Combustion v After Effects
- Started
- Last post
- 5 Responses
- ********
This might have been asked before but i cudn't find a thread on it. If i'm half way into learning AE, what's the advantage of learning Combustion instead/as well? Is it easier? More industry standard? I like the Particles thing that comes as standard with Combustion, u have to buy an extra plug-in for AE. That sucks. What do most people prefer?
Also, any books reccomended to learninh Combustion?
thx
- fate0
It's my understanding that combustion is more for professional compositing of 3d and real scenes.
- ********0
really? from what i've read it pretty much does everything AE does. I had a play around with it earlier, seems more intuitive to use than AE. Any other opinions?
- fate0
Hmm, well Discreet is making it so I'd assume that most people would use it in conjunction with 3dsmax.
But I honestly don't know much about this program besides I haven't heard bad things about it. I'll have to see if there's a trial then report back.
- fingercore0
Combustion is nice because it's very similar to the high-end Flame/Flint/Inferno systems. The Discreet Color Corrector also makes it very appealing in terms of 3D compositing. I also like the rotoscoping tools in Combustion a lot more than in AE (ie, the in/out feathering splines).
I still think AE has Combustion beat in terms of motion graphics as the interface is more suitable, but it does lack a decent (or any, for that matter) f-curve animation editor.
It's all preference really. If you are comfortable with AE, stick with it. In the end, they are just tools.
- raiden0
i would pick the combustion over AE anytime in terms of UI, RAM management, stability and standardization as well, since like its been mentioned aboved, combustion is like a lower end flame/flint/inferno comp software.
AE excels with vectors (thus motion graphics), something combustion has a hard time managing. AE it doesn't treat 3d so well from my experience -combustion was convceived with 3d compositing from the beginning.