After Effects?

[TomA]

I'm thinking of learning Affect Effects, to improve post production with my 3DMax animations.

 

What are your opinions?

 

Is it difficult to use?

 

What are the major benifits?

 

Is it worth learning?

 

Is there a better package out there for video post production?

 

Cheers

 

[Dave Buckley]

it depends what software you are currently using in terms of what you want to use after effects with.

 

i wouldn't say that after effects is a video editing programme, however it is used for post production - but more specifically for motion graphics.

 

if it is autodesk products you are using then i'd suggest sticking with autodesk and using combustion or something simliar. have a look on the autodesk website at all their products in the media and entertainment sector before you come to your decision.

 

again it depends entirely on which aspect of post you are using ti for

[TomA]

I want to be able to improve the quality of my rendered 3d max frames like i would with photoshop with a single frame render, or to add things like effects or text perhaps in a similar way, before composing the frames together into an avi or other movie type animation file.

 

Here's a quick example to illustrate the kind of thing i'm talking about. It's a theatre i've been working on in max. The top link is a raw render straight out of max, the bottom link is a very rough and ready change in photoshop to show how i'd like the lighting (but in every frame of the animation):

 

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/puttyface_101/spotlight%20new/theatretest1.jpg

 

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii31/puttyface_101/spotlight%20new/theatretest1darkbits.jpg

 

Am i on the right track with After Effects? Am i asking too much from a post-prod package?

 

I know i should probably try to just improve the lighting and iron out those kind of issues in Max but i think it would be much quicker and easier sometimes to do what i'm asking from After Effects or similar. Am i right?

 

Cheers

 

P

[Dave Buckley]

its entirely what you are comfortable with, both combustion and after effects will be able to achieve what your after.

 

i just think that autodesk products will work better with autodesk and vice versa, combustion is made to compliment max and prob does exactly the same as you want from AE, not sure on price difference tho

[TomA]

yeah i know what you're saying.

 

i use both autocad (from autodesk) and microstation (from bentley) in terms of cad packages and know that autocad files work 1000% better with Max than microstation files.

 

Anyway, so you think Combustion is the package for me. I haven't really heard of it, is it difficult to learn?

 

Thanks

 

P

[TomA]

Do you use combustion and AE by the way?

 

Which do you prefer and why?

[Dave Buckley]

i have used after effects and am just starting to use combustion. what i would advise is that you try and get hold of a "trial" of both and give the tutorials a go and c which one you are finding your way around easiest.

 

i found after effects to be quite a lengthy programme in terms of all the functions were really drawn out and everything had to be done step by step, then if you made a mistake it was more often than not easier to do it all again

 

but that was probably down to the way i was using it. i don't have vast knowledge of either product but i can tell you they are both industry standard pieces of software but who uses which one is entirely down to the users preference.

 

i don't have enough experience to comment on which one is better

[TomA]

Righto i think i'll download some trials.

 

Thanks for your help!

 

P

 

[Ray]

Try VideoCopilot.net for After Effects tutorials, start with their Basic Training:

 

http://www.videocopilot.net/basic/

[TomA]

great i'll have a look thanks!

[JamesTaylor]

if you are comfortable with photoshop and the adobe style of interface you'll pick up AE in no time, its really just p'shop with a timeline! You'll be able to do colour correction et all just fine.

 

however Combustion has a better colour management engine than AE which will give you greater control and is probably the choice of real colour professionals between the two, but i doubt at our level many people would be getting that picky about which they used, they'll both do the job.

 

in terms of compatibility, again i wouldn't be too concerned about going either way, both can handle openEXR file, RPF and support extracting multiple channels from these type of files. Combustion again probably has the upper hand in this area, but you should be able to do pretty much everything in both apps, maybe with just a slightly different workflow.

 

AE is better for "motion grahics" as Dave inidicates, which is always a nice thing to be able to add to animations for titles and intros etc.

 

both programs overlap greatly but without doubt AE is the easier of the 2 to pick up, combustion's interface and structure will take some getting used to and are no way as intuitive as AE

[landrvr1]

The exciting thing about Combustion is the growing integration with Max; which promises to only get more intense.

 

Combustion and AE are remarkably similar programs. Many forums - including those at Autodesk - find people complaining that Combustion is slower than AE. Both are multiprocessor aware, so I'm not sure how valid that is...

 

The biggest bonus in my mind, and something that keeps me from getting back into Combustion, is the total integration that AE enjoys with every other video suite product from Adobe. It's the greatest thing in the world to seemlessly work on a composite or effects composition in AE and then bring that into Premiere without having to export the comp....