on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake
by Ron
on
Dec 16, 2005 at 7:23:07 am
Anybody tried both????
I have a great deal to get shake 4.0 . I undstand it is a lot harder to learn but I am on combustion 3 on a mac and thinking of adding shake because combustion 4 on mac is long time waiting. please let me know .
I love combustiom but I am behind because there is no c4 on the MAC
Re: on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake by gary m davis on Dec 16, 2005 at 7:49:50 am
perhaps you should check the feature set of each and pit it against what you need to get out of your compositor. then weigh this against the time it takes to learn a new application. also, if you already have one and add the other, who's to say you cant use both?
Re: on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake by Morten Ranmar on Dec 16, 2005 at 2:18:28 pm
I checked it out - C4 was promised for december - but something (Tiger?) caused it to be delayed.
Apparently some dealer demoed a beta in NY yesterday...
Re: on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake by Todd Beabout on Dec 16, 2005 at 2:49:27 pm
I've looked at Shake, too. It is a very powerful program that's for sure. A lot of people also seem to dig the interface and node-based compositing, and I have a basic understanding of it. I find it a bit weird because of my Combustion experience I suppose, but I think that the development of that product has a brighter future than combustion at this point on the Mac platform. Obviously.
But Gary is right! If you can have both, go for it. That is my plan as well!
Re: on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake by Saeed Faridzadeh on Dec 16, 2005 at 5:38:52 pm
Combustion vs. Shake....
Honestly I don't really see much of a contest between the two. Both have their pros and cons, and it all comes down to what you want to do.
Shake might seem "harder" to learn, but once you get the basics down and understand nodes, you'll get hooked. I started using shake and began to dream of combustion having a stronger node based interface (and I don't mean the schematic view). However, that being said, there are some things that they layer based system of combustion simply make WAY more sense than nodes. Shake has the better way to key, althought the new diamond keyer kicks some serious ass.
Recently I was working at a motion graphics house and I had the option for Combustion 3 or Shake. When it came down to keying, I went with Shake. When it was time to roto, or paint, I went with Combustion.
Combustion:
WAY better for painting, and rotoing. Motion Graphics, Pre-viz, and some comping.
Shake:
Shake is built for comping, so any highend 3D (as in Rendered passes) comps for feature are probably better suited here.
That's not to say that you CAN'T do high end 3d comping in Combustion. At our recent Combustion User Group meeting over in Digital Domain, we had someone from Zoic Studios show us his script from Battlestar Galactica, and I was blown away at how he was able to get a complex 3d comp accomplished (quiet creatively I must say) in combustion.
It all boils down to what you want to do. Each tool is better suited for certain jobs. If possible, get both. Finances might not permit that, but in my experience it's better to have options, and will yield better results when you have the right tool for the right job.
Re: on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake by Phil Radelat on Dec 16, 2005 at 9:19:02 pm
If you bought c3 during the c4 PC era then autodesk owes you a free c4 upgrade. If so, it's a no-brianer. Get Shake. All things considered, even if you'd have to pay for your update to c4, how much is an update going to cost compared to shelling out for Shake? I would include the c4 upgrade price in Shake's purchase price.
Re: on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake by Felgue on Dec 20, 2005 at 1:02:26 am
I actually use Combustion 3, Shake 3 and After effects 6.5, and I really recomend to use the three because all of them has their pros and their cons. It all depends on the goal of your projects. I
Re: on a Mac combustion 3 VS. shake by Alan Okey on Dec 20, 2005 at 1:51:08 pm
[Felgue]"The price of Shake is far more expensive than Adobe After effects or Combustion, so it is a more advanced and complex application."
I don't think you can make a general correlation between price and complexity, or gauge how "advanced" an application is based on its price. Let's not forget that only a few years ago, Combustion sold for almost $5000. I think Combustion could definitely benefit from optical flow based technology, however, which is an "advanced" feature found in Shake. If Combustion bundled Twixtor or inherited FFI's motion estimation, it would be a great addition to an already strong application.
It's interesting that you prefer Shake's tracker over combustion's, you're actually the first person I've heard say that. In the end, whatever tool works the best for you in any given situation is the right tool. You're fortunate to be able to use AE, Combustion and Shake in your workflow. Many people do not have that luxury, or may find it unnecessarily expensive to have a second or third application to handle one or two features lacking in their primary application of choice.
