PDA

View Full Version : Migrate to a new compositor


Damon@reelthing.com
11-25-2008, 04:26 PM
Hi




I am a 3ds max 2009 user. I have been using combustion since version 1. I want to move to a more current compositor that's going to have a long life cycle.




I need to do all the stuff combustion can do but faster and in HD. I would like to use 3d features. And better particles.




The work I have been doing with combustion is special effects work combining cg with live action. I also do a lot of title sequences “After effects” style work.




I would conceder moving to toxic but it doesn't support 3ds max properly yet. I am also concerned Autodesk will hold it back to protect Flame and other systems. I always felt Combustion was hardly developed since version 2.




What should I move over to Fusion, Nuke or Toxic? I don't want to keep learning compositors so I want a compositor that's going to be around for a long time.




What are your thoughts. I'm sure many of you are thinking the same thing.




D

theotheo
11-25-2008, 05:27 PM
Id go with Fusion or Nuke. But I got a finger on fusion if you want a fast and good 3d system with particles. Pluss fusion's been around for 20 years so yeah, it'll stick around a while :)

-theo

teahtime
12-21-2008, 09:41 AM
Nuke and Fusion offer PLE versions, and there are trials for After Effects CS4, I would give each a good go.

Damon@reelthing.com
12-22-2008, 10:57 AM
Thanks for your comments.

At the moment I am doing an HD project with combustion. I'm actually finding it really good and its getting the job done. I still want to migrate over to a new compositor.



What to people think the strengths are of Fusion over Nuke?




Also are there any viable open source compositor packages out there?

PiXeL_MoNKeY
12-22-2008, 04:47 PM
From what I have seen Fusion seems to be the only high end compositor that offers any motion graphics tools (including text and particles). At this time Nuke and Toxik have basic text tools (Toxik's Slate tool being the most basic), but neither offer Particles. Fusion, Nuke, and Toxik all support OFX plugins, so tools like GenArts Sapphire plugins or the Foundry's various plugin packs should be similar in all of them.

One thing to remember is all of these packages are much more expensive, start out at $3,500+ (including maintaince/subscription fees). Also, Nuke and Fusion charge for render nodes, while Toxik offers free network rendering through Backburner (like Max).

On the subject of Combustion development, part of the reason the development on Combustion has been so slow is that the Toxik and Combustion teams are pretty much the same. From what I have gathered Toxik has been Autodesk's choice for the future of Desktop Compositing and why it is growing so much faster than Combustion ever did.

-Eric

teahtime
12-23-2008, 12:11 AM
Thanks for your comments.

At the moment I am doing an HD project with combustion. I'm actually finding it really good and its getting the job done. I still want to migrate over to a new compositor.



What to people think the strengths are of Fusion over Nuke?




Also are there any viable open source compositor packages out there?


From what I noticed last time I tried Fusion (I use Nuke), it has Raster paint features, and fancy things like particles.

Wax 2.0 is not open source, but is free. Blender has a built in compositor, and Jahshaka is an open source compositor, but unstable and has been in development for a long looooong time, don't expect it to work.

beaker
03-30-2009, 06:19 PM
I would conceder moving to toxic but it doesn't support 3ds max properly yet. I am also concerned Autodesk will hold it back to protect Flame and other systems. I always felt Combustion was hardly developed since version 2.How does Toxic not support 3dsmax yet? 3dsmax renders image sequences and an image is an image so I don't get it.

cheebamonkey
05-20-2009, 12:44 PM
How does Toxic not support 3dsmax yet? 3dsmax renders image sequences and an image is an image so I don't get it.


I wonder if he was referring to maybe the lack of an Export to Toxik option like Maya has? Other than that, you're right. However, I don't know if Max 2010 or even 2009(?) has that as an option or not. I don't touch that with a 10 foot pole (or her sister)


From what I have seen Fusion seems to be the only high end compositor that offers any motion graphics tools (including text and particles).

-Eric


Use After Effects for mograph work. Invest and use the right tool for the job. While Fusion has some functions which would be suitable for mograph work, AE is a breeze for that kind of work as it's pretty much built for it. I'm not saying you can't do mograph w/Fusion, it's just not the best option for that. Separate your tools based on their strengths. :)

emora
05-28-2009, 07:14 PM
max 2010 has export to toxik that creates a .precomp like maya.. works really nice
nuke and fusion are great compositing apps and have been around for some time..
toxik is new.. dosent have particles and still needs polishing here and there.. but is getting there fast very fast...
I have not tried fusion that much , but toxik running in the proper machine is the fastest of all
and if you like combustion like I do.. moving into toxik will be way easier than starting with nuke or fusion
just some thoughts..

Esteban

CGTalk Moderation
05-28-2009, 07:14 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.