PDA

View Full Version : Pros and Cons of Aftereffects vs Combustion?


phloam
06-02-2005, 06:51 AM
[posting this thread the first seemed to get lost in the void]

It's coming time to purchase a compositing app, and these two seem to be the only viable options within my price range (especially since I don't have a Mac capable of running shake).

I'm just curious about the perceived pros and cons between these apps, and if I'm missing another option, what is it?

The specifics I'm after in particular:
Which has better motion-tracking?
Can combustion be used for motion graphics more or less to same degree as Aftereffects?
The keying is better in cumbustion from what I hear...is this right?

I'm not too concerned aboutm learning curve, since I'll put the time into learning either app properly. I know how to use Aftereffects and Shake already, though.

Any extra info you give would be very cool...

It was hard to decide where to place this thread. Please move it to a more relevent section if you see fit. There is no particular reason for why I'm posting this in the Aftereffects section rather than the Discreet section.

Thanks for any help.
p

akaiten
06-02-2005, 08:52 AM
I would say there are too many to list in terms of pros and cons for both software packages, but in particular to some that you've listed:

* Combustion's motion tracking system in my experience is more accurate than AE's along with the fact that it has a bit more options included. However, AE's motion tracking is easier to use. Well, it obviously depends on the user's prefs.

* AE by far exceeds Combustion's ability to produce motion graphics as most mo-graph studios (if not using motion) use AE instead of Combustion. I've actually never heard of a studio that used Combustion for motion graphics, but instead for compositing/color correcting/etc.

* Combustion does have an advanced keying system compared to AE's. There are more options to choose from and overall provides better keying results then compared to AE's dv matte.

I would say to stick with AE if you already have hands-on training, but it wouldn't hurt to try out Combustion and see how you like it. Hope that helps.

Mylenium
06-02-2005, 09:10 AM
Which has better motion-tracking?

combustion* is better, especially since it even allows the data to be attached to masks, which is these days nearly undoable in AE thanks to Profound Effects selling Useful Things to Sony and Bresnev Shu disappearing (you needed their tools to acces mask data)


Can combustion be used for motion graphics more or less to same degree as Aftereffects?

No, you can't. While it provides all the basic tools and the particle tool is far superior than what AE has on offer natively (not counting Particular in here), it quickly get's slow and confusing with larger setups. Also the Text tool for instance pales in comparison to AE and everybody expects further improvements in v7 along with some more Adobe-ish stuff (layer styles etc.) so it's likely that doesn't change in favor of combustion*. Stick with AE for that kind of work.


The keying is better in cumbustion from what I hear...is this right?

Considering that combustion* was intended as a low-end complementary tool to prepare stuff for flame* and inferno* and the like, that's to be expected. Both color correction and keyers have their roots in the highend world and are superior to most what's on offer for AE. Also in general combustion allows deeper color spaces (AE is limited to 16 bpc) which also is extremely helpful. So here AE loses.

Mylenium

phloam
06-02-2005, 10:16 PM
Thanks for the info -

Much appreciated.

beaker
06-04-2005, 06:56 AM
Also in general combustion allows deeper color spaces (AE is limited to 16 bpc) which also is extremely helpful. So here AE loses.Except that float support in C* for a lack of better words, sucks and is dog ass slow (ever try to paint in it?). C* might as well only have 16 bit int/clamped support.

Mylenium
06-04-2005, 09:24 AM
Except that float support in C* for a lack of better words, sucks and is dog ass slow (ever try to paint in it?). C* might as well only have 16 bit int/clamped support.

I wouldn't know about that, since obviously with just a demo version at hand it's no use working on a "real" project. I share your speed concerns, though. In general combustion* feels a bit sluggish (some buttons don't react the first time you click them, graph editor is slow etc.).

Mylenium

Rapier
06-06-2005, 06:53 PM
While it provides all the basic tools and the particle tool is far superior than what AE has on offer natively (not counting Particular in here), it quickly get's slow and confusing with larger setups.

Mylenium


I thought Combuston's particle tools where only a purchsed version of the 2D OpenGL particle program called Illusion 2. While they may look good and may be fast (until you have multiple emitters eating your video card's power and memory, and to be fair even Illusion 2 did that, as does Illusion 3, even more so) they are not truly 3D particles and I thought Particle Playground produces true 3D particles as you would find in a native 3D program, though not as good a quilty.

Could be wrong, but that's what I thought.

Link: http://www.wondertouch.com/default.asp

Vympel
06-06-2005, 07:10 PM
Beyond the one that already had spoken I see other advantages as the RE:Flex that is integrated to the Combustion. In version 4 it has new sufficiently useful operators as the TimeWarp and the Diamond Keyer. Schematic view is very good

CGTalk Moderation
06-06-2005, 07:10 PM
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.