Flame vs. AfterEffects

[Robert Houghton]

Better Open GL implementation, you can distort (i.e. warp) layers of video using a mesh in full 3D. This is doable in AE but you need a plugin for it to work. Also, color correction is a bit more streamlined in Flame. If you get Nucleo Pro for AE you can at least keep working while as many processors you want hum away in the background, rendering.

-Rob

Motion Graphics Animation
Professional & Freelance
Respond2

Opinions expressed above are not in any way connected to Respond2.

Personal website under construction 😉

[Anonymous]

Flame is for high end projects. Flame is more of a fx machine while after effects is more for motion graphics. You can do motion graphics in flame but from what I hear it isn’t really what it was designed for. In after effects you can do really good special effects but it really isn’t streamlined to handle the the effects flame can.

This is my understanding of the two programs.

One more thing, isn’t a flame system like $80,000??

The Roach
http://www.projectrooster.com

[Jimmy Brunger]

This was discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago…

My understanding of it (and what I am suggesting to my boss) is you can get very SIMILAR results to a Flame with a RAMmed upto the max 8-core machine, very fast drives, a decent GFX card and AE + Nucleo for mograph and then buy a PC node of Eyeon Fusion for more complex FX/compositing and 3D.

for a mac – maybe Shake isntead of Fusion? But it’s not made anymore and I think lacks some of Fusion’s 3D capabilities.

I’m not saying that will ‘beat’ a Flame as such, but for a fraction of the cost you’d have something that would certainly compete pretty well for most projects. It will be MUCH easier and cheaper to keep your machine/software upto date aswell! For high-end client attended 2k/4k work maybe Flame still has the edge..I don’t know?

Let me know how it works out. We’re thinking of teaming up a new Smoke with a Windows XP64 system like this for GFX/FX, so I’d be interested to see just how quick it could be.

*Production Studio Premium / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0

[Wes Plate]

There is an article at Studio Daily about this kind of thing.

The author writes about doing “Flame-quality onlines” in After Effects.

— Wes Plate
Automatic Duck

[Wes Plate]

Sorry, every time I tried to paste the URL to the article the forum rejected my post, so I can’t paste it. You will find the article, though, if you Google for these terms: studio daily online with after effects

— Wes Plate
Automatic Duck

[Jimmy Brunger]

I use AE as an online gfx/vfx tool..though the integration isn’t quite as elegant as Auto Duck/FCP!…I capture/output mattes & masters to/from an editbox.

With eventually a bit more hardware power for AE and a new online NLE with a filebased system/alpha support and a SAN/NAS I reckon we’ll be cooking on butane. Does Automatic Duck offer any integration between AE/Smoke do you know?

*Production Studio Premium / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0

[Wes Plate]

No, no such interchange, sorry.

— Wes Plate
Automatic Duck

[David Cabestany]

Hey guys, sorry to revive an almost 15-year-old thread but I wanted to gather opinions on finishing sessions in After Effects after virtually all the initial conditions in the original post have changed, Flame is no longer the crazy expensive tool it used to be and After Effects is far more powerful today than ever, machines are also a lot more capable and affordable. I even remember an Adobe featurette that showed how The Social Network was finished in After Effects and it had over 1000 shots with composites in them.

I have been doing a lot of finishing using After Effects for the past couple of years (I come from a motion graphics background, so I really know AE very very well) but lately, I’ve been thinking if it would be worth learning a node-based system. Since I already own a copy of Davinci Studio for my colorwork I thought of delving into the Fusion page with more detail. I found that everything I can do there I can do way faster in AE and with the added benefit of using precomped elements and complex expressions, which, to my understanding, Fusion does not have (expressions in DaVinci are very basic and since every scene is isolated, you can use elements from one in another, of course, I could very well be wrong).

So my question is, as I get more and more compositing work does it make sense to learn Fusion or even Nuke for that purpose, or am I better off staying with AE?

Don’t kill me for reviving the thread!😬

[Tero Ahlfors]

Instead of necroing a 15 year old thread that has nothing to do with your question you could have made a new thread about this topic.

Precomps: you can either duplicate or (usually) route the same output from a node tree to different places.

Expressions: there’s a bunch of them in Fusion.

That said: if you have everything you need in AE then why would you need to use something else, unless you need some special toolset that can only be found in certain piece of software?

If I needed to comp a lot of shots from render passes, then I’d be mostly in Fusion or Nuke. That can be a pain with layers IMO.