After Effects or Combustion?... and a NLE question

[Morne]

Hi All!

I've been thinking about one of these but not sure which one to get. A few years ago, I looked at Combsution 4 when it was just released, however I never got to actually use or even play with it. Now I'm in the process of expanding my services and would like to hear from you guys what you use and why. From what I've read so far, After Effects seems to be the favourite and has been for about 2 years or so since Combustion wasn't updated in about 3 or 4 years. But now that there is Combustion 2008, what to do? I've never seen After Effects so basically I'm favouring Combustion since I've seen the old version, and it is made by Autodesk which makes me think it should work better with Max than anything from a different company.

Please can I have your views on this.

Also, my non-linear editor is kinda old (Pinnacle Liquid Edition Pro 5.6) but I'm not sure if I should upgrade it to the latest version (Avid Liquid Pro 7.2) or rather opt for something different. I kinda like it since it has integratged DVD authoring and burning so I dont need yet another program to do this. If you've never heard of this program, it is kinda like Adobe Premiere, just better in my view. So stick with the upgrade or do you guys have another suggestion for a NLE?

Also can I have your views in this.

Kind Regards,
Morne

[Shimakaze]

Well After Effects is cheaper, has a lot larger install base, is generally more up-to-date and has more plugins available. Combustion 2008 had almost no new features so it's arguable whether it can even be seen as a full upgrade.
Which one is better is difficult to say though. They both have their strengths. Combustion's got better Max integration (though not enough to be "integrated") and a quite fun 2d particle system that's very easy to use compared to the AE alternatives.
AE's got way better integration with other Adobe programs if you use those.
Either way they both do basically the same thing and you can get the same results with both.

[stilgarna]

Well After Effects is cheaper, has a lot larger install base, is generally more up-to-date and has more plugins available. Combustion 2008 had almost no new features so it's arguable whether it can even be seen as a full upgrade.
Which one is better is difficult to say though. They both have their strengths. Combustion's got better Max integration (though not enough to be "integrated") and a quite fun 2d particle system that's very easy to use compared to the AE alternatives.
AE's got way better integration with other Adobe programs if you use those.
Either way they both do basically the same thing and you can get the same results with both.

I agree !

Try them, and make your own opinion... and I'm a AE addict but no one can say who is better... because the way to use one or an other is completely different...

It is like saying that Atari 520ST is better than the Amiga 500...

Best regards...

[Da_elf]

im an AE fan as welll

[Neilg]

It's mostly a workflow issue if youre trying to pick between them.


Personally i'd rather cut my own balls off than use something which isnt node-based for video compositing, I find it such a chore. Vote for combustion over here.

[jonnybefree]

i'am ae addicted too. as allready mentioned both having his dark and sunny sides. the graph editor in AE for example is crap imo. compared to the combustion one.

[panthon]

Try to netrender in AE and u will feel the pain.
Combustion works seamlessly with backburner, so max renders and combustion renders can be watched from a single interface.

[trixian]

Actually, as far as I can see, Afx is $999 and combustion $995.

Other than that, go for combustion if you need to animate a lot in post (i.e masks paint etc). Manual animation in Afx is a real pain.

Plugin support for combustion is not as strong, even though it is Afx compliant, some plugins just don't work as well. Too bad Adobe is the standard for plugins.
Combustion is also slightly more compliant to naming and compositing conventions found in other packages. Afx just does it the adobe way.

Or just go one step further and get Fusion, or even Nuke if your wallet allows it.

[dlparisi]

Actually, as far as I can see, Afx is $999 and combustion $995.

True, but you can get the production bundle (includes Photoshop, After FX, Illustrator, and Premiere) for ~$1500 which in my mind is an incredible bargain. A node based compositor is much better in my opinion (Combustion, fusion, nuke) but I just couldn't justify the costs for the limited number of animations that I do. Just my 2 cents.

[mike_kennedy]

After Effects vs Combustion is a hard one to call, the work flows differ greatly. I think if you are doing not really complex post and want a fast UI to work in AE is the way to go, it's definitely faster to move around in. Reordering layers and so on is right up front. How ever if you don't have a lot of shots to go through and need to do more complex post then go for combustion. It is definitely geared towards FX's. AE is geared toward motion graphics and fast turn around.

[Morne]

Thank you for all the info so far.
I think I'm strongly leaning towards combustion 2008