Is After Effects worth getting if I already do Combustion?

DavidBeier

DavidBeier

Veteran
I took a compositing course at my school. We used to use After Effects for the course but the teacher decided to go with Combustion instead this time. I learned Combustion and must say that I really like the program and it's power. However, it seems like everyone else, even Avid users, use After Effects instead. Initially this didn't bother me since I heard they both did roughly the same things but I've found as I'm trying to get more into deep color correction and making my DVX and HVX footage look as good as possible, all the books speak mostly of After Effects and Photoshop. I understand that the interface between After Effects is very similar to Photoshop with many of the same filters. If this is the case then books on correcting still digital photography in photoshop would also be of help.

My teacher's argument for going with Combustion instead of After Effects is that Combustion is deisgned more like the higher end compositing programs and thus is better to learn. However, as I don't exactly have a lot of faith in this teacher, I'm starting to wonder if this was in fact the case.

Is it worth it to switch over to After Effects? Is Combustion really more of a pro tool? Is eithe rmore powerful? WIll I be able to figure out most of the After Effects/Photoshop style instructions using Combustion's filters, menues, ect. or are they just too different?

Thanks.
 
Combustion is more powerful for traditional compositing roles such as roto work, etc. It also has a nodal interface which is good to know if you're looking to move up to Flame, Inferno etc someday.

But, AE is far superior for mograph type work. It really just depends on what type of work you're looking to do. It can't hurt to know both!
 
Right kai!

I owned combustion at that time (V1) when it cost me around 8k$. Right now I have to say that the investigations was wrong because combustion is going death (I think). Adobe dose now, what discreet* dose before and it was very cool. The interation of a lot of programms. (old) Combustion works together wit edit and 3d_Max. AE works now whit Illustrater, PS, Encore and Premiere. That is a big advantage for adobe.

Shure, combustion have the most professional tools like the CC and the keyer but very close behind is AE. For the future I think, AE is the better way.
 
^
So Combustion's CC is better? That's odd since CC was the main reason I was thinking of switching.

What exactly does AE do better?
 
My thoughts - and I used After Effects to make my living for 6-8 years, but never took the time to learn combustion, but had friends who did - AFter Effects tends to be easier to learn for those who have used Photoshop or Illustrator. Node based compositing, while very, VERY fast and powerful for assembling VFX shots and composites, takes a little getting used to and is a hump to casual learning.

What I've heard from my friends who use both regularly (this info about 2 years old, dunno if still valid) is that combustion is strong on compositing and a great tool for those areas of endeavor, but that After Effects is a better tool for motion graphics (and I strongly agree with this part) because of the excellent keyframing environment, rich on feedback, tools, and precision.

Need to do a bunch of greenscreen shots with roto garbage mattes? Combusiton.

Need to do a 300 element animated motion graphics title sequence? After Effects.

Horses for courses, as they say.

-mike
 
DavidBeier said:
What exactly does AE do better?
Click to expand...
That's what Kai and Mike say, motiongrphics. ...and yes, the CC of combustion is better. CC and keyer comes from the big systems Flame/Inferno and this apps playing in another League.
 
But, AE comes with keylight which is a great keyer, and color finesse which is a really powerful CC solution.
 
The thing is, if you are going to be doing FX work, it most likely won't be with Combustion. Although Combustion is in the Flame/Inferno family, it is by no means based on either. It's not really the the first choice in terms of the compositing side of things, although it can do that kind of stuff pretty well. You just don't see it that often in any given FX house. It's around, but other tools are a lot more common.

That said, it is a horribly weak motion graphics tool (at least in my opinion). The interface just doesn't lend itself well to DESIGN.

Combustion kind of got lost in the cracks as it never really seemed to do any ONE thing well. However, I teach both AE and Combustion at the college level. If anything, Combustion is a good gateway to the higher-end node based apps like Shake, Fusion, Toxik, Nuke, etc.

Also, Color Finesse, which ships with AE Pro, blows away any built in CC tool that Combustion has. However, the Discreet and Diamond Keyers really are great tools.. right along par with Keylight.
 
I am thinking of finally adding AE to my Adobe barn (PP 2.0, Encore, Audition,etc.) I need to find out if it is a useful and worthwhile tool for mixing HVX and DVX footage in terms of both up-rezzing the DVX to 16 x 9 and down-converting the HVX to SD DVD output and still have film-out options. Any feedback on this??? BTW, I don't have Cineform, just Raylight.
 
Jim Anderson said:
I am thinking of finally adding AE to my Adobe barn (PP 2.0, Encore, Audition,etc.) I need to find out if it is a useful and worthwhile tool for mixing HVX and DVX footage in terms of both up-rezzing the DVX to 16 x 9 and down-converting the HVX to SD DVD output and still have film-out options. Any feedback on this??? BTW, I don't have Cineform, just Raylight.
Click to expand...

Raylight AVI's work great in AE.

Also you might look at DVFilm Maker which can up-res MPEG2 or DV to HD with
proper chroma smoothing, or it can also down res HD to DV and add 3:2 pulldown if required. Maker is included with Raylight.
 
Like the others have said, it all comes down to purpose. With that said, I've seen AE give some pretty damn impressive results with compositing and video manipulation and done things with AE that were pretty darn good as well. I know people who will swear by Digital Fusion, or Shake, and who jump on those bandwagons because they read online how this software was used in this movie, and how that software was used in another.

Most people would be surprised on how many big budget films and videos use AE sucessfully for visual effects and 3D intergration. And people here like kai are eveidence to its capabilities in mograph work. Can you pull a cleaner matte off a 2k plate with Inferno? Probably. That would depend on the user. I think AE is often underestimated and under-appreciated when it comes to the "trickyier" roles it can bring to the table as a compositing package. I hear it bashed all the time, and by people who haven't sufficiantly mastered software to the contrary which produce results that AE cant.

Most often it's the person behind the mouse or pad that makes or breaks a shot, not the software. And the amount of rescources online in tutorials and other info for AE dwarfs any other compositing app. As someone who often frequents places like CGtalk, Vfxtalk, and other forums of the like, I see evidence of that vast knowledge base all the time.

There is almost a deep seeded, sneering, looking down your nose hatred of AE for anything other than motion graphics by many "professionals" for reasons I can't really figure. For what it can do, especially with the release of 7, and taking into account the relatively inexpensive plugins for it, AE is more than adequate for what anyone here would need. Is it going to best Inferno or Fusion in very specific areas which they are "better"? Maybe not, but it will certainly provide results close enough to give it an approving nod.

Factor that in with the Adobe family friendliness, and in my opinion, it's an easy answer. Yes, AE is worth it.



Hell, as a Lightwave user, I am very familiar with this kind of industry bias, though I have seen things come out of Lightwave which are just as impressive as other 3D apps.

EDIT: Does this mean Lightwave can give you Lord of the Rings? No, but unless that is what you need . . .

well, you get the idea.
 
Last edited:
I agree Matt, up to the crazy artist tap/clicking away to really push the limits of all these good apps. That said, if only AE would adopt/add an editable node based paradigm, it would be sooooo damn good. Fingers crossed here for next release.:)
 
Christopher Barry said:
I agree Matt, up to the crazy artist tap/clicking away to really push the limits of all these good apps. That said, if only AE would adopt/add an editable node based paradigm, it would be sooooo damn good. Fingers crossed here for next release.:)
Click to expand...


And this has been something folks have been wanting since before the release of 5. I dont care for a node based system, mostly because I can't quite get my head around it (a victim of the learning bump someone mentioned earlier), but it is surprising Adobe has not. But, I have also been wanting a non destructive editing for photoshop in the fashion of AE, and they are only now getting to that in CS3. So who knows.

It sure would seem to make sense and get more higher end users on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top