Re: 2008 page back up by Alan Okey on Nov 28, 2007 at 2:43:04 am
Obviously we'll have to wait for the official announcement to find out if there are any significant changes under the hood, but if the only improvements from C*4 are those listed above, it begs the question:
Just what HAS Autodesk Media & Entertainment been doing with Combustion for the last three years?
I'm hoping for a lot more than what's been revealed thus far. If the Colour Warper, improvements to the Schematic view and enhanced Photoshop/Illustrator interoperability is all they've accomplished in three years, then the company is truly managed by absolute idiots. Nothing against the fine work of the software engineers, mind you - my ire will be reserved for the suits, pencil pushers and marketing buffoons at Autodesk.
Re: 2008 page back up by Keith Hill on Nov 28, 2007 at 5:35:59 am
I'm glad just to see some movement at this point. I'm not expecting to see much more than the press release has stated.
I believe the new Product Manager for Combustion/Toxik is sincere in his efforts to get Combustion back in the good graces of it's user base. But, that said, they will have to endure major criticism for their handling of this product from national/international media who are also aware of the long period since it's last release. If this is all that there is. So be it. At least LET IT BE STABLE! And, get to work on bringing it to life again.
I'm jealous of all of the After Effect tutorials that are out there showing how to get the absolute most out of the application. That's what I want to see. I value Ken LaRue training DVDs, but, he can't be the only one in the world that knows the nuts and bolts of Combustion. I want to see Combustion in some advanced scenarios. You understand what I'm saying?
Keith Hill
Lighted Path Films | Productions
http://www.LightedPath.biz
Dallas, TX
G5 2Ghz, OS X Tiger (v10.4.10), Final Cut Studio2, Autodesk Combustion v4.0.5| Cinema4D, Mocha DVX100A 24p Camcorder
Re: 2008 page back up by bones on Nov 28, 2007 at 7:10:29 am
I think you guys are forgetting the long time it took to get the last Mac version out, as the development team tried to imp[rove its performance as much as possible. That was almost a year after the PC version and since then there has been a lot of work getting the Mac version compatible with Intel Macs. That takes a lot of resources away from doing new stuff but it has to be done. I don't know if it is mentioned in the press release, but this will be a simultaneous PC/Mac release, so it won't seem like so long between drinks for everyone.
The most important new feature to me, which I assume I am now allowed to talk about, is that the default footage interpretation has been made a preference. i.e. If, like me, you do not work in NTSC, you will be able to tell Combustion how to interpret footage if it cannot work it our for itself. e.g. if you work at 1024x576 for PAL widescreen or if you scan in a whole bunch of photos or something, you will no longer have to go through them one by one and change their settings from NTSC to whatever you need. That alone will save me hours a week on most jobs.
Re: 2008 page back up by Carlo Cersosimo on Nov 28, 2007 at 5:43:37 am
I'm just glad the waiting is over... Frankly it was driving me nuts. Far to frequently I'd come round to the cow in search of some snippet of information. Yep... 3 years is a long time, I think I'll need a couple of days for this greatly anticipated release to sink in.
In the mean time could someone please shine some light on the Schematic improvements and enhanced Photoshop/Illustrator interoperability. Thanks.
Re: 2008 page back up by theo on Nov 28, 2007 at 2:23:40 pm
When you think about it for a couple of hundred bucks you get a colour warper, the only otherway of getting it is to spend 40K bucks minimum, so i think Autodesk just turns its nose up at any complaints,.. the CW is a huge though you can remove colour casts, and a hole lot more, .. also i think maybe more than half of combustion customers, or the target market is flame/smoke owners, who have it sitting nearby to assist them, with access to there stone storage. I dont think it will consider competing with other stand alone compositors such as AFX, Motion, Shake, Nuke etc, they will never have the compatability with star systems such a flame/smoke, and thats where Toxic comes into it,. . I think C is just a Flame/Smoke side kick, which is still great, and still very usefull as a stand alone, even though it has no 3d particle system, etc.... maybe in 3 years time it will have true 3d space with bicubics, .... and called Toxic??
Re: 2008 page back up by Kenneth La Rue on Nov 28, 2007 at 6:06:54 pm
Hi Everyone,
I just want to say remember that 1 year ago there was a major change in management in Montreal and the new management is the main reason there is a new release.
I'll be busy this weekend finishing some tutorials showing you all the new workflow improvements including the schematic view, file import, locking viewports for playback, plus an in-depth look at the Colour Warper. These will be free tutorials for download at TSP website (www.thestreetproductions.com) and they will allow you to see what is new. Then you can decide if the upgrade is worth the cost.
Ken LaRue
Autodesk Application Engineer
Combustion / Toxik / Flame
Combustion Training DVDs
http://www.thestreetproductions.com
Re: 2008 page back up by Dean DeCarlo on Nov 28, 2007 at 6:54:53 pm
seems like for $199 it can't be too overpriced. I'm glad that Autodesk is showing a commitment to keeping the product alive. It would be very easy for them to bail on it and not effect their bottom line. I do hope there has been some real work under the hood done and not just the listed features stapled on but as usual I keep my expectations low so I can be pleasantly surprised. Such is life....
Re: 2008 page back up by jamination on Nov 29, 2007 at 12:26:10 am
I think the $199 price tag is the reason why the updates are so far apart and why the feature list is sparce. a product like this needs a much higher upgrad price to make it worth it to autodesk. combustion feels like it is on its last legs. I can appreciate the excitement here, and don't get me wrong, I most likely will upgrade, but I don't think this update will gain any new users and perhaps likely lose many of the old. I will also keep an eye on other solutions.
Re: 2008 page back up by Keith Hill on Nov 29, 2007 at 4:42:14 am
Ken,
What's up? Good to hear from you on this and I look forward to seeing the tutorials. If I could add, I never saw anything taught on the Merge Operator in the last release and it's more advanced uses.
Keith Hill
Lighted Path Films | Productions
http://www.LightedPath.biz
Dallas, TX
G5 2Ghz, OS X Tiger (v10.4.10), Final Cut Studio2, Autodesk Combustion v4.0.5| Cinema4D, Mocha DVX100A 24p Camcorder
Re: 2008 page back up by DavePotts on Nov 28, 2007 at 6:58:08 pm
Glad to see the info, thanks for the link. I'm relieved that AD hasn't given up on Combustion, although it looks like I will continue to be disappointed that there's no depth of field for the camera outside of a kludgy G Buffer workaround, and I still won't be able to properly animate a stroke or animate text characters individually in 3d space. Aw, what the hell do I know anyway, I use Combustion for motion graphics.
Dave Potts
Broadcast Communications
University of North Carolina @ Charlotte
Re: 2008 page back up by Eric Craft on Nov 29, 2007 at 3:06:26 am
If you want motion graphic enhancements then the next time they send out a customer survey make sure you and everyone you know puts that they use it for motion graphics. I am right there with you on wanting motion graphic enhancements. Hell, some enhancements to expressions and I could create everything else I need.
Re: 2008 page back up by DNash on Nov 29, 2007 at 9:46:44 am
I'm mostly disappointed that there is NO 64Bit version. I mean, the one thing Combustion could use the most...is access to more RAM.
They focused on performance the last 2 versions of Max, so why not throw his little brother a bone too?
Another thing I don't understand is why AD suits think Combustion couldn't steal major market share from AE if they priced it right (between $1500-$2000), and gave some serious effort development-wise. Even though C has been hamstrung by it's own company, it's STILL superior to AE in a number of ways. The integration between it and Max is the No.1 reason I chose it. There's still a lot to love about Combustion, and I hate to see it starved to death. Why not, instead, exploit it's strengths and focus on eliminating it's shortcomings. Surely they can make it nearly as integrated with Maya as with Max, and there lies a sizable userbase to tap into.
It's obvious they don't want a sub $2000 product stealing market share from Toxic and Flame, moreso than them conceding defeat to After Effects. So, I don't see much of a future for it when it has the competition attacking it from without, and it's owners plotting against it from within. Kind of reminds me of the movie "Platoon" where SGT Barnes frags his own fellow NCO, with VC already bearing down on him.
So, that approach has me considering ANYTHYING but Toxic. That's a similar philosophy that GM took for years with their vehicles. They used cheap parts, knowing they would wear out soon after the warranty was out...somehow thinking customers would just trade it in for a new one.
Well they traded for a new one, alright...just not a new GM, but for vehicles that would last. One of the major reasons GM is sucking wind right now, while Toyota is seeing record profits.
Keep it up Autodesk....alienate your users..hang them out to dry, trying to force them to buy one of your more expensive products...and see where they go.
Re: 2008 page back up by jimmybee500 on Nov 29, 2007 at 2:10:55 pm
EEekkk...I thought this might happen. Get AE if you are on a budget, or Fusion if you've got a bit more dough to spend.
Then Autodesk can concentrate on the big money boys to sell what they are really interested in... I gave up- on Combustion a long time ago and never looked back.
*Production Studio Premium CS2 / *Combustion 3 / Mocha v1
-------------------------------------
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Roland DS-5 monitors / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / Wacom Intuos 3 A4 / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0
You mention that Fusion is your main compositing application. Which parts or scenes did you use Fusion in and how was it used ?
ED: Fusion was our main compositing package on Spider-Man 3. We used Fusion to pull blue screens with the Primatte plugin, tracked plates, import 3D cameras, added backgrounds, and paint fixed plates and elements. We used it to integrate our CG and live action plates together. Fusion has an extensive set of color correction and layering tools that allow us to integrate all of the CG elements seamlessly.
You also have access to Combustion, AE, and Shake. Did you use all or only some in this film?
ED: CafeFX has several tools at hand for the artists. In production you will find certain packages will give you an effect or look others can't or would take too long. In general, we used Combustion for paint, AE was used for its vast plugins and grain match. Shake we used for its tracking and smooth move plate stabilization. Fusion was our main compositing package where we put the shots all together.
How do all of those packages fit into your pipeline? For instance, is Combustion used more as a paint package and Shake or Fusion used as the main compositor?
ED: Yeah you got it, Combustion is our main paint package, but some artists paint in Fusion. Shake and AE we mostly just used for their plug-ins, and Fusion is our main compositing package.
======================
Sounds like I need to diversify, but as a one-man-shop, I can't afford Fusion and/or AE..
The plugins available to AE (like the Trapcode stuff, that Particular and Form look awesome) are vast, and almost make up for what AE totally lacks..
But from what I read above, it sounds like you should always use the right tool for the job, even if it's from *gasp* another software vendor..
A friend said on this forum awhile back to be familiar with other packages, I guess it's time to download that learning edition of Fusion..
Re: 2008 page back up by bones on Nov 29, 2007 at 6:44:06 pm
[DNash]"I'm mostly disappointed that there is NO 64Bit version. I mean, the one thing Combustion could use the most...is access to more RAM."
You don't need a 64 bit application to access more RAM, you just need a 64 bit OS to allocate more RAM. That's what Flame did for years - a 32 bit application running on a 64 bit OS that could allocate it tons of RAM. I haven't tried Combustion on a 64 bit system - I already spend far too long waiting for things to cache - but AFAIK it should be able to use as much RAM as you can fit onto your motherboard.
[DNash]"Keep it up Autodesk....alienate your users..hang them out to dry, trying to force them to buy one of your more expensive products...and see where they go."
So would you prefer they did what Apple did with Shake - discontinue support and development but continue to sell it anyway? Or what Eyeon did - build a whole new product that is not backwards-compatible with previous versions and takes 2 years after release to become stable? Or maybe building your new product and making it available alongside your existing one, while continuing to develop both, so that your users can make their own decision about switching at a time which suits them is actually a far better way to treat your customers? If they had just called Toxik Combustion 5 instead, and forced us all to move over straight away, before it had all the tools we need, would that have made you happier?
[DNash]"It's obvious they don't want a sub $2000 product stealing market share from Toxic and Flame, moreso than them conceding defeat to After Effects."
It is purely and simply a result of the user survey, which made it clear that AfterFX has already won that battle - very few people rely on Combustion every day for motion graphics work. Sadly, I am one who does [or will when I get back to production] and yet I don't feel like I cannot compete with what Combustion offers me right now. At most of the places I work, I have access to both on the workstations I use but I can't envisage a situation where I might feel compelled to fire up AfterFX. Despite the significant improvements in recent versions, it remains ham-strung by the worst workflow/UI in history.
Anyway, the schematic enhancements are along the lines of slick usability things that feature in Flame and Toxik. You can hold down shift and kiss-connect nodes, holding down ALT allows you to pull a node out of a tree without breaking connections and you can CTRL+drag through a wire to cut it. Its still ugly [but no uglier than Shake, Nuke or Fusion] and it is still just a different way of representing the workspace tree in a manner that takes up too much space for absolutely zero benefit.
Re: 2008 page back up by Eric Craft on Nov 29, 2007 at 7:00:13 pm
[bones]"You don't need a 64 bit application to access more RAM, you just need a 64 bit OS to allocate more RAM. That's what Flame did for years - a 32 bit application running on a 64 bit OS that could allocate it tons of RAM. I haven't tried Combustion on a 64 bit system - I already spend far too long waiting for things to cache - but AFAIK it should be able to use as much RAM as you can fit onto your motherboard." Yes and No. A 32bit Application in a 32bit OS by default can use up to 2gb of ram, 3gb with the /3gb switch. A 32bit Application in a 64bit OS, if programmed properly, can use up to 4 gb of ram per application.
I think the big problem with 64bit is 3rd party support. Once you go 64bit there is no Quicktime, limited AVI codec support, no AE plugin support (application and plugins must both be 64bit), etc. So I don't expect a 64bit Combustion until after Apple and Adobe get off their 32bit arses and go 64bit.
Re: 2008 page back up by DavePotts on Nov 29, 2007 at 11:55:30 pm
Got the survey, sent it in... those of us who use C for motion graphics are just in the minority. I guess I'd be okay with that if I felt that AD were even trying to throw us a bone.
Dave Potts
Broadcast Communications
University of North Carolina @ Charlotte
