Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors?
by Don Nash
on
Jan 29, 2009 at 1:11:05 pm
None of Autodesk's competition in the desktop compositing segment have the dilemna it does....that is concerns of it's lower end competing with it's higher end.
That's why Combustion isn't going anywhere, development-wise...nor is Toxic. There have been no ground-breaking changes in Toxic since it's first release, and neither receive much marketing attention.
Why not sell them off, the same way Avid sold XSI? I'd like to see what a company like Newtek could do with Combustion. Pair it up with Video Toaster, even.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Greg Gilpatrick on Jan 29, 2009 at 6:01:43 pm
Why doesn't GM only sell Cadillacs or Apple only sell iPhones? If Autodesk were to only sell $300K turnkey system in a world where most of the action is software-only, they could get left in the dust...
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Eric Craft on Jan 29, 2009 at 9:57:17 pm
1) You don't know why the products aren't being developed in a manner you feel fit. So saying its because of the Systems, when you have zero proof is just wrong.
2) Selling products usually happens to large companies, so your options there are very few and don't include the likes of Newtek. There is a better chance that Autodesk would buy Newtek, then Newtek having the capitol to make a purchase from Autodesk.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Don Nash on Jan 30, 2009 at 12:57:48 pm
Eric, lets get something straight...you always speak in dogmatic terms as if you were privy to information only available to AD employees.
Since you are not, your viewpoints carry no more weight than my own.
Especially regarding this "64bit Combustion shtick" you're on.
You talk about busted plugins and QT not being 64 bit as barriers. Maybe the Dev's for Toxic, Nuke and Fusion didn't get your memo.
Bad move on their part, right? Do you think we're retarded? Do you think you're the only on the forums that happens to be a bit tech savvy?
Your 64bit argument erroneously presumes that Autodesk would ONLY develop a 64bit version! Who does that? Please...do tell. Who do you know that has come out with ONLY a 64bit version? Since there are none, why do you persist with this "they can't do it cause it will break some eggs" argument? Of course that version will have some plugins that won't work until the 3rd party dev's get on board. Now here's the complicated part...
OTHER PROGRAMS OFFER A 32Bit VERSION TOO, FOR JUST THAT REASON.
Can you say "BOTH?" I thought you could :)
Now, regarding the higher end vs the lower end...go to AD's mainpage. See how easy it is to find information for the big guns vs. the pea-shooters (Combustion and Toxic). Then go to Adobe's website (whom also has numerous software titles)and see how fast you can find info on AE. Need I say more?
The issue about selling off software...well, they supposedly aren't getting enough $$$ from Combustion (no development...no $$$...gee, I wonder why?), and they aren't gaining any sort of a foothold with Toxic. In an economically turbulent time, that's generally what companies do, right Mr. Gates? If it's not viable enough for them to develop, do you think they feel threatened by it in someone else's hands?
All this flap about Toxic being Combustion's replacement is junk, IMHO. Toxic was from the start aimed DIRECTLY at film compositing. Combustion has always been an all-around backroom workhorse...a "Jack of all trades, and master of none." If AD earnestly expects Combustion users, whom they alientated for the past 5yrs with virtually no development and no word on any...to gleefully jump into Toxic's lap, think again! When Toxic does all that Combustion does, then you have a point. Perhaps if AD would communicate with their customers a bit, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Eric, I appreciate the times that you try to help...but 95% of the time, on various forums you seem to always place yourself in a position of condescending other members...talking down to folks. Not just me. I really wish you would knock it off.
Differing opinions is one thing, but you insist on appointing yourself as the subject matter expert and Fact Police everywhere you go. If you must continue with that attitude, I'd hope you'd save yourself some time and frustration by not responding or simply put me on your ignore list.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Eric Craft on Jan 30, 2009 at 2:00:56 pm
[Don Nash]"Especially regarding this "64bit Combustion shtick" you're on.
You talk about busted plugins and QT not being 64 bit as barriers. Maybe the Dev's for Toxic, Nuke and Fusion didn't get your memo.
Bad move on their part, right? Do you think we're retarded? Do you think you're the only on the forums that happens to be a bit tech savvy?"1) None of the upper end compositors are tied to a 32 bit SDK for plugins. They all use the same OFX format for plugins, not the AE SDK. So it would mean a complete rewrite of Combustion, and I simply don't see that happening with Toxik already being available in the Nuke and Fusion market segment.
[Don Nash]"Your 64bit argument erroneously presumes that Autodesk would ONLY develop a 64bit version! Who does that? Please...do tell. Who do you know that has come out with ONLY a 64bit version? Since there are none, why do you persist with this "they can't do it cause it will break some eggs" argument? Of course that version will have some plugins that won't work until the 3rd party dev's get on board. Now here's the complicated part...
OTHER PROGRAMS OFFER A 32Bit VERSION TOO, FOR JUST THAT REASON." If they were to do that with the current version then there would be incompatiblities between the 2 versions. They aren't going to develop one version on the AE SDK and the other on OFX just to make it 64bit and 32bit. Again meaning a complete rewrite, which I seriously doubt is going to happen since the largest amount of the development time is going into Toxik.[Don Nash]"Now, regarding the higher end vs the lower end...go to AD's mainpage. See how easy it is to find information for the big guns vs. the pea-shooters (Combustion and Toxic). Then go to Adobe's website (whom also has numerous software titles)and see how fast you can find info on AE. Need I say more?
The issue about selling off software...well, they supposedly aren't getting enough $$$ from Combustion (no development...no $$$...gee, I wonder why?), and they aren't gaining any sort of a foothold with Toxic. In an economically turbulent time, that's generally what companies do, right Mr. Gates? If it's not viable enough for them to develop, do you think they feel threatened by it in someone else's hands?"Be realistic about this, the package will either linger till its dead, or hopefully they will put some money into it, but I don't know 1) any company who could afford to buy it, or 2) why Autodesk would sell it. Remember Avid sold XSI to try and put a dent in the $66.4 million loss they were in for the quarter (they only got $35 million for Softimage).[Don Nash]"All this flap about Toxic being Combustion's replacement is junk, IMHO. Toxic was from the start aimed DIRECTLY at film compositing. Combustion has always been an all-around backroom workhorse...a "Jack of all trades, and master of none." If AD earnestly expects Combustion users, whom they alientated for the past 5yrs with virtually no development and no word on any...to gleefully jump into Toxic's lap, think again! When Toxic does all that Combustion does, then you have a point. Perhaps if AD would communicate with their customers a bit, we wouldn't be having this discussion."I totally agree that Toxik lacks the majority of Combustions Motion Graphics capabilities. That is why I say improve Combustion in that area and improve Toxik on the compositing side. 1) It gives you a way to bundle the 2 packages, 2) they are now in different market segments and can compete with the other packages that match in features and price point. Making Combustion a mini Toxik isn't going to help Toxik or Combustion, IMHO.[Don Nash]"Differing opinions is one thing, but you insist on appointing yourself as the subject matter expert and Fact Police everywhere you go. If you must continue with that attitude, I'd hope you'd save yourself some time and frustration by not responding or simply put me on your ignore list."That is true, but if you are going to making statements then you should know the facts. In alot of the cases people don't realize the reliance Combustion has on 3rd party SDKs that are only 32bit and think it would be a simple check box in the compilier to make it 64bit. If it was that easy they would have done it by now. The other thing is I take the time to talk with people such as resellers and those in charge of Combustion. Don't expect to get any insider information, because the employees enjoy their jobs and I don't want to risk losing it giving away information, or they simply may not have answers. The long a short of it is, you need to talk to those who actually know what is going on (and more than one person), but you need to take it all with a grain of salt.
Combustion is still alive until they officially no longer offer it as a package and anything can happen, but you need to be realistic about what can be done with it. Things like 64bit and getting higher end features that Toxik already has probably isn't going to happen. If you want the features in Toxik, Fusion, and Nuke then you probably need to look at buying one of them, because IMHO that is the only place you will get those features.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Alex Udell on Jan 30, 2009 at 8:48:16 pm
Having been thru this once with edit* already...
I can see two things...
when times get tough, companies cut overhead and kill products that don't generate revenue.
The irony...they still see enough value in it that they want to ownt he code, not that they want to use it, but that they don't want anyone else to compete with them...or atleast not give them a helping hand in doing so...
On the one hand you might argue that if Autodesk really cared about the customer.... they'd sell it and let someone else run with it..
my opinion anyway..
Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX
Younversity TV
www.youniversity.tv
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Eric Craft on Jan 31, 2009 at 12:00:49 am
There is no logic in selling it. The "if they cared about the customers" is kind of mute, since as soon as you sell the product you just lost those customers for the product.
On top of that it is heavily tied into other Autodesk products, so you would probably lose backburner support (used by 3ds Max, Toxik, and Burn) as well as the 3ds Max integration, since the "outside" company will no longer have the same access to the developers. Also, who knows what would happen with the assets licensed or acquired by 3rd parties, so you could lose RE:Flex and Particles. Now Combustion is no longer Combustion, so really what is the point?
I am not saying its a bad idea, but what are you willing to give up to continue using a product called Combustion? When it comes to business its never as simple as just finding a buyer, you have to remember what other tie-ins it has with the company and its other products.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Don Nash on Jan 31, 2009 at 9:03:14 am
I just remember a while back, in a similar discussion, Bones talking about Toxic being Combustion's replacement. I went to AD's website and checked out it's features and watched some of the demo videos to get an idea of it's workflow. While I thought the UI was very elegant and more modern than Combustion's, it was obvious that its focus was STRICTLY on the film side of things.
If I saw the same features that Combustion had, combined with the newness of Toxic and all its added capabilities, I would have been very excited to consider Toxic as such.
Alas, it is not...and it doesn't even pretend to be. That's why I am confounded when folks more informed than myself say that Combustion won't be developed because of Toxic.
That's like saying the Ford F-150 won't be re-designed in any future models because of the F-350's (PowerStroke Diesel engines). They are both trucks, but they cater to slightly different markets.
Fusion also uses some AE plugins via an adaptor, as well as Saphire plugins(AE SDK?)...so, if AD wanted to develop Combustion, to include 64/32bit I don't see why 3rd party dev's wouldn't work with AD...even if it meant going to a new standard (OpenFX). If they receive licensing fees for every Combustion seat, why would Trapcode's dev. not want to re-write his plugins to the OpenFX standard, and to where it's available to the whole market? During a re-write, I don't think AD would need to resort to using ReFlex anyway...they have morphing tools in Toxic, so I'd imagine they'd want to use those tools instead (the same way many of CB's best tools are handed down from FFI).
Imagine Toxic and Combustion with Particular, and perhaps 3D Stroke and Shine built-in.
After such a re-write, why not put CB right in the sweet spot between AE and Nuke/Toxic...something like $1995. It would be well worth it.
No one is asking it to match Toxic feature for feature, but keep them on separate paths and give Combustion the love it deserves...it's Max integration features are a real keeper.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Alex Udell on Jan 31, 2009 at 4:36:27 pm
I admire your optimism. I love combustion and want nothing more than to see it developed.
Things are getting tighter in budget, not looser.
AD is cutting headcount, not hiring additional staff.
Accountants look at what is generating revenue and what is not.
Things that are generating revenue will have resources allocated to maintain them. Things that don't, will not.
combustion had a tiny but talented development team even at it's peak. (look at the credits in After Effects development alone....it's astounding)
They have essentially cut all marketing for combustion (ever see even a web banner for it?). Which means if someone new hears about it, they found it by accident, or saw someone else using it. What possible revenue could the software be generating for the company?
I'm a loyal fan of combustion, but after hearing about some of the schematic changes (branch selection), I was less inclined to upgrade to 2008 myself.
So what development and support assets do you give to a product that is generating next to no revenue, when you have less assets to work with.
It's not like AD will pull it off the market. It essentially costs nothing for them to leave it alone.
I don't have any inside info. I'm just looking at the big picture.
I still use it regularly (along side AE now) when I need roto, tracking, some times of stabalization, quickie matte generation, but my needs are simple....I have no need yet of these advanced file formats. The only deal breaker for me is that we will be migrating to Vista 64 Ultimate soon. If doesn't work in that environment would mean building a dual boot with XP.
Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX
Younversity TV
www.youniversity.tv
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Don Nash on Jan 31, 2009 at 6:24:59 pm
I think I'm going to have to go the dual-boot route myself cause Combustion's particles don't operate properly on Vista 64 for me.
I'm still using my seat of C4 (nothing I really need or want in 2008 either), but tried the 30 day trial of 2008 and it acts the same way.
Maybe Windows 7 will be less buggy...who knows
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Matthew Beall on Feb 2, 2009 at 4:58:47 am
Alex UdellI still use it regularly (along side AE now) when I need roto, tracking, some times of stabalization, quickie matte generation, but my needs are simple....
How is the integration with c* and AE?
Alex UdellThe only deal breaker for me is that we will be migrating to Vista 64 Ultimate soon. If doesn't work in that environment would mean building a dual boot with XP.
I use c* under Vista 64 Ultimate with no problems..
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Eric Craft on Jan 31, 2009 at 4:53:59 pm
[Don Nash]"I just remember a while back, in a similar discussion, Bones talking about Toxic being Combustion's replacement. I went to AD's website and checked out it's features and watched some of the demo videos to get an idea of it's workflow. While I thought the UI was very elegant and more modern than Combustion's, it was obvious that its focus was STRICTLY on the film side of things.
If I saw the same features that Combustion had, combined with the newness of Toxic and all its added capabilities, I would have been very excited to consider Toxic as such."
I totally agree that at this time Toxik isn't a replacement for Combustion and motion graphics. However, for compositing it has much better tools.
[Don Nash]"Alas, it is not...and it doesn't even pretend to be. That's why I am confounded when folks more informed than myself say that Combustion won't be developed because of Toxic."
It's because people want it to become Toxik, in which case the sales people will just tell you to buy Toxik if you want 3D, 64bit, true floating point, etc. Rather than focus on areas where Toxik lacks, ie motion graphics (not 3d, not 64bit, etc) and AE users. If you want to see Combustion improved it will need to be where Toxik lacks, IMHO.
[Don Nash]"Fusion also uses some AE plugins via an adaptor, as well as Saphire plugins(AE SDK?)...so, if AD wanted to develop Combustion, to include 64/32bit I don't see why 3rd party dev's wouldn't work with AD...even if it meant going to a new standard (OpenFX). If they receive licensing fees for every Combustion seat, why would Trapcode's dev. not want to re-write his plugins to the OpenFX standard, and to where it's available to the whole market? During a re-write, I don't think AD would need to resort to using ReFlex anyway...they have morphing tools in Toxic, so I'd imagine they'd want to use those tools instead (the same way many of CB's best tools are handed down from FFI)."
You keep refering to Toxik features, use Toxik for those features. Why would they want to invest money to make a product that does what one of the other products already does. You want Combustion to become Toxik with motion graphics tools. So would you rather have Toxik with motion graphic tools and Combustion die, or Toxik as it is and Combustion focus on enhancing the 2D motion graphics tools. I seriously don't see where you get the idea that they are going to put money into a rewrite to make a lower priced clone of what they already have. I say enhance the version of Combustion with some better tools (not waste the time and money on a rewrite) or kill it after making Toxik a true replacement. The only program that I know of that offers true 3d particles is Fusion, and I'm not sure anyone even uses that in production. Particular (as well as all the other Trapcode plugins) are heavily tied into the AE 3D system. As Bones has mentioned the developer will only do this if there is enough interest.
[Don Nash]"Imagine Toxic and Combustion with Particular, and perhaps 3D Stroke and Shine built-in.
After such a re-write, why not put CB right in the sweet spot between AE and Nuke/Toxic...something like $1995. It would be well worth it."
After effects tried that and dropped the price with the next major release 18 months later and 6 months after Combustion 2.1 entered the market at $995. So it seems that neither Adobe or Autodesk want to compete with each other in that price range. This also proves my point that Combustions competition is AE and not the higher end film compositors. The only product that falls between the low end and high end is Eyeon Vision, which appears to be a motion graphics tool that is a subset of the Fusion tool set, but they offer very little information on it.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Aaron Neitz on Jan 31, 2009 at 7:04:39 pm
Alex makes a good point about the economic hard times.
IMHO: Big companies are all shoring up right now. It's a huge possibility that Toxik and Combustion get scrubbed. Or at least development gets scrubbed. AD is going to keep focus on their premium systems - that's what sets them apart. That's their bread and butter in the EFX division.
Toxik has already lost to Nuke and Fusion. It's current feature set, while OK, can't compete against those more mature products. Heck, a $500 copy of EOL'ed Shake is more production friendly that Toxik. Unless AD REALLY REALLY wants to get a foothold in the desktop compositing game, it really doesn't make much business sense to chase the competition.
They'd be better off making a version of Flame that ran on Windows and wasn't married to specific hardware - like a flame seat that didn't need I/O or audio, just a compositing seat that could share stones, backburner, and setups with a front-room Inferno. Price it to compete against Nuke. Now that's a product that would sell like crazy hotcakes.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Don Nash on Jan 31, 2009 at 7:09:08 pm
Eric, I don't disagree with what you're saying about them cheaply upgrading the motion graphics through the use of expressions. I was/am just hoping that they do something for the performance as well.
The particles, as nice as they are, was long in the tooth when C4 first came out...that's why I was hoping that AD would take a look at Trapcode (Particular, Shine, and 3D Stroke are Motion Graphics tools as much as VFX).
The 3d geometry handling is something I think could help AD SELL Combustion to a large percentage of Max users, since you already have such good integration already. That's the angle I'm coming from. You can already use CB's paint tools to do live texture painting in Max...it even has a nifty UV template. You can re-texture an object in CB without having to re-render in Max. AD never properly marketed that. Even now, if they would stop making it SO hard to find Combustion on their website, and if they'd show some decent demonstration videos of these integration features on both CB's and Max's site, they'd start selling a considerable higher percentage of seats than they currently are.
Now if they could ADD to that functionality by allowing a Max user to open a Max file in CB, you'd be stupid to still choose AE instead.
Adobe gains most of it's advantage with AE because of it's bundling and integration with Photoshop. Doesn't mean it's a better compositor than CB, but they sell the integration...not so much the merit of the program itself.
That's the other thing about Toxic...they specifically target the Maya userbase instead of Max's. That too tells me they have no intention whatsoever of making Toxic the successor to Combustion.
My contention, then, is that AD's refusing to update Combustion is why there is no revenue...yet they have it backwards. If it had decent upgrades every 18-24mos as AE did, Combustion would be in a much better position. I think they may have fired the wrong folks a while back.
Case in point...Look at Shake. It dropped lower than CB did and Apple even told their customers that it was a dead product. Yet they got more sales afterward than before, and it's still quite popular.
I think it's a combination that Combustion is 1) not promoted at all 2) perceived as a "Jack of all trades and Master of none" and 3) the deafening silence from AD fosters a lack of confidence in the product
Combustion's failing is a self-inflicted wound. More than anything else, that's why I'm not touching Toxic with a 10ft pole. It's a very appropriate name, actually...cause they've demonstrated that their handling of the desktop compositing segment is downright, well...you guess it, Toxic.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Eric Craft on Jan 31, 2009 at 8:07:06 pm
[Don Nash]"The 3d geometry handling is something I think could help AD SELL Combustion to a large percentage of Max users, since you already have such good integration already. That's the angle I'm coming from. You can already use CB's paint tools to do live texture painting in Max...it even has a nifty UV template. You can re-texture an object in CB without having to re-render in Max. AD never properly marketed that. Even now, if they would stop making it SO hard to find Combustion on their website, and if they'd show some decent demonstration videos of these integration features on both CB's and Max's site, they'd start selling a considerable higher percentage of seats than they currently are."
I don't think having FBX import would make it more appealing to Max users, it would make it more appealing to select users and select uses. Plus this would require a serious core rewrite and I don't think there is enough need for that. AE only supports 3D Layers from PSD files, and even there it is limited in what you can do with it in AE. I am very interested to see what will happen with all the non-Photoshop CS products given the fact that Adobe has said its sales were far below expectation.
[Don Nash]"That's the other thing about Toxic...they specifically target the Maya userbase instead of Max's. That too tells me they have no intention whatsoever of making Toxic the successor to Combustion."
Part of that, I believe, is because both applications have Python as a scripting base. Meaning you can easily code up the same tool to do the export from Maya and the import in Toxik. Let all the bugs get worked out between Maya and Toxik's new precomp system, and who knows what the future will bring with Max and Toxik. Heck anyone with enough scripting knowledge could probably do the same with Max, it is just a matter of understanding exactly what the precomp is and how it needs to be written.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Dean DeCarlo on Feb 3, 2009 at 6:13:14 am
I own a Toaster and that isn't going anywhere either. Was a great system for 8 bit SD but as far as I know it still doesn't support anything above that. Seems Newtek is more concerned with the corporate and church group market rather than high end post. My Toaster is available for purchase if interested.
Another thread about AD ignoring Combustion. I feel the pain too but it is unrealistic to think they are going to do any kind of core re-write. They did that when they combined Paint and Effect at the beginning and since then they've been bolting on features with varying success. I don't really use any of the features past C3 and speed / efficiency enhancements have always been my #1 request. Wish it would grow and change but I am weighing my options for the future. I do post work with SD, HD video mostly. Toxik seems a little too almost to me and doesn't seem to have any real foothold. Plus of course it is owned by Autodesk. Nuke seems too film-centric. Fusion seems to be the most promising to me of the node based apps that I've looked at. I'm going to put in some time getting good at After Effects though. That app doesn't seem like it will go away anytime soon and has some very strong capabilites. I'll mourn Combustion if they kill it off but it will continue to be useful to me for a while.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Jeff Brown on Feb 3, 2009 at 7:40:07 pm
By the by: I have not yet tried it, but Blender (blender.org) seems to have a functional node-based compositing flow. And it's free. Plus, the 3D functionality ain't too shabby.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Jeff Brown on Feb 4, 2009 at 1:17:18 pm
As I mentioned, I have not used it. I saw a demo at SIGGRAPH '07, had an excellent interface. I've been tracking the developments occasionally at the web site; seems to be a fair following of EU character animators.
Just one of those things (like learning Unix) that I have not made time for... yet. I'll refrain from more comment 'till I've used it myself.
As for Combustion, I'm looking at it as and end-of-life product; by all appearances (and that's all _I_ have to go on) that's what it is. Still useful, but not the only tool to consider.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Matthew Beall on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:14:52 pm
As for Combustion, I'm looking at it as and end-of-life product; by all appearances (and that's all _I_ have to go on) that's what it is. Still useful, but not the only tool to consider.
Maybe if we all started flooding Autodesk's inbox with project examples where we're using c*, they would take notice how much it IS being used and focus more attention to it..
I've done some pretty good projects with it over the last year (long gone is the orange tuxedo guy!).. I always hope to make an example video, but I go straight into the next project (plus have 3 kids, etc).. These people who have extremely detailed demo videos, how do they have the time to make them? I'm too busy working..
I keep looking at Toxik and Fusion, but can't get past the fact that you can only work on one scene at a time.. I always get handed finished client-approved timelines of whole projects.. This is easy in c*..
What will be the toolset of the future? Anything new on the horizon?
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Dean DeCarlo on Feb 4, 2009 at 3:07:24 pm
Combustion is great but anyone I recommend it to must be given the caveat of the lack of support which sucks to have to say. I'm thinking more and more that if / when Combustion doesn't suite my needs that After Effects may be the one to go with because it has some editing capabilities and is tied in with Premiere which I use now (not bad at all btw). Truthfully, I don't use the schematic mode so a node based system doesn't make me drool. I used to use the schematic a lot more in Flint but in Combustion I pretty much stick to the layer view.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Eric Craft on Feb 4, 2009 at 11:25:18 pm
In case you haven't seen it yet Gary Davis has posted some simple side by side project comparison between Combustion and Toxic at the area. Basically how the workflow with CC and Blur in the 2 apps works.
I fear the day I have to go to only After Effects. Adobe video interfaces, though better, are horrible. All the tabs and windows, and lets not forget non-working schematic view (oh wow I can see stuff wired, but can't do any rewiring, WTF!).
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Alex Udell on Feb 5, 2009 at 12:51:27 am
Hey...
I was the same way about AE as well.
Now that I use it more often...I actually really like the new dockable GUI.
Floating windows are a thing of the past. Not only can you have a locked down UI, but you can have it be any way you want. 2 3 4 5 6 7 viewports...sure...and I don't have to wait for the software developer to offer me a new layout. ;)
While it is true that the schematic in AE is locked down...you can use it to navigate...in other words, double click on a node to set your focus (viewport and timeline) which is a big part of what I do in combustion anyway.
The roto is not as good (masking).
The paint: well the non vector has write on progression... but I haven't found much use for it otherwise.
Shape layers are nice.
Text is excellent.
Layers styles and adjustment layers are also great tools...
And well...I edit in Premiere Pro....though my specific workflow has some bugs not accounted for in their dynamic link...so I do most of my comping old school.
Not poo pooing combustion...
All the other softwares feel like VFX tools.
combustion did hit that sweet spot which could handle both...(barely)
Alex Udell
Editing, Motion Graphics, and Visual FX
Younversity TV
www.youniversity.tv
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Matthew Beall on Feb 5, 2009 at 1:16:27 am
Alex,
Is there anyway to integrate the 3D in combustion and the 3D in AE? I could see using AE for titles and some plugins, but I'm not sure how I would handle camera moves and layer transforms in 3D space..
Otherwise, it seems like a lot of render passes to send stuff back and forth..
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by Eric Craft on Feb 5, 2009 at 2:17:34 am
With some scripting and understanding of how CWS are written, you could do it. I do have a maxscript that almost exports out the scene to nulls in a new CWS file, still have to fix the rotation conversion. So if you worked hard enough it could be done.
Re: Why does AD bother with desktop Compositors? by amir Qureshi on Feb 8, 2009 at 9:05:07 pm
"Maybe if we all started flooding Autodesk's inbox with project examples where we're using c*, they would take notice how much it IS being used and focus more attention to it.. "
I am seriously down with this idea.
What if we really got organized (all of us, people who have been using it for almost a decade now in all sorts of environments as well as others who have started using it recently) and seriously started lobbying (by flooding inbox, calling, demanding, threatening to not invest time in their products in the future anymore, etc. or whatever sane means) and really demonstrating to them that we want development on this pkg, and that we understand that while they cannot make it to compete with their own FFI but they can certainly update it to make it efficient, faster and update the core/rewrite so the app can atleast take advantage of the latest platforms, plugins or what have you.
I think the problem may very well be that most of us who have been using it for years and are really in love with this app but are not really demanding enough to AD. We should really think about communicating to them and if they notice the volume, they would either do something about it, by doing whatever (merge toxik and combustion, i dont know) but who knows somthing may happen if they notice the demand. It all comes down to the demand.
I mean we can blame AD all we want here but it might take a bit more than that to get them to notice us.
I for one am totally biased toward combustion (even at its current state) over ae, etc. simply because i do not under estimate the power of the context sensitive design-for -speed interface and the tools that it has now (i mean cc module alone is worth it).
