality to a minority of content creators who need to further process the clip, then 10 bits may make the difference between me and my competitors.
On some sites the codec is mentioned and ProRes may be more attractive to some buyers, especially to those high end buyers who are ready to pay >$1k for such clips.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 16, 2023, 03:27 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 15, 2023, 18:40

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 15, 2023, 17:58
Why upload 10-bit ProRes to stocks? Why upload ProRes to stocks at all? Files take up a lot of space.
h.264 in 8 bits is quite enough for buyers on stocks.

Corect. Content matters more than anything.

But if I have the option to offer better quality to a minority of content creators who need to further process the clip, then 10 bits may make the difference between me and my competitors.
On some sites the codec is mentioned and ProRes may be more attractive to some buyers, especially to those high end buyers who are ready to pay >$1k for such clips.

Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?

Your video weighs a lot, has a high bitrate, and therefore many buyers will not buy it. Many buyers need videos that are small in size and without heavy codecs. You're losing those customers.
On stocks, as I understand it, only the plot and just normal video quality are important.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 16, 2023, 03:30 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 15, 2023, 14:26

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzkKJkbWtQ

I watched the video and read the comments. But I still don’t understand whether Resolve will give me more options when color grading stock videos than Adobe Premier. Many arguments are not arguments for me. Adobe Premier is not buggy for me.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #13 on:** December 16, 2023, 07:12 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 03:27

Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?

Shutterstock.
Example below.
And remember that the ProRes version is only for 4k.
Regular HD and FHD versions are H264, meant for the type of customers you are talking about (a large majority, indeed)

stoker2014 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 16, 2023, 07:52 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 07:12

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 03:27
Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?
Shutterstock.
Example below.
And remember that the ProRes version is only for 4k.
Regular HD and FHD versions are H264, meant for the type of customers you are talking about (a large majority, indeed)

1. $200 is not the $1000 you wrote about.
2. For that kind of money you can buy any quality video, the codec doesn’t matter.
3. Do you also upload videos in FHD format to stocks? Are you duplicating?
4. Yes, stocks have a service to download videos in HD format from the 4K source that you upload. But the quality of this video is very bad. The bitrate is low there. Therefore, a buyer would rather buy a normal video in HD than buy a reconverted video on stock.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2023, 09:07 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 07:52

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 07:12
Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 03:27
Where do you sell videos for $1000 or more?
Shutterstock.
Example below.
And remember that the ProRes version is only for 4k.
Regular HD and FHD versions are H264, meant for the type of customers you are talking about (a large majority, indeed)
1. $200 is not the $1000 you wrote about.

It is.
I wrote about how much the customer would pay for it, not about my share of that payment.

Go back and check what you quoted.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 07:52

4. Yes, stocks have a service to download videos in HD format from the 4K source that you upload. But the quality of this video is very bad. The bitrate is low there. Therefore, a buyer would rather buy a normal video in HD than buy a reconverted video on stock.

Ooh, so when you talk about 4K, the clip quality doesn't matter, but when you talk about FHD it does? 🤔

I don't duplicate. I always upload 4K.
You should know that the agencies are always downsizing 4K videos to FHD, using the same H264 codec settings.

I doubt that a 4K H264 clip downsized to FHD H264 would look better than the same clip downsized from 4K ProRes to FHD H264.

https://support.shutterstock.com/s/article/best-video-format-for-stock-footage

stoker2014 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2023, 14:20 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 09:07

It is.
I wrote about how much the customer would pay for it, not about my share of that payment.
Go back and check what you quoted.

You don't know how much the buyer paid for this video. These are just your assumptions. If you had an answer from the stock, it would be accurate data.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 09:07

Ooh, so when you talk about 4K, the clip quality doesn't matter, but when you talk about FHD it does? 🤔

I'm saying that a well-prepared video rendered in 4K codec h.264 8bit and with a bitrate of 100-150 Mb/sec is of good quality. Your source videos, which have a bitrate of 10 bits and possibly shot in prores or raw, are only needed by you so that you can make high-quality color correction, not lose data, and then render in a quality that is suitable for all buyers. Do you really think that buyers buy videos in order to have them professionally edited?
Yes, HD video must also have quality, at least a bitrate of 50 Mb/sec.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 09:07

You should know that the agencies are always downsizing 4K videos to FHD, using the same H264 codec settings.

I don't agree. If stocks convert your videos efficiently, they won’t have enough production capacity to do so. I can see from the size of these videos in HD format that they have a very low bitrate, probably 8 or 10 Mb/sec.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 09:07

I doubt that a 4K H264 clip downsized to FHD H264 would look better than the same clip downsized from 4K ProRes to FHD H264.

It will look the same. And even if you do a high-quality rendering, it will still look the same.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 09:07

https://support.shutterstock.com/s/article/best-video-format-for-stock-footage

Modern cameras now record in h.264 with the same quality as ProRes. Therefore, there is no point in shooting in ProRes, much less uploading this codec to stock. More precisely, of course, you can upload the video to ProRes, but we will get a large file size and scare off many buyers.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 16, 2023, 14:25 »

Zero Talent, what does Davinci resolve give you that Adobe Premier cannot give you?

Annie2022 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 16, 2023, 14:46 »

Get a 4k video shot on a decent camera and export it twice. Once at h264 and again at Pro Res. Compare both at 100% and you should notice a difference. H264 is rubbish.

I received $300 commission for video just last week on SS. That buyer would have paid nearly $1000. (On L4, I receive 30% commission on what SS sells video for)

If one is not making decent video sales, even occasionally, then maybe they should change their codec? Big buyers, for example wanting establishing shots for movies, documentaries and tv commercials, want top quality.

Annie2022 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 16, 2023, 14:48 »

Quote from: MotionDesign on December 15, 2023, 13:26

For animation and motion graphics i think AE is #1, easy to use, lot of plugins, lot of tutorials.
BMD Fusion is more a compositing tool (with some motion graphics capabilities)

Thanks for this answer. I think you're the only one here who answered the OP's question. Others may be confusing AE (for animation) with Premiere Pro for (standard video).

stoker2014 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 16, 2023, 16:27 »

Quote from: AK22 on December 16, 2023, 14:46

Get a 4k video shot on a decent camera and export it twice. Once at h264 and again at Pro Res. Compare both at 100% and you should notice a difference. H264 is rubbish.

I received $300 commission for video just last week on SS. That buyer would have paid nearly $1000. (We are guaranteed 30% commission on what SS sells video for)

If one is not making decent video sales, even occasionally, then maybe they should change their codec? Big buyers, for example wanting establishing shots for movies, documentaries and tv commercials, want top quality.

The camera natively records at 400Mb/s (4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra) (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, LPCM). If you think this is rubbish, then of course good luck to you.
Do you probably write directly to ProRes on your camera?
If anything, there is no difference between ProRes and 4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra.

Just because you got paid $300 doesn't mean it was because you uploaded the video to ProRes.

Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.

So, it’s good that the camera can write in 10 bits, but as I already said, all this is only needed for video color correction. The final video can be rendered in 8 bits and the quality of this video will be good and sufficient for most buyers. Of course, it is no longer possible to do radical color correction with 8-bit video, but the author has already done it with 10-bit video.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 16, 2023, 16:38 »

Quote from: AK22 on December 16, 2023, 14:46

(We are guaranteed 30% commission on what SS sells video for)

This is your guess. For such amounts, commissions may be different. On the shutterstock website you will not find prices for videos like 1000 or 1500 dollars. There are no such prices. These are some kind of individual sales. You need to find out from shutterstock what these sales are and how much the buyer paid.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #22 on:** December 16, 2023, 16:41 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:27

Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.

Wrong.
I discovered one of my clips in a Netflix series.
So there's that.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:38

On the shutterstock website you will not find prices for videos like 1000 or 1500 dollars. There are no such prices.

Wrong again. Big agencies have dedicated sales teams curating on demand requests from for big media buyers, who have big bugets but no time to search the entire database.
Example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/business

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 14:25

Zero Talent, what does Davinci resolve give you that Adobe Premier cannot give you?

I already told you: the assurance that I will never have to pay $60/month to be able to use the tool, if Adobe decides to cancel the all apps bonus given to succesful contributors.

Technically, Premiere is pretty comparable and it could definitely serve my needs (although I am not sure it can do the same fantastic noise reduction job, for example)

stoker2014 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 17, 2023, 03:41 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 16, 2023, 16:41

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:27
Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.
Wrong.
I discovered one of my clips in a Netflix series.
So there's that.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:38
On the shutterstock website you will not find prices for videos like 1000 or 1500 dollars. There are no such prices.

Wrong again. Big agencies have dedicated sales teams curating on demand requests from for big media buyers, who have big bugets but no time to search the entire database.
Example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/business

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 14:25
Zero Talent, what does Davinci resolve give you that Adobe Premier cannot give you?
I already told you: the assurance that I will never have to pay $60/month to be able to use the tool, if Adobe decides to cancel the all apps bonus given to succesful contributors.

Technically, Premiere is pretty comparable and it could definitely serve my needs (although I am not sure it can do the same fantastic noise reduction job, for example)

Again, a well-made video and downloaded with a good bitrate in the h.264 and 8bit codec will also be quite suitable for the same Netflix subscription. Here we need clarification from shutterstock about whether they buy videos in the h.264 codec at high prices or not.
That video of yours that you found on Netflix, is it probably also uploaded to prores?

In any case, this is all a dispute without evidence on both sides. Over the years I have read many forums, and many authors bought videos at high prices and the videos were not uploaded to prores. And some videos generally had a low bitrate.
Regarding noise, is the Neat Video plugin worse than Davinci resolve?

stoker2014 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 17, 2023, 03:44 »

At the moment, we do not know exactly how much the buyer pays for a video when the author receives $200 or $300 on the shutterstock website. I don't understand this price at all, there are extended licenses on the shutterstock website, but they don't cost $1000.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion (Read 7072 times)

derby

chillbilldill

jjneff

helloitsaaron

stoker2014

MotionDesign

Zero Talent

stoker2014

Zero Talent

stoker2014

Zero Talent

stoker2014

stoker2014

Zero Talent

stoker2014

Zero Talent

stoker2014

stoker2014

Annie2022

Annie2022

stoker2014

stoker2014

Zero Talent

stoker2014

stoker2014

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors