discreet vs. adobe

I prefer After Effects, because as a die hard adobe user. I found the interface (once I simply began to use it) to be negotiated lik Photoshop's, and with the similar layering system, blending modes, and effects, I choose to work with that. But, I also use Vegas for most of my video work (no shocker there, and also because of its native sound and use with Sound Forge), and Encore for the DVD work. My workflow is something out of a Rube Goldberg comic strip, but I know the results I want, and how to get them. I use Vegas & After Efects for video, Photoshop for graphics, Soundforge, Audition, Wave Lab, and T-Racks for audio, and Lightwave & Illusion for more specialized effects. Clear as mud? Good. Let us continue.

That being said, I have seen work with Digital Fusion that surpasses much of what AE can do, and work with Combustion that is just as good as AE as well. It's all in the eyes and workflow of each individual user. For me, I like Adobe products (and NO, Premiere is not an Adobe product, it is roadkill with cream cheese on it), and so I stick with them.

Best bet? Get demos of both, run through a few tutorials for both which will yield similar results, tinker, and decide for yourself. Either way, you will be able to create good work. :thumbsup:
 
My tools:

Editing: Vegas (with Boris for video effects, and Waves for audio.)

Sound: Sound Forge (Vegas imports SF regions and markers -- very, very cool.)

Compositing/Complicated FX: Apple Shake (though will shortly be trying AE again.)

3D: Maya

The tools are complicated, but once learned are very quick and efficient to use.
 
Discreet's tools just blow Adobe away. Sure, I use After Effects and Max (and occasionally Maya) and they're good enough for me, but the sheer processing power that these systems have and the complexity they offer is just on another level. Ease of use is another thing, but when you're using 4k film scans and huge render farms, it's expected you can afford talented compositing artists. (I spoke with a guy who made way into the six figures editing with discreet's tool for McDonalds and Volkswagen ads.)

If this guy wants go go high end (and it seems he does) and is willing to plunk down 600+ thousand dollars, let him. Hollywood studios rarely use After Effects (although it's not unknown) because it doesn't fit with a truly professional workflow. Since I'm shooting DV, I don't need all the processing power and complexity of a discreet system. In fact, I don't want it. But for someone who wants to compete with the truly high end, buying a truly high end system is the way to go.

Of course, I'd focus on other, more important aspects of production first, such as a shooting on 35mm and using good equiptment and a talented crew.
 
Hollywood uses whatever works. You've all seen feature films and commercials made with all the products you're discussing. They can all be used in a workflow. Each has their advantages that's why some projects use multiple programs.
 
Policar said:
Discreet's tools just blow Adobe away. Sure, I use After Effects and Max (and occasionally Maya) and they're good enough for me, but the sheer processing power that these systems have and the complexity they offer is just on another level. Ease of use is another thing, but when you're using 4k film scans and huge render farms, it's expected you can afford talented compositing artists. (I spoke with a guy who made way into the six figures editing with discreet's tool for McDonalds and Volkswagen ads.)

If this guy wants go go high end (and it seems he does) and is willing to plunk down 600+ thousand dollars, let him. Hollywood studios rarely use After Effects (although it's not unknown) because it doesn't fit with a truly professional workflow. Since I'm shooting DV, I don't need all the processing power and complexity of a discreet system. In fact, I don't want it. But for someone who wants to compete with the truly high end, buying a truly high end system is the way to go.

Of course, I'd focus on other, more important aspects of production first, such as a shooting on 35mm and using good equiptment and a talented crew.
Click to expand...


I take it you are talking about Discreet Inferno or one of their other ultra high end packages. If so, that is like saying that Photoshop is better than MS Paint. Are you talking about Combusion?

I have used both, and would have to say that the two are on almost equal ground, with Combustion edging in compositing and color grading, and AE edging in motion graphics and visual effects.
 
Scottdvx100 said:
Hollywood uses whatever works. You've all seen feature films and commercials made with all the products you're discussing. They can all be used in a workflow. Each has their advantages that's why some projects use multiple programs.
Click to expand...


Well said. That, in fact, is a two beer answer. Enjoy . .

:beer: :beer:
 
I've had success working with Combustion, personally. It has the definite benefit of "inheriting" technology from its more expensive cousins (such as the Diamond Keyer due out in C4), but the drawback is a steep learning curve.

One benefit to learning that curve, though, is that the interface is similar along most of Discreet (now Autodesk something-or-other) product lines. If you know Combustion you can probably learn Inferno pretty quickly. Projects are (to some degree) upwardly exchangeable (though I've not tested this personally!).

My workflow:
  • Final Cut Pro 4.5 for editing
  • Combustion 3 for digital FX
  • Blender (for 3D)
  • Digital Performer 4.5 for audio
 
sorry. I colud not get a demo there, and they could not provide. they said I could see a demonstration
 
You can't run the high end packages on home machines. They're hardware/software combos that's one reason why they're expensive.
 
I use both Combustion and After Effects and I'd strongly recommend AE for day to day titling, compositing and animation efects. AE is much better supported in terms of training materials and a user base, plus it has a lot more plugins available to make quick work of special problems. Combustion is a great program, but there is significantly less support out there and the feature set is more geared to visual effects. If you're already using other Discreet products in your workflow, Combustion would be a good choice, but otherwise you should probably start with After Effects.
 
Discreet .com has demos of their Combustion product, as well as a 30 day trial (I just checked a few seconds ago and it is still there). I would suggest you get a book first, as I did not find it very intuitive when I looked at Version 3. They use different metaphors, including a "schematic" view that is very powerful but takes a bit to get your brain around it. I can see where it would really make your workflow crank once you have it running, especially since you can custom assemble tools and expose properties. as desired. For repetitive work you cold make it almost idiot-proof/menu driven. As everyone said, once you learn Combustion most everything transfers to higher products, but they are hardware/software combos designed for extreme HD in real-time. COmbustion runs on PCs and does rendering that we are all used to.
 
Surf, Discreet's products do not run on home computers. Have them set up a demo for you if you're really serious about it. But if you don't know fire, the learning curve is apparently insane. After Effects is much, much more accessible, and hiring a compositing artist who is proficient in it is a lot cheaper, too!

I'm a hard core After Effects user, by the way. I'm just saying that if you want super-high-end, you get what you pay for. Combustion looks prett cool, and works great with MAX, but it seems like a half-baked "professional" solution, while After Effects is an amazing "pro-sumer" application....I guess.

But, obviously, $1,000 for AE (with Keylight, no less) is a steal compared with $500,000 for fire or something. But if money is no issue, it's not as good, not as fast, and not as powerful.
 
I agree with policar in that Combustion is more powerfull, but like everyone esle is saying use what works best for you.
There is one main advantage that combustion has over after effects, that is if you are a student. The student version of cobustion is 249, so is after effects. But, and this is a BIG BUT, after effects gives you a half baked standard edition, that really really sucks, whereas Combustion is the full version. From there you can update Combustion to the Pro version after you graduate, but after effects only has an upgrade to the pro version, which will end up costing you as much as if you had bought the pro version to begin with.
That is why i chose combustion over After effects, although I do have both. I am still a student and I have to buy what I will use in the future. Upgrades rock.
 
Surf, you didn't mention what exactly you are interested in doing, or did you...
If it is a "career" concern, then you might want to get your hands on both Combustion and AE and then consider Discreets high end systems. Other than learning the toolset those systems require a lot of creativity. Consider them like Rosestars quote only for Inferno- "A film is never any good unless Inferno is the eye of a poet." Sorry Rosestar had to steal it...again!


-and yes Theos it is Sir didymus aka Z and bye the way Ambrotius left me :(
 
Policar said:
Combustion looks prett cool, and works great with MAX, but it seems like a half-baked "professional" solution, while After Effects is an amazing "pro-sumer" application....I guess.
Click to expand...

I really disagree with that. I have Combustion and it's amazing what you can do with it. We filmed a short recently that ended up with a crew member visible in a mirror. It would have been simple to mask it out. But the actress moved across the mirror thus creating a dynamic region. I pulled the clip into Combustion and by using the motion tracker and dynamic masks, I was able to hide the crew member and save the shot.

Another high end feature of Combustion is its support for color correction. Very powerful and easy to use.

Combustion is a very professional product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top