PDA

View Full Version : Plethora of Autodesk products


wtoddk
11-21-2008, 11:50 PM
I've run through the descriptions of all the Autodesk video editing/compositing products (inferno,combustion,toxic,flame,burn,etc.), yet it's still unclear to me which is better for what.

can anyone shed some light on this in a way that Autodesk is unable to do (quickly)?

Thanks,...

teahtime
11-26-2008, 10:57 PM
Flame is a compositor, Inferno is basically a bigger version of it, and Flint is a lesser version of flame.
Fire no longer exists, and Smoke is an editing application. Lustre is for colour correction.

The above suites are hardware based systems, unless you have 70,000 forget about it. The big thing about them is the Stone storate and networked frame servers, dedicated hardware for processing audio and video effects.

Combustion is kind of based on Flame and shares some its awesome tools like the colour warper, and the discreet keyer. It's mostly a 2D compositor. Most people including me prefer After Effects over Combustion, as you can easily work on multiple composites and in my experience more stable. I really wish they had done more with combustion.

Toxik is a failure. A node based compositor that was sold as a network collaboration solution, basically a cheaper flame knock off. And now they are touting it as companion product to Maya because it can handle openexr and HDRI voodoo magic...big whoop. Even though Alias (who use to develop maya) sold off Fusion years ago (now called Digital Fusion by eyeon software). Which was the old compositor companion for Maya, out with a good product...in with a mutated marketing flop.

Long story short stick to After effects, Nuke, and Digital Fusion. All are very good. Autodesk stuff is just glitz and glam with good marketing.

wtoddk
12-09-2008, 10:36 PM
Thanks for the very helpful reply! Based on your recommendation...I'll stick with AfterEffects for the moment....

Thanks again!

Aneks
12-09-2008, 11:37 PM
Combustion is kind of based on Flame and shares some its awesome tools like the colour warper, and the discreet keyer. It's mostly a 2D compositor.

no its not. not even a little. Developed totally independently and using a very different paradigm. Just because they have a slightly similar looking interface colour they are barely a like at all.

Even though Alias (who use to develop maya) sold off Fusion years ago (now called Digital Fusion by eyeon software). Which was the old compositor companion for Maya, out with a good product...in with a mutated marketing flop.

Again not accurate. Fusion long pre-dates Maya and was only briefly bundled with Maya for windows due to a deal with A|W who needed something to ship with their $28k Unlimited suite because the Irix based version Shipped with A|W composer.

Long story short stick to After effects, Nuke, and Digital Fusion. All are very good. Autodesk stuff is just glitz and glam with good marketing.

Um... no. More serious compositing for TV commercials and broadcast is done in Flame than I could even begin to name. If you are a professional in that section of the industry then you will most likely be finishing all your work on Flame. Lots of motion graphics gets done in After Effects but without decent I/O options how are you supposed to get the material down to tape for broadcast !

If you are compositing feature film you will most likely be using Shake. Nuke and Fusion though awesome do not have anywhere near the market saturation that Shake still holds.

Advice is only worthwhile if it is correct.

wtoddk
12-09-2008, 11:53 PM
Good points, Anek. Note taken. :)

....

jeremybirn
12-10-2008, 05:56 AM
Even though Alias (who use to develop maya) sold off Fusion years ago (now called Digital Fusion by eyeon software). Which was the old compositor companion for Maya, out with a good product...in with a mutated marketing flop.
Did Digital Fusion ever have anything to do with Alias? I don't remember it that way. Please provide links if you are right, otherwise I'll assume you posted that in error.

Perhaps you're confusing different products? Alias|Wavefront was the result of a merger that included Wavefront Media Composer, that used to be sold as a compositing companion to Alias Studio. That didn't have anything to do with Digital Fusion.

-jeremy

jeremybirn
12-10-2008, 06:01 AM
Toxik is a failure. A node based compositor that was sold as a network collaboration solution, basically a cheaper flame knock off. And now they are touting it as companion product to Maya because it can handle openexr and HDRI voodoo magic...big whoop.

Have you used Toxic? Since the Flint/Flame/Inferno product line is an SGI-based hardware/software combo, I don't think that newer PC and Linux software is really competing with that. Toxic is a next-gen product that hasn't achieved a really high market penetration yet as far as I can tell, but it's what Autodesk has been putting a lot of it's newest development work into, and it seems like a promising new venture. I'm curious to hear exactly what you think it's a "failure" at?

-jeremy

Aneks
12-10-2008, 06:26 AM
Toxic is a next-gen product that hasn't achieved a really high market penetration yet as far as I can tell, but it's what Autodesk has been putting a lot of it's newest development work into, and it seems like a promising new venture. I'm curious to hear exactly what you think it's a "failure" at?

In defense of that statement I will say that given the almost 10years of development that has led Autodesk (and before them discreet) to this point, and the inability to make significant inroads into the market; one would have to categorize project Toxik as a bit of a 'failure'. Numerous big facilities took a long hard look at it and have continued to evaluate it as an alternative to packages like Shake and Nuke, but I cannot really think to name any larger facilities that have embraced it as their primary compositing application. Given the significant investment in time, research and marketing that the developers have made how else would you describe it ?!

Since the Flint/Flame/Inferno product line is an SGI-based hardware/software combo, I don't think that newer PC and Linux software is really competing with that.

FFIS have been Linux based for about 3 years now and Toxik Linux has been available for almost 2. I think that there is definitely some area of crossover in these applications. Especially since Autodesk is now expanding things like floating point support in FFIS and I wouldn't be surprised to see some big line-up changes in the next year or so in regards to the hardware based systems.


Perhaps you're confusing different products? Alias|Wavefront was the result of a merger that included Wavefront Media Composer, that used to be sold as a compositing companion to Alias Studio. That didn't have anything to do with Digital Fusion.

True but I think the initial statement was confusing the relationship between A|W Maya and Alias. Maya did ship with Digital Fusion initially and there was some product name wrangling especially around the v2.5, v3 era of Maya. I still have a Maya Fusion box lurking in a garage somewhere !

teahtime
12-10-2008, 08:32 AM
Sorry, yes Alias|Wavefront partnered with Eyeon to bundle Maya Fusion with Maya 2.0, as Composer was only on Irix

Despite Autodesk's efforts. Toxik just isn't breaking the Market share.

Discreet made combustion under the same roof as the IFFFS products. It's not the same but it is developed as a likeness

IFFFS and other hardware based solutions like have been migrating to linux over the years. SGI no longer makes workstations.

@Aneks
Whilst IFFFS, nuccoda, Avid, IFX etc do target their products at broadcast, film, and of course make for great "hero" suites, wtoddk didn't actually mention anythign about application, merely the main differences. I assume he/she is learning? I always take a stance to shy people away from such suites. The determination and effort in acquiring them, and to get them to work on generally slow and under specced setups would be better spent in actually learning compositing. Digital Fusion, Nuke, and After Effects coupled with Ron Brinkman's 'The Art and Science of Digital Compositing', is what i think to be the best place to start.

Combustion sadly just doesn't have a such a large user base, Toxik...well it's Toxik. And IFFFS are solutions not software products.

wireFrame
12-14-2008, 01:04 AM
I'll list these Autodesk Products you're interested at in the order of which is better (in my opinion of course for tv ads use).

1. inferno
2. flame
3. smoke
4. flint
5.
6.
7.
8. combustion--better than AE in terms of Color Correction and Keyer tools
9.
10. toxic -- never used this/not interested

Aneks
12-14-2008, 01:53 AM
1. inferno
2. flame
3. smoke
4. flint

In real terms there is almost nothing in between flint, flame and inferno anymore except for the price tag. Ok flame and inferno have more bit depth and a 3d tracker, but meh.

If you are doing broadcast then bit depth is not on issue anyway and if you are trying to do any complicated 3d tracking stuff you are much better of just getting syntheys and another operator to run it !

teahtime
12-17-2008, 10:31 AM
Fire is dead, but what Fire and Inferno offer is hardware options. Where as Flame and Smoke are workstation based, Inferno allows you to scale up, massively. I say "workstation based" during the IRIX to Linux phase that HP workstation was a 30k extra.

nrgy
12-17-2008, 11:39 PM
If you are doing broadcast then bit depth is not on issue anyway
Err I think it matters, when you are playing with color and want to mult down something you multiplied up earlier, suddenly your pixel that was red and boosted to over 1 is now grey when brought down.

This should matter even more with FFI since you tend to do something, bake it out to a clip, take the clip and do other stuff, rinse repeat. Having color move along in that kind of workflow would seem important to me but yet that still seems to be majory lacking in the suites.

Its not do or die, people have worked with the limitation since the begining, its just this day in age theres no reason you should have to deal with that.

berniebernie
12-21-2008, 10:27 PM
Have you used Toxic? Since the Flint/Flame/Inferno product line is an SGI-based hardware/software combo, I don't think that newer PC and Linux software is really competing with that. Toxic is a next-gen product that hasn't achieved a really high market penetration yet as far as I can tell, but it's what Autodesk has been putting a lot of it's newest development work into, and it seems like a promising new venture. I'm curious to hear exactly what you think it's a "failure" at?

-jeremy

3d layers: (2008 at least is simply a failure in 3d layering - if you don't have the one good video card)
ease of use: (could I PLEASE render QTs out of Toxik ? I don't care that it's not a 'professional' solution. I like when it's quick and easy)
interface: to big & bulky, okay, you've got presets, but can't dual-screen properly, can't have floating windows. The 'hotbox' isn't customizable, nor are the little tiny bits of interface that 'good' software will let you toy with
stability: so far, I haven't worked on toxik 2008 for more than a straight hour without a nice fatal crash. Granted we use windows, but After Effects doesn't fail, nor does Nuke.
nuts and bolts: a $2000+ piece of software 'could' have some of those 'amateurish' plug-ins that save your life when you are a student like me.

Our school bought Toxik licences because it was supposed to be next-gen, but so far I've been extremely dissapointed, especially after having used nuke in a real work environment.

Now, it's got an awesome name, so what can I say.

CGTalk Moderation
12-21-2008, 10:27 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.