View Full Version : dfx+ or after effects

07 July 2003, 09:00 PM
hey guys,
i was looking for some input to decide between AE or DFX+.
i know AE is cheaper and that dfx+ will only handle 8 bit per channel but other then that which of the two do you prefer.

i have used DF4 and combustion and digital fusion would be my first choice hands down, mainly because of the workflow. i am going to try a trial of AE to see how it handles, but if any of you have some experience in both your comments would be appreciated:)

07 July 2003, 07:33 PM
well I guess if it's possible you should tell a bit more about
what you need to do :
animated graphics ?
3D compositing ?
post-production on movies ?

…maybe a bit of all these but then any idea of the amount of each ?

also what could help would be to know if you expect to use it
alone or coupled with other animation softs (3D for example),
if it was the case the possibilities you'd already have in this or these
other softs could help people to advise you to one or the other compo app…

apart this I anyway can't reply you directly myself as just know AFX
(well I'm very glad of it but can't compare with DFX)…

PS : it's a bit like people who ask "whats the best ? LW, 3DS or Maya ?
all are great solutions, the choice depends on what you intend to do…

07 July 2003, 10:18 PM
well i just tried an afx demo, and well the workflow dosn't work for me compared to dfx... i'm sure afx is a good program and they all will basically do the same thing it just depends which is easier to work with. i think i'll go with dfx. i know it is a generic question about which one is better but, they will both do the same things won't they? if i was going to use it for 3d compositing then which would be better? i know dfx has rla/rlf support, does afx? i use lightwave, is one better then the other for lightwave integration?
if i was going into post production then which would be better?i know dfx only has 8 bit color, which is good for t.v., but if i was in serious post production i'm sure i could afford DF4 or there a way in which one is better then the other, in terms of what they can do?the only difference i can see is workflow.

07 July 2003, 08:40 AM

AFX is not known to be the best for 3D compositing so if you find that dfx suits you much for this and also prefer its workflow… don't hesitate

(seems besides that the next version AFX 6 - released in few months - should improve sevral things but not specifically the 3D compositing, I just hope it will at least import Lightwave's camera paths…)

07 July 2003, 07:58 PM
thanks lasco, i wasn't aware of that, it's funny that afx won't import psd layers(so i've heard)
oh well DFX here i come!!

07 July 2003, 08:17 PM
who the hell told you that AFX does'nt import
PS layers ????

let me guess : the editor of DFX ????


don't tell me you believe that… :wip:

(oh well of course it's possible that the latest version of AFX - 5.5
does'ntt recognize EVERY little particularities of PS 7's layers,
I especially think about these effects layers, but this always happens
when softs of a same editor aren't released at the same time,
I can't give you a 100% reply as don't use AFX 5 myself and only 4.1
but if it's the case it will be solved in few months and anyway trust me it imports all standard PS layers, you can even chose different
ways of importing them (keeping them on their common "center" or not,
see what I mean), can import only one or all separately, or merged or, the most
usefull and used way : "import PS as composition" of course…

PS : and of course AFX also imports ILLUSTRATOR layers, that may not interest
you that much but vectors may dramatically improve the powerfull of this damn
video soft ;)

…well that said I understand very well you go for DXF if you feel better with it,
good luck.

07 July 2003, 10:21 PM
This is exactly what I mean about the After Effects snobs.... geez. Drill the guy into the friggen ground why don't you.

Lighten up. Most of us have all the tools that way the one tha gets the job done is the one we use. You're not implying After Effects can do absolutely everything...? hmmmm?

It's all good. To each his own. :)

07 July 2003, 08:12 AM
You're not implying After Effects can do absolutely everything...? hmmmm?

certainly I was'nt…
I at the begining insisted on the fact I did'nt know
any other compositing apps so how could I claim or imply such thing.

(I may even tell that the very very few I saw of Combustion for instance -
mean only screenshots of the worflow - made me think it might be much more powerfull than AFX in many cases… well but now it's also too many efforts and too expensive to change of tool everytime…)

07 July 2003, 02:22 AM
When you compare price and functionality, Combustion or AFX are the best buy, but if you don't mind about expenses then DF. If you need more then 8 bit then don't play with these programs buy Inferno and Flame but you will need a lot of money.

07 July 2003, 04:45 AM
dont know about afx but but DF and combustion can handle more then 8 bit.
thats why they sell DFX+ cause thats limited to 8 bit.
At least this is to my knowlege. someone correct me if im wrong.

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 04:00 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.