View Full Version : What is Inferno / Flame
04 April 2005, 12:39 AM
I'm a newbie, and I know it sounds funny or stupid asking this, but hey, if I dont ask here where else can show my dumb skull :) , What exactly is the difference between Inferno / Flame & Combustion? I've downloaded a trail version of combustion and I have a good idea what it is, but Inferno comes across as some sort of special system (like Avid's Mojo) yet with what I read on their site it seems its a software.
Can anybody please explain?
04 April 2005, 01:30 PM
flame and flint and inferno are some sort of a compositing/editing software written by Discreet. they are described as a special system because are developed and fine-tuned for SGI machines and sold only with a machine and a storage system.
combustion is a flame/flint/inferno (reduced and more cheaper) version for the PC . . .
04 April 2005, 08:46 PM
Thank you adyy for your very brief and detailed summary. I also discovered some threads below, where it was covered elaboratly. But your summary is so precise. Thanks once more
04 April 2005, 11:28 AM
04 April 2005, 06:01 PM
For your further information: Combustion and FFI (flame, flint, inferno) does NOT come from the branch from the same stem. In 1997, Discreet only had FFI for the SGI platform. To cover the Windows platform, they bought the programs "Paint" and "Effect" from Denim software, and as far as I know basically combined those two programs, redesigned the interface to make it slightly look like FFI and put in a few functions from older FFI systems, and Combustion was born. In Combustion 2.0, the particle system was taken from the separate particle package "Particle illusion". In the latest package, more features has been ported from FFI, but the software still stems more from "Paint" and "Effect" than FFI.
FFI systems costs several hundred thousand dollars, while Combustion is around 1000. FFI lets you do more things in realtime, even in very high resolution for some configurations. Apart from that, it offers other possibilities, and the interface is different. Combustion's main competitor is Adobe after effects.
Hope that cleared it up some more.
04 April 2005, 08:43 PM
Thanks Backenbotten, figured out AE is Combustion's main competitor. Are there REAL differences in the two programs, or is just a matter of two similar programs from different company offering almost thesame toolset but from different angles? Dont mean to ignite any sort of flame war, I'm just a curious newbie.
Thanks in Advance.
04 April 2005, 07:59 PM
My short answer to your question is: no, they both offer an extensive toolset and you can do almost anything you want if you learn the apps well. Where I live, i see both applications in use for professional broadcast production with excellent results. For a quite good discussion about the differences, take a peak at:
Combustion vs After Effects thread:
For your initial question, a good thread about discreet's Flint, Flame and Inferno systems and how they differ from combustion:
And Combustion as NLE? (Non-Linear Editor, or video editing application)
Keep in mind that Combustion has come in a new version after the thread above, however, it still applies very well.
04 April 2005, 09:48 AM
What exactly is the difference between Inferno / Flame & Combustion?
The main advantage when using inferno* is the workflow and interactive speed. You can do pretty much everything directly via inferno*. For example if you need some color correction, just but the tape into the recorder, correct the sequence and put it back on tape. Depending on the system you use, it's pretty fast.
I've access to an onyx2 based inferno* system. It has 4x200MHz CPUs and a special infinite reality graphic board... I first thought when navigating through irix, the system is damn slow. But than you start inferno* and you think you're in an different world. The interactive speed is really cool. Only processor based computation take some time (there's a feature where you can use linux based PCs for this kind of work). You have a 3D tracker, a really great keyer and you're able to do 3D compositing and of course a real great batch editor. Have a look at the "starwars episode 1" making of the waterfall sequence. They disadvandage is the really extreme price for these kind of systems...
About combustion/AE... If you're looking at the user interface, AE doesn't have much in common with combustion. If you're used to photoshop, I would give AE a try... the user interface is easy to learn and it's quit powerfull. There's a 30 days try out from both AE and combustion...
04 April 2005, 03:56 PM
I've trail versions of both and I'm trying them out. Like its often said AE seems easier due to my photoshop background. Though, at the end of the day I might just stick with the two, though I'd rather start with one 'coz my end point is production of Commercials :thumbsup:. Aint no movie /film industry in this part of the world :D
Thanks, and still watch out for more dumb a$$ questions from my side cos this a TOTALLY new waters for me (apart from photoshop and coreldraw) :)
04 April 2005, 03:56 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.