After Effects & combustion2.0哪個好？

[ice blue]

After Effects & combustion2.0哪個好？

<font size=-1>[ 這篇文章被編輯過: ice blue 在 2002-01-22 16:28 ]</font>

[Gunsmith]

' Shake '. You will love it when you use it . It can be downlaoded free of charge from offical site at this link ( 30 day trail version )

http://www.nothingreal.com

[jly625]

yes. Use shake.
fast. and flexable

[mayaBug]

系香港 ,識用AfterEffect會有多D好處 , 比較易搵工 , 而combustion因為系Discreet系列的Composite 軟件 ,能與flint, flame, inferno, fire and smoke 系統的file互通 , 在香港的Post-poduction House亦多用Discreet系列的產品.combustion亦比較有著數...

[Gunsmith]

I learn from nothingreal site that almost all hollywood films were editted by Shake . It could be why Hollywood films are better . Shake is fast and Shake is your friend .

[tdk]

在 2002-03-01 09:58, Gunsmith 寫了:
I learn from nothingreal site that almost all hollywood films were editted by Shake . It could be why Hollywood films are better . Shake is fast and Shake is your friend .

but do you know there are many film,mtv,commercial done in Aftereffect also ?
Shake is a great tool, but it's not shake make hollywood film better. It's the Artist, the production system, the money, the resources and a combination of so many tools make hollywood better.

[jly625]

Agree!!

If you understand the theory of comp. either after effect, combustion, shake or digital fusion, etc.... can output a very good product.

[wildWONG]

在 2002-03-01 09:58, Gunsmith 寫了:
It could be why Hollywood films are better . Shake is fast and Shake is your friend .

Bwahahahahaha.

[fatboy]

hey wildWONG!!! i have not see _abc ?


====Shake === the price about us$8990 :>

<font size=-1>[ 這篇文章被編輯過: fatboy 在 2002-03-05 02:57 ]</font>

[digichan]

General speaking, Combustion is better, especially if you are using 3DS Max at 3D side.

After Effect is okay for many purpose but not as elegent as Combustion in the way it works.

Dont be afraid of plugins, they share same group of plugins.

_________________
Cheers
Kenny Chan
DiGiGraphs Post
email: digi@digigraphs.net

<font size=-1>[ 這篇文章被編輯過: digichan 在 2002-03-07 16:04 ]</font>

[Wolf]

I think a compositor should approach his/her job like an good animator approach computer graphics, by understanding deeply his/her material first. After that then he/she chooses the proper tools to do the work.

A good compositor's worth is measured by his/her understanding of computer image - What is it? How is it formed? How can you control it? Not by his/her mastery of plug-ins or whizz-bang effects.

I'm a Shake and occasional AE user. As a compositing tool, Shake is fantastic. Three big reasons for using it -

1. Absolute freedom in manipulating bit-depth and image canvas. This is a must-have feature, and you don't get it with AE (don't know about Combustion, maybe someone better informed can tell me?).

2. Image expression. Yummy; eliminates the need for a lot of plug-ins. Down side (maybe) is you have to be comfortable with maths, and a lot of compositors are not comfortable with maths.

3. Scripting. This allows you to control the software from any console, be it Maya's scripting panel, XSI's command window, or good'o Unix console over the internet. It also allows you to program your comp session and incorporate it automatically into your CG pipeline. VERY useful for large productions.

Those, plus the very high quality and speed of the comp functions, the well-wriiten docs, and the pretty UI, all make for a very sweet compositing software indeed.

Sorry for veering the discussion off AE/combustion, but I hope more professionals in HK can get acquainted with this wonderful comping tool.

[Siegfried]

Remember, don't be fooled by the tools. It was you who play with the tools. If you are good enough, it doesn't matter which software you use. Many Japanese great artist used AE and created excellent works.
Its about wisdom and hardwork, not about brand name and money.

<font size=-1>[ 這篇文章被編輯過: Siegfried 在 2002-04-09 00:43 ]</font>