after effects vs combustion, Which one?
 

I am thinking in buying one of these two products, if there is somebody who has try one of them or better both, please tell me waht do you think about them.

Thanks.

I've got After Effects 6.5 and Combustion 4. Both are really good products and can handle similar projects. If you know Adobe products better (their standard interface and shortcuts) I would probably recommend AE. If you are knew to motion graphics and effects and don't have any previous interfaces cluttering up your mind then you may want to give Combustion a try. Both products have trial versions that you should be able to download and try.

One difference that is worth noting (at least between the versions I have) is that Combustion generally renders things faster. Good luck on your decision. If you have specific questions about either one please post them.

Combustion
 

Mike,
Is there any Film look preset plugin for combustion out there that you can think of?

Not that I am aware of, but last I checked Combustion will run AE plugins. Well, I should say MOST AE plugins. So, it may or may not run Magic Bullet. I should try it. I'll give it a whirl and let you know how it turns out.

Being able to import Premiere projects and Photoshop comps is enough reason to go with After Effects personally.

Kevin

Well sure, the integration of Adobe products is extremely useful in streamlining your workflow. Unless you don't use other Adobe products. I've abandoned Premiere in favor of Vegas. I like After Effects and Photoshop because no other product rivals their power (at the moment). Combustion is a very nice motion graphics/compositing program that I think many people overlook. It's just as powerful as AE straight out of the box. AE has more plug-ins and also the added bonus of working so well with other Adobe products. But for those who think 'inside' the Adobe box, it's a rather slick setup.

If you're even considering using Premiere Pro for editing, After Effects should be your top choice for the integration, plain and simple. It will save you time and money and even open up creative doors as you encounter "creative accidents" that you wouldn't have otherwised thought of. It simply makes the gap from what you want to do to translating it into a visual medium much smaller as it allows you to bypass many of the intermediate steps and even offers up options not otherwise readily available. Regardless of what camp you're in, we would all like integration that makes our lives easier, Adobe has thought outside of the "Box" to make this happen.

Kevin

Well, I guess it depends on your point of view. The integration of Adobe's products is really nice. But what if you are a Mac user? Or what if your company uses Avid? While the integration of Adobe is nice, it's not the only solution. Do we all want more integration? You bet. But I don't think Adobe's driving force is offering convenience to their customers. I think it is sales. =) If you can get a customer to buy 5 of your products because they integrate well instead of just 1, which would you market?

Anyway, to keep this from becoming an Adobe slam/defend fest I'll back away from this point. One thing that is nice about Combustion is that it is node based and offers the option of a very different workflow than AE (though by default it handles similarly to AE). If you haven't worked with a node based program before it can be a bit confusing, but once you get the hang of it you can really save some time and apply different creative choices without having to redo your entire project.

Mike,

You're right, it's not the only solution, just one that works for me, in terms of Premiere/After Effects/Photoshop integration. Adobe does offer nice features not found in other suites and I'll be the first to admit some of the "integration" isn't really integration (Audition, Premiere Pro Color Correction, and some effects don't translate into After Effects). As always the right tool for the job, Audition is a joke compared to Sony Acid for loop based music creation especially when syncing video (Audition doesn't even refresh the video unless it's playing when trying to sync sound effects, huh?). And sales, absolutely, that Dynamic Linking available only in the Production Bundle is a hustle, pure and simple. Bottom line though, does Adobe's integration offer value, absolutely. Is it perfect? No. Is it the only solution? Of course not, but as you stated, it is indeed a slick one.

Alex, to help with your decision, (I have never used Combustion, so I can't comment on it) but if you're proficient with Photoshop, you will pick up After Effects rather quickly (the basics anyways) as they have similiar methodologies, interface, etc. Download the tryout (1.2 GB, ouch!) for 30 days and test it, couldn't hurt. Good luck.

Kevin

I'll chime in. I have AE, but not combustion, but I do have Digital Fusion (DFX+ version), which is a node based compositor as well. I can vouge for the learning curve when your used to layed applications such as PPro, Photoshop, etc. I tried DFX and did a few jobs with it, but wound up going back to AE because I'm more familiar with it. Had I frist layed my hands on DFX, I probably would have seen the benefit of node based editing, upgraded to Fusion and never looked back. The point is, find out what feels right for YOU, and get good at it. Fighting software all day takes the fun out of the project.

One thing for sure, AE is a common tool found in most studios, and if you get AE, go for the pro version.

Kevin,

Very good points. I guess it goes without saying that all software has its advantages and disadvantages.

Kevin and Peter, good advice on the learning curve. If you do know Photoshop and move to AE, it's easier than going to Combustion (or most other motion graphics/compositing apps). I started things with Photoshop, learned about Premiere, then AE, then Combustion, then Audition and Encore. I've finally settled on Sony Vegas and DVD Architect for my video workflow, Acid for music, and mostly AE for graphics. Combustion comes out to play every once and a while. I'm just more familiar with AE so it saves me time. I guess I just like to play devil's advocate as I get tired of large corporate entities. Probably because I work for one. =)

Strange, I found the opposite to be true. I used both and in my case, Affect Effects render 40 times faster than Combustion. There is a constant complaint from users about the rendering speed at Autodesk's own newsgroup.

40 times faster? Well, that would certainly be a large difference. I've not encountered such differences in rendering speed, but I suppose it also depends on the complexity of the comp and the hardware it's being run on. But if many others are complaining about it then I can't argue with that. I'm just speaking of my own experiences.

Rendering speed won't do any good if time gained is also lost in trying to use the application to get there. Maybe I'm biased. Mayber there's a reason why layers are better than nodes. Maybe when I'm stuck in AE I can search the net and get forty fixes in five minutes and spend more time being productive. These applications basically achieve the same results. It's just how to get those results that seems to matter, and it's more of a personal choice.

If want someone else to tell you what to get, the only real answer is still going to come from you. Pick one. Download the demo, or borrow a friends workstation and create something.