|06 June 2002|
The Antediluvian [Bird]portfolio
Sinking Ship Entertainment
better for what?
. simple quick compositon solution?
. masking & matting?
. post fx & filtering?
both have advantages & disadvantages.
"Billions of bilious blue blistering barbecued barnacles!...Cannibal!"
|07 July 2002|
What's moo with you?portfolio
Digital Artist, photographer, editor
Los Angeles, USA
I definitely agree with Ila on those points.
I own both programs (AE5.5 pro and C2) and agree with recent reviews out of Sweden's EFX Art and Design magazine and America's DV magazine (Which I'll mix and paraphrase here):
After Effects is a great all around, general purpose compositor and has the advantage of near-seamless integration with other Adobe products. Plus it benefits from a larger user community and a much larger third-party collection of plug-ins.
But, when people say "I wish AE could do something like this program," they're usually refering to Combustion. Combustion has a more robust and sophisticated pallate of tools for things such as color correction, masking/rotoscoping and keying. It obviously benefits from sharing core technology with its big brothers Inferno* and Flame*. It's new particle generators also get a huge thumbs up from compositors. Oh, and Combustion's use of 3D compositing is still far better (but Adobe's still new at this and'll probably improve quickly)
But, with Combustion being over $3,000US more than After Effects Production Bundle, you'd expect it to have more bang for its buck.
I'm still a big fan of both, it's just a matter of matching the right tool for the right job.
|01 January 2006|
Thread automatically closed
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
|Thread Closed share thread|