- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Hi…
Well, I see that a lot of post production houses are using Shake nowadays… but, is Shake a good alternativa to Combustion? What´s the difference between C2.1 and Shake 2.5?
Thanx in advance… 🙂
Mário
mario wrote:Hi…Well, I see that a lot of post production houses are using Shake nowadays… but, is Shake a good alternativa to Combustion? What´s the difference between C2.1 and Shake 2.5?
Thanx in advance… 🙂
Mário
Shake is an industrial strength tool. It can sit in a large facility with massive render farm and can be customised and configured for heavy duty feature film. In my opinion Combustion is not as robust or as suitable for large scale, complex work. But if you are doing video on a stand alone workstation (or especially if you are in a DISCREET environment) then you might find Combustion a better fit.
Neither tool does it all. (hence the large number of plug in vendors) And a skilled operator will produce hot work on either software.Personally I am a Shake man. A lot of companies are using Shake right now. However I have heard that Conbustion in probably better for Video. But I like the flexibility of Shake. One thing that Combustion does have over Shake in the real feel for 3D. Where Shake does have the 3d Move Node, I think Combustion actually moves in 3d. As soon as Shake steps up to that, it will be the best around.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.