Back to Motion page
Motion free download for Mac

Motion Reviews

5.4.4
09 October 2019

Create and customize Final Cut Pro titles, transitions, and effects.

Fulmar2
08 February 2011

Most helpful

I ended up going with the adobe suite (specifically After Effects to take the place of Motion). For some reason, the Adobe interface just makes more sense to me. Most of the features are about the same between the two applications - but I find that there is more "flow" in the Adobe series. In other words, if you learn ONE of the Adobe apps, you can port your knowledge from one app to the other, and have a pretty good chance of it working out for you. On the other hand, moving between the Apple Pro Series is rather difficult, and you need to re-learn for each application. Apple "Color" is a prime example of this. This program seems quite good, but I think that the Adobe suite is just easier (for me at least).
Like (3)
Version 4.0.3

Read 21 Motion User Reviews

Rate this app:

Luhengqi
25 March 2019
Nice jobs.
Like
Version 5.4.3
Shooters
06 February 2016
Essential add-on for FCPX
Like
Version 5.2.3
dmu
31 October 2013
Since the most recent two reviews are 2005 and 2011, I guess maybe I'll raise my voice. I just attended a class that showed Motion's versatility. I am by no means a professional, but the feature set is deep and the experience is intuitive. Examples were shown to use it outside of traditional video editing as well and the presenter even made animated gifs/cinemagraphs insanely fast and easily on the fly. I don't know how the feature set has grown in comparison to past versions, but it is currently quite amazing and user-friendly. At $50… holy cow, why not? It's easily worth that.
Like (2)
Version 5.0.7
Fulmar2
08 February 2011
I ended up going with the adobe suite (specifically After Effects to take the place of Motion). For some reason, the Adobe interface just makes more sense to me. Most of the features are about the same between the two applications - but I find that there is more "flow" in the Adobe series. In other words, if you learn ONE of the Adobe apps, you can port your knowledge from one app to the other, and have a pretty good chance of it working out for you. On the other hand, moving between the Apple Pro Series is rather difficult, and you need to re-learn for each application. Apple "Color" is a prime example of this. This program seems quite good, but I think that the Adobe suite is just easier (for me at least).
Like (3)
Version 4.0.3
1 answer(s)
Sperling
Sperling
16 May 2015
Adobe's products and their workflow DOESN'T make any sense to me - and not only me. It's overpriced crap of vulnerable SW. There are plenty of alternatives around for much more pleasant price (Affinity, HTML5, FCPx,Motion...). Ohh actually - Adobe is expensive alternative to these amazing SWs :)

Like (1)
Kelly
10 November 2005
It's interesting how many people tried to compare Motion to AE or go even as far to claim it's Better than AE. They are two complete separate and different tools aimed at similar minded users, but never made to compete, in my view. Saying that, after seeing it run on G5 with 9800XT, 256MB RAM, I can't deny the fact I was simply jealous! I've worked and continue to work on AE to earn my living, but I'd certainly want Motion side by side with AE. Motion fills the gap nicely which AE had left open for some time - realtime fun!
Like
Version 2.0.1
1 answer(s)
SomeGuy-
SomeGuy-
27 October 2016
Really? I'm new on this..But I found it hard to do anything as special as people could do with AE! BTW there very few tutorials on Motion which goes back to 5 years ago on YouTube and there is not a lot of new things which you can to with it..Maybe you're a pro and you find your way in some sort of different approach to this app..I cannot understand people who dig this app! I found it outdated and worthless as a professional utility for video makers..I might be wrong.
Like
Anonymous
13 February 2005
I've worked with After Effects, Combustion and Flame for years. Apple's Motion interface is clearly taken straight from Flame / Inferno and other Discreet products, so the lexicon is familiar for professionals. But to say that this product is anywhere near ready for professional use is a stretch. AE 6.5 is a far superior product, as is Combustion 3. Motion is buggy, and lacks numerous features when compared to competing products. The lack of time-remapping ability alone is confounding. 3rd party plugins? Good luck (at least with the ones worth having...trapcode, etc.). Wait until version 2.0. Maybe version 3.
Like (1)
Version 1.0.1
Anonymous
26 December 2004
My best choice in 2004 so far: Motion. It fits perfect together with Final Cut 4.5 HD and DVD Studio 3.02 and it's so easy to create motion graphics effects, easier than ever before. The only downside, I had to get rid of the old G4s, but this will help me get rid of legacies which in the end tend to cost more than moving on to new Macs! And I guess 2005 every new Apple app will be CoreVideo and/or CoreGraphics enabled. Among the most appreciated features in Motion are particles, full 10 bit support, Excellent interface; interactive playback; great particle system; extremely powerful behavior mechanism and last but not least a great price!!! With its promise of real-time compositing, color correction, and a drag-and-drop interface-not to mention its $299 price-few programs have been as eagerly anticipated as Apple's Motion 1.0. Video editors and motion-graphics pros wondered if Apple's new product would provide an alternative to their current compositing application, be it Adobe After Effects 6.5, Discreet's Combustion 3 (; September 2004), or Apple's own Shake. The answer is no-the program is not an outright replacement for those far more expensive tools. But after using Motion for just a few days, you may be surprised at how much of your compositing and graphics workload you will choose to move to this excellent new contender. While Motion doesn't provide any features that the competition doesn't already handle, its combination of nearly real-time performance and a simple interface will cause animators, titlers, and compositors to take a serious look at its capabilities. The program is so tightly integrated with Final Cut Pro HD that video editors who have been looking for a more powerful titling tool than the one built into Final Cut will find an excellent solution in Motion.
Like
Version 1.0.1
Juan Ignacio Cicchitti
14 December 2004
From Apple: "Download the Motion 1.0.1 update. To take your Motion projects even further, you can download free effects, including five filters and one generator. You can also download additional tutorials to help you get the most out of Motion."
Like
Version 1.0.1
Jonathan
12 December 2004
Well, to say that Motion runs smoothly with 512 MB is a lie, not a white lie, but a big one. Mac OS X v.10.3 needs at least 512 MB for itself. (Windows XP is no different in this regard). And yes, it need a PowerMac Dual G5 to run fine and a good graphic card. Which one you need depends on which resolution you output. Working in a small resolution may work fine on a 17" PowerBook G4 (I have one and I am writing this on the PB G4 right now), but it's not the right environment to do any kind of motion graphics effects on Motion 1.01 unless you don't have a Dual G5 with a fast graphic card. And one last remark: you'll never again want to touch Adobe After Effects (not on the Mac and not on the PC), Really awesome it's in the combination with FCP 4.5 HD, DVD Studio Pro and the other apps of the Apple Production Suite. The best is to upgrade from any FCP version to the Apple Production Suite. And couldn't imagine to work without Motion. It's cool and it's addictive and it yields results unseen with any other app. Great, really awesome.
Like
Version 1.0.1
2 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
12 December 2004
"Mac OS X v.10.3 needs at least 512 MB for itself." You are out of your mind. I have 640 MB RAM in my iBook, I have at least 8 apps running constantly (Mail.app, Safari, iChat, Watson, RBrowser, GraphicConverter, CanCombineIcons, Frogblast... these are always running though I often launch others as well) in a work environment running 10.3.6 and I have never used all my RAM. Not once. And after a restart, OS X 10.3.6 uses 129 MB of RAM at idle.
Like
Version 1.0.1
Anonymous
Anonymous
12 December 2004
OS X needs 512MB for itself? I'm running with 384 MB. I have Safari (at least half a dozen windows or tabs), Adium, Mail, NewsFire, iTunes, Terminal and SubEthaEdit open all the time. I don't get page-outs until I open something bloated like Fireworks. Though I would personally recommend more than 512 MB for Motion, the GPU matters more.
Like
Version 1.0.1
Anonymous
12 December 2004
Ignore all those comments "Need at least 2GB Ram" or "Needs dual G5". I'm running Motion in REALTIME on my PowerBook 17" 1.33 GHz with 512 MB ram. Off course it's not as fast if I am working in large projects but if my old PowerBook can work in realtime at most stuff then why do you need a Dual G5 with nVidia GeForce 6800 Bob?
Like
Version 1.0.1
Anonymous
01 December 2004
Buggy unreliable and will never begin to replace After Effects for a serious motion graphics artist. Also requires Dual g5 and $500 video card for even somewhat real time performance. Stay away until v2 is released or you will be frustrated beyond belief.
Like
Version 1.0.1
Anonymous
29 August 2004
A real quantum leap for Motion Graphics! Well, I have seen it on NAB and DV Expo, but it wasn't ready. Finally at Siggraph 2004 it reached a final stage. Since last Friday (27th Aug 2004) I am working with it!!! It's just so incredible with a G4 or G5 with a ultra fast graphic card. To say it's mind blowing wouldn't even come close to it!!! If Adobe will compete with it, they have to start from the very beginning and implement it with Xcode 1/5 on Mac OS X 10.3 and as soon as Tiger will be out with Xcode 2.0 they can recompile it and just polish it a bit. Otherwise if they try to just improve the existing AAE 6.5 it could prove to be a neverending story. I'll will never come back to After Effects this is already sure. Behaviours are so much cooler and easier to handle. Check it out!!! The hottest app since a very long time!
Like
Version 1.0
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
01 December 2004
Apple has created a revolutionary app with too much overhead and the illusion that it will react in real time. That is not so for the majority of situations unless you create somethiing so incredibly simple and in fact it will only run reasonably well with a top of the line $500 video card and Dual g5. It is also buggy and crashes frequently and chokes beyond 300 frames. At this point cannot even begin to replace After Effects for a serious motion graphics artist.
Like
Version 1.0.1
Anonymous
25 August 2004
This is SO COOL! I can't believe it. After so many sleepless nights with AAA, Motion rocks! You need power, power and more power under the hood, but this software will blow your mind away.
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
25 August 2004
Well, Adobe can't copy Motion easily. It makes heavily use of Quartz Extreme, Apple's new Core Video and Xcode. So it runs on OS X 10.3.5 and QT 6.5.1 only (or later of course). Adobe has keyframes, keyframes... and again keyframes. What a boring approach!!! It's the first time Apple can challenge Adobe. And Encore DVD is even in version 1.5 still a piece of something in progress. We will see a bunch of people moving from After Effects and Adobe Video Collection to Motion and /or Apple Production Suite. It's gonna be hot I can tell you
Like
Version 1.0
Michigan J. Sunde
22 August 2004
I just bought a copy of Motion from the WEVA Expo in LasVegas, and in my 3-4 days of playing around with it on an Aluminum Powerbook (G4 1.24ghz, ATi 9600) I'd say that it's not really ready for production use in version 1. It has unusual and frustrating restrictions, like limiting text-on-a-path to only 3 curved points or a circle, and it lacks functions that are clearly important, like any kind of time-remapping or the ability to apply motion blur selectively instead of across the entire image as a frame-blend sort of effect (which makes video look terrible). The list of things that it doesn't have when compared to AfterEffects is quite substantial, and I wouldn't consider it any kind of susbstitute for AfterEffects at this point, even for simple projects. I haven't explored all of the software's features yet, of course, but in retrospect I would have waited until version 2 to buy.
Like
Version 1.0
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
25 August 2004
Why not stay with After Effects ever after? Who needs more points for text animation if you have LiveType! C'm on.
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
27 June 2004
I too have worked with Atfer Effects for some years now and it's about time the Adobe had more competition. From what I've read and seen, Motion could be a worthy replacement. and at a price that will make greedy Adobe take stock. Well done Apple!
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
23 April 2004
I've worked with After Effects for many years now. I would hate to see Adobe pull After Effects away from the Mac community the way they did when FCP was eating up their Premiere market.
Like
Version 1.0
22 April 2004
Worked with it at NAB. It won't need a big CPU, but rather a high-end graphics card (think 9600-9800. Major leveraging of Open GL here. Extremely cool. Price point means Motion will do for Apple softare what the iPd has done for Apple hardware.
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
19 April 2004
what's the point in listing [and users reviewing] an app that doesn't even exist yet?
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
19 April 2004
Another killer-app from Apple? Learning curve can't be as bas as After Effect. Seems to need a very big CPU...
Like
Version 1.0
Anonymous
19 April 2004
It can use thirdparty After-Effects-Plugins! After all Apple seems providing an AE-Killer here.
Like
Version 1.0