I see that people use PS for Matte Painting, Clean Plates/Painting and Creating Graphics. By efficiency, I mean the softwares capability to work with the least system resources. Im an avid user of both. I'm being quite generalised but I'm curious, I've never really used Photoshop but I have used Nuke for a while. This is not an opinion. Once your standards improve on the final product I found the AE just didn't have enough control of your plates and elements to be able to execute what nuke does. Hi, I wanted to see what people's experience in the pros and cons of using Photoshop over Nuke. Nuke is a highly specialized tool for serious, hardcore compositors; used in film, increasingly used in commercial stuff. Multiple 2D Lens Flares with a single node in Nuke Version Only. However, I find it worked best for personal projects where I was holding the quality of everything to my own standards.

After Effects is a versatile moving image solution that covers a lot of bases and is pretty universally used. You can achieve fantastic shots in After effects though.At the end it is your artistic skills … Nuke VS Photoshop & After Effects. The After Effects of trying to Nuke everyday compositing problem I started out with After Effects as my first compositing software and being layer-based, the learning curve was not that steep since I use Photoshop religiously since 2001. The approach of “controlling” your alphas is barely even a consideration in After Effects. Updated Default Flare in Nuke. They make upwards of half a million pounds a month off chasing down and shaking down unauthorized Nuke … But alphas (or frankly channel data management in general) are where Nuke flat out wins the head to head. Nuke is node based and After effects is layer based.Node based compositing tools are more power full and give you more options to work around problems you might be facing.
I know that I said not to make Nuke vs. AE a big time vs little league conversation…. Nuke phones home, they log IPs and they go after people whether they're small fry individuals or big companies, zero-fucks-given and you're given the option of paying in full, plus penalties or going to jail. As far as I know Nuke fits well into a multi person team workflow where AE is more aimed at 1 person operations, or a small team working on different clips and effects. After Effects vs Nuke for the solo operator I am genuinely interested in what Nuke is capable of that After Effects cannot do, or that is very difficult or clunky in AE. IIRC Nuke costs around $5000, After Effects around $1000. In my opinion After effects certainly works and you can learn and do everything on it that you want. Is is much better than doing this in Nuke, if so why? Differences between the Nuke & After Effects version of Optical Flares: Optical Flares for Nuke uses real 3D obscuration with Lights in a 3D Scene “Scale Offset” feature to scale flare elements uniformly in Nuke version only. Nuke is hands down more efficient than After Effects.