Compositing software...requiem

Anti-Distinctly · 01-19-2008, 02:29 PM

I'm pretty sure there was another thread called 'compositing software', so, as is the way with sequels these days, I've added 'requiem' to the end. Ahem.

Anyway, I'm in the position where soon I need to purchase a compositor. I'm used to using digital fusion at this point which I really like, but money will be an issue and the pricing of fusion is quite severe.

Adobe After Effects seems like it'll do a lot of what is required, but the price for it if you happen to live in the uk I find very insulting, but I guess that's besides the point. (but what's the deal with getting a US version shipped over by some means - will I be treated like scum by Adobe?)

I looked at Combustion, but found it rather archaic and it really felt awkward, plus it crashed on several systems I tried it on. This is layer based too if I'm not mistaken and I prefer the versatility of nodes. Also, I get the feeling its development is stagnant.

Nuke's initial price seemed alluring, but then add on the render license cost, yearly support cost (which you have to purchase in the first year, nice), render license cost and any other random fees you end up with a massive price increase.

I was planning on getting a brand new quad core PC, having decided against a mac for gaming issues (I know this shouldn't really come into it, but I must be honest, it does), but at this point Shake looks good and I've not heard a bad thing about it and the price is great.

Does anyone have any recommendations or suggestions or should I just bend over and take it from Adobe?

SplineGod · 01-19-2008, 03:05 PM

Blender has a nice built in compositor. Its node based as well. Since its free it never hurts to take a look at it.

http://www.blender.org/development/r...mposite-nodes/

JeffrySG · 01-19-2008, 03:14 PM

Someone else here mentioned http://jahshaka.org/ another opensource compositing package. I haven't used it but it might be worth a look if it's free too.

Anti-Distinctly · 01-19-2008, 03:54 PM

Thanks for the responses guys. I've got Blender & I've tried it's node compositor, however, I feel I need a more comprehensive package, I'm willing to pay for it - I didn't mean for it to sound like I wasn't earlier - but money is limited.
JeffrySG, give Jahshaka a go by all means

I've looked at it several times over the past few years, but it is just the most obscure, slowly updated, unstable & undocumented piece of software I've ever come across. It certainly wont cut it for production purposes.

danielkaiser · 01-19-2008, 04:16 PM

Combustion 2008 is now available, I've used 3 and 4 and have found it to be very easy to learn.

Anti-Distinctly · 01-19-2008, 04:50 PM

What advantages would you say that Combustion has over AE? (as the price is very similar)

Yog · 01-19-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-Distinctly

Adobe After Effects seems like it'll do a lot of what is required, but the price for it if you happen to live in the uk I find very insulting, but I guess that's besides the point. (but what's the deal with getting a US version shipped over by some means - will I be treated like scum by Adobe?)

One route I took last year was to purchase an older version of After Effects from e-bay, and just buy the upgrade from Adobe. You need to make sure you are buying a pucka version from e-bay, but if all works out you can get the latest version for a fraction of the price.

Red_Oddity · 01-19-2008, 05:20 PM

We switched to Fusion a while back, and i got to say, am i glad we did. It's a very good stable (especially since 5.1 and up) compositing program with all the bells and whistles and it keeps getting better and better with every update (5.21 just rocks.)

After Effects is just a terrible terrible compositing program, better yet, it isn't really a compositing program, it is still the glorified title editor with outdated and bloated code and ****** float support it always was (sure it is a lot better than it was, but it still doesn't cut it when you do some serious heavy comp work.)

Nuke is right up there with Fusion and it has become a lot cheaper than Fusion aswell (not to mention that since The Foundry (yes, they are the masterminds of the best plugin suite ever, Furnace) has taken over development , the whole program development has been put into high gear.

Shake is still a brilliant compositing program (yes even version 2.x for the PC is still a much better choise to do compositing in that AFX, believe it or not), but since Apple killed it off, it isn't going anywhere anymore, unless you can afford the $50.000 SDK license.

Combustion is probably going the way of the dodo aswell, since Autodesk seems adamant on pushing the still lackluster Toxic suite.

Toxic is a nice addition, but it still lacks too many features that Autodesk keeps promosing to add with updates, and knowing Autodesk you'll probably end up paying a 1000 dollars per updated or feature (see Mac and Maya pricing schemes). Good thing though is, that it doesn't rely on the overpriced server anymore.

Jashaka is as dead as a doornail.

Flame and Inferno rock, but you'll probably need to win the lotery to purchace a license (and win the lotery again for the updates)

Some 3d programs offer some form of compositing (XSI, Houdini, Blender, etc), but nothing beats a program that is optimised to just do what it was made for in the first place.

Just my 2 cents based on my 8+ years of compositing and grading.

Anti-Distinctly · 01-19-2008, 05:59 PM

Red_Oddity, I'd love to be able to afford Fusion, but alas, it's out of my price range for now. In the meantime I've been looking at Combustion again -mainly due to the fact that it's around £800 if I recall correctly - and it has an integrated particle system, which I'd love at the moment.
So, even though it's probably going to die in the long run, would you still say that Combustion is an unwise purchase? Is it severely lacking in certain features? Should I steer well clear?

danielkaiser · 01-19-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-Distinctly

What advantages would you say that Combustion has over AE? (as the price is very similar)

I like the interface, light on the freaky little icons, it recognizes multiple monitors automatically, ram preview playback is smooth I have a blackmagic Intensity and HD output is real time, I've tried AE and Fusion and have had problems with previews on both, large range of keying, color timing and DOF options and includes wondertouch's particle illusion. Combustion also has a schematic view. as far as development goes its a sibling to Flint, Flame and Inferno so there is some crossover, my only complaint AutoDesk.

cresshead · 01-19-2008, 06:29 PM

i have combustion ..still on 2.1 mind you but it has all i need for now..is combustion 2008 64bit? [i think not]
i have the demo of Combustion 2008 at work and it still only see's 1.7gig ram.

...nothing to moan about with combustion
on the whole except for the upgrade price for me to 2008 isn't worth the cost
seeing as it won't offer me more ram than 2.1

i do like how combustion works.

danielkaiser · 01-19-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cresshead

i have combustion ..still on 2.1 mind you but it has all i need for now..is combustion 2008 64bit? [i think not]
i have the demo of Combustion 2008 at work and it still only see's 1.7gig ram.

...nothing to moan about with combustion
on the whole except for the upgrade price for me to 2008 isn't worth the cost
seeing as it won't offer me more ram than 2.1

i do like how combustion works.

I have XP x64 with 4 Gigs of ram and Combustion 4 shows 3.23 Gig available, the rest being used by the system.

AbnRanger · 01-19-2008, 07:50 PM

When you compare Combustion's development to Toxic, yes...Autodesk admits that it's a slower pace, but unlike Shake, they haven't cut the cord. It is STILL the best compositor on the market under $1500 USD. The upgrade prices are cheap too. And like Shake, it too used to cost thousands of $$$. Autodesk pigeon-holed themselves into the lower price bracket when they went after the AE market.
Toxic may have been what Combustion was intended to morph into...but nevertheless they have two products that compete in each price segment.
I bought Combustion 4 when it first came out, and am not real happy about the lengthy time it took for them to introduce a new version, but since AD underwent a major development restructuring, I think that had more to do with it than a lackluster attitude.
Having said that, it is still one powerful piece of software for the money...and THAT is why the development pace for it has slowed.
It is the only one that is both NODE (termed Schematic View) and LAYER based...so you can choose to work in either mode, or both (how I use it). It has THE cleanest interface in the group. I would think someone who likes the LW interface would be most at home in Combustion. Especially if you change the color scheme in LW to match it. Having LW on one monitor and C* on the other would look very natural together.

Unless you run a major studio, with resources to buy a Flame, Combustion will serve you well and do just about anything you ask it to, and has a LOT of high-end features (2008 came with the Flame's infamous Color Warper, which makes it worth the cash just by itself). It has 2 different keyers to choose from. Plus Re:Vision plugins built in (AE RE:Flex Morph , Flex Motion Morph, and Flex Warp
http://www.revisionfx.com/products/reflex/). It also can use most any AE plugin.
The main reason I bought it was for it's integration features with 3ds Max, but you can get alot of that functionality by outputing your LW renders to RPF.
Check out the videos here:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet...112&id=5574967
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet...112&id=5665905
Plus you have the G-Buffer Builder, which will allow you to ad 3D post effects to file formats other than RPF.
It has very powerful rotoscoping and paint tools...one of the most robust particle systems (with a massive library).

IMO, on the whole, it outclasses After Effects on many fronts...especially now that it has the new Color Warper...and should be priced 2 or 3 times higher when you consider all that you get (essentially the desktop brother of the Flame). Eden FX uses it. So does Zoic...2 of the top LW houses right there. If it were some child's toy, they wouldn't bother using it, and instead convert to using Fusion exclusively...or use high-end Flames (dedicated hardware system).
You can check out Jarrod Davis' 3D FX and Set Extensions DVD's that have a LW+Combustion workflow.
http://www.desktopimages.com/VFX.shtml#Davis

cresshead · 01-19-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielkaiser

I have XP x64 with 4 Gigs of ram and Combustion 4 shows 3.23 Gig available, the rest being used by the system.

now that's interesting...
combustion2.1 can only see 1.7gig even though i have 8 gig
and combustion 2008 demo at the works pc which has 4 gig can only see 1.7 as well...

is there a 64bit version or is the demo crippled??
i'll re check on monday on the works pc...jujst to make sure i'm remembering correctly.

AbnRanger · 01-19-2008, 08:32 PM

I also forgot to mention that Combustion's tracker and stabilazation tools work great and are also inherited from the Flame. One nice thing I like about it's Node/Schematic view is that you can take you cursor and scrub over a node to see it's thumbnail play back interactively. Same thing when opening footage...before you hit "ok" you can scrub the thumbnail to watch it playback as well...cool stuff indeed.
Here is one source I used to get up to speed with Combustion (for $30/mo...suspend and or resume anytime).
http://www.vtc.com/products/Autodesk...-tutorials.htm
You have access to training for Shake 4 as well, among others...including LW 9 and advanced LW modeling.

Here are some free videos that show some of the improvements in Combustions 2008:
http://www.thestreetproductions.com/tips.html

BTW...I have XP x64...and it lets me use over 3GB's too. You can go into "Preferences" and change how much RAM it uses