combustion vs shake

[zeke_tts]

I am going to buy one of them....
need some advice on combustion vs shake...thks!

[edism]

well Shake is way better for desktop compositing and there are more companies that uses Shake.

but Combustion is cheaper.
shake is a node base program, combustion also has a node base but not a good as shake, plus you have more control in shake than combustion.

there are more differences between the both, I'm pretty sure there are more people in here that will give more details on each program.

they both have their up's and downs.
it all depends how much you want to spend.

goodluck

[Hugh]

I would suggest that you don't think of Combustion as node-based at all - it is layer based, but can be viewed in a node-like layout... as for actually working, the node view is really not workable... (trust me on this one - part of my job a few years ago was doing some graphics in combustion - I was used to DF at the time, and really wanted to use the nodes.... I did, but it wasn't a fun experience....

They are very different tools... Shake is pretty much pure compositing, while Combustion is a nice mix between compositing and motion graphics...

What is it you want to do with whatever you get?

[Splin]

Hey there!
I guess my question sorta fits here too, hopefully thread starter wont mind it.

I were long wondering about right post app too and still I am not having fixed conclusion.
Shortly: I hate AFX(layer based and crappy GUI) and I were wondering DF vs Shake until someone told me that Combustion would probably fit my needs a little bit better. So I dropped the Shake idea(would not make sense to have second pc just for running linux). tested out DF and I liked its SPEED! Also I made test with Combustion, I love its GUI layout..tho takes some time to get idea how it works. Biggest minus I found so far was that it is very slow! Is this general experience or it just doesnt like my pc.

Further info who has time to read:
---------------------------------
I admit this topic is very vaque and almost pointless to discuss but
still. Maybe there is someone with experience who can reccomend me the
right tool for my environment.

Basicaly I am wanting to learn good compositing app. My plan is not
going to go very deep.
I guess some background would fit here well.
My main interest is working with XSi and Mental Ray especcialy. This
means, my particular interest of area is rendering. After some time I
slowly understood that rendering is something what is only half way to
kick ass work. Post for final touches is as same valuable knowledge as
rendering itself. Cause they are rather tied with each other. You can
not composite successfully if you dont render out right material etc.

So, basically I am a guy who is looking for a flexible and friendly tool
to give that final punch for my works(animations). Be it archi viz, char ani
renderings or larger scale stuff.

Right now my particular area of interest is to survive as freelancer but
it would not hurt to run along with industry standards if possible etc.
I am pretty tehnical person, but comping is something where I prefer it
to give me as free room as possible. Fighting with rendering technical
nyances takes already enuf energy and time :p

[renderizer]

Hugh - what do you mean exactly when you say that a software is node-based or not node-based?

AE is definitely layer-based, ok. But what about Combustion? It may not be as versatile as Shake, but what really sets Shake apart from C* (node-wise, so to say)?

Looking at the image below, wouldn't you call this a node-tree? Am I getting something wrong here?

[Gautch]

Dosent AE allows you to see a noded tree lay out also...

[quantum mechanic]

I work with shake now but learned on combustion. I would agree that shake is superior but I’m confused about why combustion wouldn’t be node based. And I can’t understand how any compositing platform wouldn’t be layer based there is always going to be something over some thing, shake just lets you reduce the number of layers necessary.

Combustion seems to be both layer and node based. Combustion showed me how to composite and shake showed me how to make my composites more efficient. All AE showed me was how poorly a UI could be designed. I don’t care what AE lets me see, it’s what it will let me do that matters.

IMO shake is superior to combustion with a few exceptions (tracking, roto, copying and pasting key frames and paint (barely)) and both have AE beat hands down.

I also don’t understand how motion graphics isn’t compositing. :confused:

I don’t mean to be a PITA, I’m still quite new to compositing, I’m just confused by some of the talk in this thread.

[Crovex]

I would go for shake.
I used to work with combustion version 1 -> 3 and it's a good programme but where combustion is more suited for broadcast work (because of it's better way of creating motion graphics), shake is more suited for film work.

Motion graphics is a part of compositing, it's the vector graphics, or the automatic textroll option in combustion... or the prepared expressions in combustion. Shake doesn't have things like a textroll... and you have to write your own expressions (which is positive since this gives you a lot more control). For more information about motion graphics, check apples 'Motion' software, that programme is made mostly for that purpose.

One of the issues for me was that Shake is also very stable... combustion used to be notorious for craching, it's more stable since version 3 though.
Sometimes I found the workflow in Combustion a bit counterintuitive. But maybe that's just me. I'm used to nodes (Maya and Houdini) and shake just provides a very fast way to create complex non-custom composits. And if you want to use certain color correction, custom keyers or other node-structures again it's just a matter of changing source material really quickly.

If I had to do a lot of logo work, or television backgrounds I would buy combustion. Combustion also has a 3d workspace compared to the 2d workspace of shake. Combustion works very well with 3ds max (rpf can save a lot of time on motionblur, channel id information) ... but shake works well with maya.

[ryantsmith]

if you are going to use 3d elements from 3d studio max would go with combustion. the rpf functionality is amazing and 've yet to see anything compare with it. the paint tools are awsome especially when compared to shakes. hoguh combustion does have a nice node display it is not nodal. it is layer based.that means that the order of the layers can not be determined in the node tree. used combustion for years and would never look at the schematic view. it is great for content creation.
that being said. shake is a better compositing tool. the points are valid ofr that too. you have to understand alot more of what is going on in a composite to make shake work well. and then you have almost ultimate control. it is reasonably stable, and much more so tha combustion. not so good for content creation, but great for image manipulation.
i guess i haven't really stated a definate opinion either way, but maybe these points will help you.

[jwmoebius]

If you are on a Mac, I wouldn't think of buying Combustion right now. I don't really know the app to well, but I know Shake and out of curiousity I installed a Combustion 3 demo and tried to rebuilt a couple of things I knew from Shake. Combustion crashed frequently and seemed to produce some pretty unpredictable results (like never updating the animation after variables in expressions were changed or messing up the complete behavior after a new layer was added etc). Maybe it's just me or my system but I found Combustion close to unusable on a Mac. I hope for a good and reliable C4/Mac.

[quantum mechanic]

I’ve found both combustion and shake to be unstable at times, but after using them for awhile I start to understand what the triggers are and avoid them (though it’s really hard to train yourself not to Crtl-Z with shake).

Heck I even found flame to be flakey at times so maybe it’s that steel plate in my head. :smirk:

[renderizer]

Heck I even found flame to be flakey at times so maybe it’s that steel plate in my head. :smirk:

Well...I can only hope that it's a clean plate! :twisted:

[Gautch]

Well...I can only hope that it's a clean plate! :twisted:

ahh hah haa.. A "Clean Plate".. get it .. ahh ha haa.. ohh.. ok..wheew.. im over it. :D

[renderizer]

Wow...more than one week to get a reaction to my (stupid) posting... :D

[Gautch]

yeh sorry about that i was trying to catch up on the thread.

[quantum mechanic]

I liked it too :D

[b30wu1f]

it depends the job u will do: and how much u want to spend.....

Combustion:: it have particles, Discreet Colour Corrector, Diamond Keyer and an Schematic View,Capsules, javascript Based animation(behaviors)Layer Based.,B-spline vector shapes and new point-grouping..etc....

Shake : Primatte and Keylight Keyers, node based, fluid workflow, faster render, native compositor, v4 will bring 3d Cameras, Smoothcam, Optical flow-based retiming, Tracking on rotoshape points,etc...

Shake is a native compositor, Combustion is an compositor and an fx package.
For me i use Shake and Combustion, but if i have to choose i would go for shake , because its faster...and more stable..

hope it helps...

[lens_3000]

it depends the job u will do: and how much u want to spend.....
v4 will bring 3d Cameras, Smoothcam, Optical flow-based retiming, Tracking on rotoshape points,etc...

3D!!! retiming is amazing!!!
i see it more along the lines of Combustion being more capable in motion graphics and Shake more capable in composting. i dont think you should stick to just one app anyways. they all have their strenghts and you can learn approaches/tricks from each.

how about Digital Fusion 5 vs Shake 4?

any of you use both? i know theyre similar. ive only played around in both but mostly DF. :coffee:

[SalaTar]

Fu5 is supposed to have a real :happydevi 3d interface unlike the 2.5d in shake 4 poke:
I am also biased to DF

[lens_3000]

Fu5 is supposed to have a real :happydevi 3d interface unlike the 2.5d in shake 4 poke:
I am also biased to DF
NICE!! DF has 3D particles too. Shake is quite sweet :lollypop: .
whats the deal with the 3D object import on DF? can you actually import, say a Maya/3Dmax, scene or just simple objects? i dont get why you would import something so basic, except for the purpose of getting an idea of how you will set things up in space. :spacedout

[SalaTar]

"DF has 3D particles too"
in 4.x they are 2.5d

We are all waiting to see what Fu5 will import as native

[Freak]

Shake has a somehow old architecture that I was hoping to see changed by Apple by now. The implementations done in this new version are nice but not as pro as I was hoping for. It is one of the best avaliable options on the market today, but it still misses a real 3D enviroment, and loads of stuff that I think are more usefull or more important when comping then the ones implemented.

As for Combustion it's a great flexible app for things that you need to solve in a "quick" way, to roto and to paint. Version 4 implementations are kinda nice but I was kinda disapointed by how the were implemented. Don't get me wrong here I use C* on a daily basis (some time ago the same thing was true for Shake) but it's capsules feature is far from being as flexible as macros since you can only link (control) parameters trough expressions and you only have access to sliders. Diamond keyer is great, but most of the implementations are just partial in my opinion. The particle engine was not updated and most of the tools or GUI can't barely take advantage of the graphics OpenGL. And lets not forget the real nasty constrain of having XYZ axes linked on your transforms.

If I was the one to choose I would go with either DF or Nuke in this case. But if you are one of those that think GUI, workflow and a timeline really matters stick with DF5, even tho a extra copy of Combustion by your side may save your ass big time sometimes.


Cheers.