Combustion or AF?
- Started
- Last post
- 6 Responses
- pr2-1
OH shit those particles are sooo cool!
- quamb0
aparently combustion has more advanced keying, motion tracking, colour grading and all over features.
dont use it as cant afford it :(
- pr2-1
well, i know AF pretty well, so it was more the switch kind of question... i just went through a few tutorials and have to say it combustion might be less userfriendly, but hell it can do a fe things better than AF. At this moment i'm not sold yet (that is untill those particles come...)
- CyBrainX0
Combustion has some amazing particle effects and some real time previews for them, but After Effects is about the best piece of software ever for anything. Its integration with other Adobe products is sooo tight. You can import a psd or layered ai as a composition. That speaks volumes. if you use Photoshop, and who doesn't?, you have such a head start learning AE.
- vellan0
combustion is baby brother to flame/inferno, and interacts with other discret productis (3D Studio max) better. Learning Combustion may give you a bit of a jump on the high-end machines...
After Effects is surely more widely used, or so i think...everywhere i have worked has used AE exclusively.
- Louno0
I know that the combustion line of product is much more used that after effects , in publicity , cinema , stuff like that .
flame , inferno ,..i think there is one inferno station in montreal , dont remember where tho ...
there probly are more .I use after effects tho , cuz ... i dunno ...
- pr2
Anyone cares to share their thoughts, pros and cons...of each?