After Effects or Combustion ?

[Kargokultti]

I have a Standard version After Effects 6.5, and I'm quite happy with it.

I've only ever tried Combustion once, with a trial version from the Discreet site. The logic was different but it didn't seem any harder to grasp than After Effects. I'd dabbled with AE for over a year, so I bought AE because I knew it better.

The biggest difference between these two seems to be that the Standard AE has quite poor warping tools. I did concider getting AE Pro which seems to have more to offer in the warping front, but at the time I didn't think the extra cost was worth it. Now I might think otherwise, but upgrading the Standard version to Pro is no small investment.

It seems that Combustion has more to offer in warps and morphs than AE (Standard at least), and that warps and morphs do come in handy from time to time. On the other hand, if you're used to working with Photoshop, much of the same Adobe logic applies with AE.

[Pretorian]

I would say, I don't know if you did this, but, take a look at a demo from After Effects and Combustion and see what you feel more confortable, then you start with it.

I'm not a specialist, but I heard that it depends on what you are going to do.

If you have friends that already use Combustion, I think they could help you on start. And you have CGTalk to help you wtih too. People at CGTalk are very nice and I think they will help you too.

So, try both and choose what's best for you! :thumbsup:



Hope that helps in any way! :)

[maxFX]

I totally agree with both replies!

I would like to add some simple decision - advices

If you are into series Commercial / Advertising and Feature Film Correction/Composition and you would like to be trained for high-end stuff ( like Inferno or Flame ) Then using Combustion 3.0 is a must because you will have all advanced toolsets that the "Bigger" boys use plus the learning curve for other high-end stuff will be easier.Additionally, you get Flex: Morph for free and the Advanced Particle FX systems...along with the industry leading Schematic view. So in General Combustion , is used on major Production houses along with Other Discreet products and Digital Fusion.

If from the other side you want to have some fun with your multimedia projects or your personal reel, flash site etc and you just need to perform simple tasks then After Effects is god!
You can do nice FX in zero time ( lighting , Glow Stylizing etc ).Additionally, You can work with layers like Photoshop, so if you know photoshop you can use it faster. So to conclude, After effects is used by many multimedia authors and some small Projects that need FX! It is a must if you are going to do the tasks i mentioned above.

If i where you , i would Go to each company's website , see the testimonials, observ the capabilities and then decide.
I hope this helps!

[plastic]

i found after fx to be more stable and faster than combustion.
combustion has a really nice workflow once you get used to it, and the particles are outstanding.
motion blur is very nice (but slow), the color correction tools are great, but i miss some important adjustment filters from after fx.

[TrenZ62]

I'm a combustion user but I like Ae also. I like C3's keyer (though i just pulled a real nice key with Ae's keylight) and like they said above color correcting with C3 is great. With C3 you get the particles from particle illusion which is a plus. I like C3's interface alot better I'm still getting use to Ae. If you want to do motion graphics like text effects etc.. i'd go with Ae there is alot mroe you can do for that on Ae than C3. Like anything else take a test drive and see what works for you. I'd say learn them both cause they both come in handy and if you want to pursue a job in this field the more you know the better try not to limit yourself to knowing just one thing cause each company uses different programs.

[Grys]

I think with the release of After Effects 6.5 (Pro), the difference between AE and C3 has shrinked like never before. I personally don't agree that AE is mainly only used for "multimedia" stuff. It is a complete compositing suite. Of course, big companys with a hughe integrated workflow have better options than using After Effects. But especially in small projects where only a small or even no budget at all is available, AE is often succesfully used for the creation of Visual Effect shots. So, for exemple, the main compositing tool for the low budget but vfx-vise stunning feature film "Coronado" by producer Volker Engel (the visual effects supervisor of such films like independence day and godzilla) was After Effects.
I think After Effects is the ideal tool for freelancers in the area of Visual Effects.

But if you one day might join a postproduction company or something like that, you should be able to deal with the systems of the discreet and it can be a really, really, really big advantage to have started with combustion instead of After Effects. Sometimes I wish I did. But I don't want to miss AE, too.

And by the way: A good way to compensate the lack of morphing features of After Effects is the freeware tool WinMorph (www.debugmode.com). Just be sure to use a lossless codec like huffyuv when doing footage interchanges.

[Kargokultti]

Oo, lovely, thanks a bunch for that, Grys.

[Backenbotten]

I know some very talented and succesful motion graphics/graphic design companies around here who use After Effects for work with commercials for very big customers, comping live footage, 3D elements and 2D stuff. So at least around here, I haven't got the impression that it is talked about as a "multimedia" app. I have a feeling people from the design sphere are more used to Adobe software like Photoshop and Illustrator, and therefor feel more at home with AE. I also believe that there are differences in their typographic and vector drawing features and the way they work (which I guess is of interest to that category of professionals). I believe both programs are very capable; I am a CS3 user myself, and I get the work done so I'm happy.

[Pretorian]

Hi!

I guess Combustion is better for particles, isn't it?




Regards

[Grys]

hmmm...well, at least the C3's particle system is pretty different from what AE 6.5 offers. Combustion provides realtime OpenGL 2D particles which can look really impressive. After Effects Pro doesn't provide one single particle system but several powerful options, e.g. a 3D (!!) particles world provided by the included Cycore Effects plugin. So, you can do a lot of particle stuff within AE ... but you don't get such a cool one-click-system like in Combustion.

[Blur1]

I have used After Effects since 97, for design and compositing. I also had to learn Combustion for a job I did recently at a big company here in Sydney. We needed the ability to import the 3D camera from Max. You can do this in AE but it's not quite as good. What I found was that basically AE was more stable and faster than Combustion, and for the most part more flexible. We ended up using AE for almost everything.

It used to be a selling point that Combustion had the discreet keyer, tracker and colour correction tools. But that old keyer really isn't that good in my opinion because it forces you to work a certain way. Keylight in AE is much better. There are also lots of other keyers available for AE, such as Primatte and DVMatte which are very good. The tracking and paint tools in AE are now on par with Combustion, maybe better.

The roto tools are not great, but there is a new roto system that is standalone or acts as a plug-in for AE http://www.silhouettefx.com/rotop.htm and this will allow b-spline rotoing like Commotion and Matador, which is superior to beziers. I'm looking forward to adding it.

As far as colour correction, I like to just use levels, hue saturation and I also like to CC through a matte, and AE does this really well. Plus it now has Colour Finesse if you want that Davinci colour desk type of experience. Again I think that the Combustion CC is not as good as onewould think when it comes down to it.
Overall though, it is speed and stability which makes me stick with AE. THe caching and proxying system is solid, and I have worked at 2K and 4K with no major dramas.
Combustion has floating point, and a schematic view, but both are infinitely less desirable than going and buying Shake, which is now cheaper than Combustion was 2 years ago.
AE has served me well, I have no qualms about recommending it.
Get Trapcode Particular if you need great 3D particles in AE. I downloaded the demo recently, and was blown away at how powerful this plug-in is.
If you are concerned about the extra stuff you need to buy to get the best out of AE, I guess it's just one of those things, and you can pass on the cost to the client. As a comparison, I was learning flame for a while at a post house, and basically it can't function without Sapphire Sparks, which cost a fortune.

[optical op]

Just purchased Combustion myself - after playing around with AE and C3 in college, decided that C3 was the way to go for me. But I think that a lot is simply down to each individual, although as some of the guys have already mentioned, if you specifically want to go into compositing as a career then you may get a head start if you use C3.

[Liamwhitehouse]

One important fact about Combustion vs After Effects is that Discreet Software is all connectable.

Meaning, 3Ds max and Combustion go hand in hand with files etc. You can do cool compositing stuff with Z-depths in post and other neat effects with ease.

Also, despite the obvious consumer/broadcast difference between Flame and Combustion there are some similarities between the two programs, such as Discreet Keyer, Discreet Colour Correcter etc. This means learning Combustion is a step towards really high end software, where as After Effects, is just Photoshop for video.

If a Post house ever needs to train you in Flame you will have a major advantage from prior knowledge of Combustion and no advantage from after effects.

If motion graphics is the highest level you want to go, then both AF and Combustion are cool, but if you want to do work in the TV/Film Commercial industry then Discreet is the Benchmark From Combustion to Inferno.

[beaker]

Also, despite the obvious consumer/broadcast difference between Flame and Combustion there are some similarities between the two programs, such as Discreet Keyer, Discreet Colour Correcter etc. This means learning Combustion is a step towards really high end software, where as After Effects, is just Photoshop for video.Sorry to bust your bubble, but this is not true. This is just what the marketing folk at Discreet try to tell people and unfortunatly other people hear it and think it is true and then tell other people the same thing and the lie just keeps on getting bigger and bigger.

Combustion is quite different from it's big brothers. When discreet says that Combustion has all this inferno stuff in it, they are sorta telling you the truth, but also sorta lieing to you. Pretty much discreet plays the hand me down game like your mom did with you as a little kid. You get your older brothers shirt and pants when he is too big to wear them anymore. So while Combustion does have the keyer, color corrector, etc... from Inferno, it is really the one from inferno like 5-7 years ago after they had allready replaced it many times with newer versions and passed it down to Flame, and then Flint and then Combustion.

If a Post house ever needs to train you in Flame you will have a major advantage from prior knowledge of Combustion and no advantage from after effects.No, not really. If you have a strong understanding of compositing you will benefit with both. Other then the very remotely similar gui in Combstion, coming from either one, Flame will be quite different.

If motion graphics is the highest level you want to go, then both AF and Combustion are cool, but if you want to do work in the TV/Film Commercial industry then Discreet is the Benchmark From Combustion to Inferno.Your starting to sound like a Discreet infomercial :)

In tv and film, both AE and Combustion are just as important. Actually there are many more jobs using AE just because it has been around for that much longer than C* and more people know it.

[Nerra]

Thanks beaker for the excellent reply and for putting things into perspective.

I was unsure a while ago about choosing between AE and C3 but after going to IBC 2004 i realised that both apps technically are very good, they have their strong points and their bad points.
The only thing that made me choose AE in the end was the really excellent tutorials that are available for AE, namely Total Training. I hope to one day be working on Inferno systems but for now I just want to learn all the principles and theory behind compositing.

[AlexMateo]

for me after effects but the trackers in combustion its beter than after. Byez.

[Grys]

(...) but for now I just want to learn all the principles and theory behind compositing. For this purpose, I would like to recommend you the book "The Art and Science of Digital Compositing" by Ron Brimkman. It really helps you to understand how any image manipulation software (no matter if you're just working in Photoshop or on a heavy discreet system) works in theory and therefore it tells you (for exemple) why and when artefacts appear, etc. It's definitely no tutorial, software manual or "cookbook" ... but it's really worth reading because you'll imediately see "more" in the pixels you have on the screen. I've been using Photoshop since many years but did never learn more about image manipulation since I read the first 1/3 of this book in the last days.

[snkforever33]

I love all the spcial effects in combustion, the downfall is that it takes a long time to render and it slows down if you import a lot of video. The special effects are limitless. In creating your video, if you need to create a lot of special effects i would recommend learning combustion. However, if there isnt that much special effects required, I would stay with After Effects, which basically easy to use and quick to render.

[onix3dmx]

AE interface is easier for animation for me, I have used it to make visual effects and never had a problem or limits


here is one I did recently

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=181038


done with AE powerful animated masks tool

[lukx]

and what about Digital Fusion?

[wireFrame]

Hi there!

If I were you, I'll buy both softwares! Why learn one when you can learn both.

I know how to use AE and Combustion (plus about ten other softwares here at work).

It's all to your advantage.

[arneltapia]

They are both good if you know how to use and apply it. :)

[k4k]

tracking is best done on combustion than AE or DF... i use DF form my comps,effects and i use combustion for tracking purpose... other than that DF is g8 always!!! :thumbsup:

[MarkH]

I do not do a lot of comp work but at the moment I use After Effects Pro. The primary reason is that no matter what CG facility or artist I communicate with in the desktop compositing world, everyone seems to have some level of experience and knowledge with AE. The desktop compositing world is an entirely differenent space than the real-time FFI world so I'm not concerned with learning Combustion to know FFI. I suppose if comp'ing were more my full time gig then I may put more effort into learning another app, but for now I know that most people I communicate with can talk the same lingo and relate to what I'm creating because they use or have used AE at some point in time whether it was in college, art school, previous job, or part of their current toolset. AE is universal to everyone and most artists understand the AE mindset at some level. I personally have not hit any brick walls using AE and while I know there are other comp apps that may handle certain tasks better or more efficiently, there are a ton of things that AE collectively does better than anything else.


Does anyone else care to comment?

[hiphopcr]

It seem like all VFX guys, especially compositors know AE + DF/Shake/and/or/Combustion, but always AE. Overall I think it's a great package, for motion graphics it's second to none and it's a decent compositor. I don't know Shake or Combustion but I LOVE DF for compositing, tracking, roto, and particles.

[MarkH]

It seem like all VFX guys, especially compositors know AE + DF/Shake/and/or/Combustion, but always AE.
This is true that most every VFX artist, including FFI artists, know After Effects. For motion graphics it's a must and for SD or HD comp work it's still very fast and efficient. I wouldn't go as far to say every VFX knows AE, DF, Shake. I find that just about every studio uses AE, but they may or may not use DF/Shake/Combustion, with one of the three possibly existing alongside AE. But you never know which one it's going to be. There is no doubt that I think DF/Combustion/Shake are kick-ass programs! I like their GUI interfaces and their Nodes A LOT, and each has some particular features they do better than anything else. For those who work somewhere that let's them have the flexibility of choosing what comp program they want, then by all means pick the one you like best. But if it's indusrty-acceptance and pre-qualification skills you're after then I think learning AE first is the way to go.

[boomji]

I hope to one day be working on Inferno systems but for now I just want to learn all the principles and theory behind compositing.


then go DF if youre on windows. it will FORCE you to learn,know and think about what you are doing.
that and a few books.


btw C* is dead easy to learn.May be because of the fact that the INTERFACE dosent get in your face all the time ;)


b

[hiphopcr]

I've gotta learn to rephrase that better. What I'm trying to say is that most compositors know AE + DF or Shake or Combustion (or Nuke) but always at least AE.

[MarkH]

I've gotta learn to rephrase that better. What I'm trying to say that most compositors know AE + DF or Shake or Combustion (or Nuke) but always at least AE.

I'll gladly agree with that! :applause:

[Kai01W]

I'll gladly agree with that! :applause:

I'd contradict. I consider myself a compositor, yet I would not say I really know after effects. Of course I can import and interpret footage and apply an operator from the list but thats about it. If that is "knowing after effects" then of course your statement is true, cause I know a few other people who know after effects at that level.
Since a few people said a lot of good things about AFX I'd like to put in some words in favor of C (just for ballance not intended as flaming ;-)
The most important thing that made me avoid after effects whenever possible is its terrible interface. Honestly, its the worst interface for a "motion design" software I've ever seen. Second, most of the stuff that make after effects shine is done via external plug-ins (which would actually cost money)
Sometimes you get the feeling there is some different "length competition" going on among afx users: my plugins list is longer than yours ;-)

Combustion is a little slower than afx but as long as you work on windows(!) the difference is not so huge (the mac port is just crap).

I agree about what beaker said, that it really does not help you much to know combustion if you want to get on flame. Ok, it has one (with C4 two) of the keyers (which I, in contrast to some others here, think is still very good) the same color correction and a similar tracker and some(!) button are arranged similar but thats about it. It's still a completely different thing. You cannot compare "batch" to Cs scematic, neither can you compare "action" to the layer-based workspace.
So I guess it makes no difference if you know afx or combustion, you would actually start from scratch with flame. Being a good compositor is of course more important.

-k

[hwachai]

The most important thing that made me avoid after effects whenever possible is its terrible interface.

Combustion is a little slower than afx but as long as you work on windows(!) the difference is not so huge (the mac port is just crap).

So I guess it makes no difference if you know afx or combustion, you would actually start from scratch with flame. Being a good compositor is of course more important.

-k


agree! :thumbsup:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.