Smoke and Flint comparison

[gcapps]

I’m an old Flint user, and recently a client asked the facility where I work to consider adding a FFI system to support their quick turnarounds. We have an ancient Flint that has been mothballed for quite some time now, but may be able to upgrade it. Our work is primarily :30 commercial work, with occasional long form pieces.. we have 2 FCP suites, 2 older Meridian suites, and a HD Adrenaline running composer 2.8 (haven’t upgraded to the DX Nitris hardware as we’re deciding what our technology path will be)…I’ve been doing most of our motion graphics in After Effects recently, but the insane turnarounds needed have made us look to other options.

My question is (and please don’t think I’m being dense :-D) what are the fundamental differences between Smoke and Flint now?

I realize how they are positioned, smoke being the editor with VFX, and flint being the VFX with edit capability…

But what are the features that are different between the 2 systems? I’ve spent quite a bit of time watching videos about Smoke and Flame (there aren’t any specific Flint videos on Autodesk’s site) and the overlap between the systems makes it a bit hazy as to where one system’s capabilities ends and the other picks up.. it seems that both have batch and timeline editing now, (vertical editing).. so is it really a matter of taste?

Is there any reason to have Flint if you have Smoke? or vice versa

Where would one system struggle where the other would shine etc…

thanks for any insight

[kakutarvn]

I can tell you what Smoke is missign from Flame. So if you know what Flint is missing then you can compare the two.

Smoke lack a TRUE Batch module. Smoke can only enter batch or BFX via the timeline, which really isn’t a big deal if you are timeline savy and just enter BFX with alot of black clips. Thre maybe some issues with matte channels as BFX does suppot matte outputs back to the timeline… but only as matte contianers.

Smoke lacks Particles and deform nodes in Action. Maybe some other Action tools… but largely it all there.

There may be a few other little things… but the products are very close.
I would think that a 2K Smoke would do you good. Only a 2K Smoke has Batch.

I am not sure that a Flint would be better… a Flame might.

BKM

[Joseph]

I dont know much about the new smoke, i know it has batch, but i dont think autodesk would give it the same batch as a flame. If they do, then that’d kill the flame.

1. flame can handle upto 2k resolution. flint can handle upto HD only.
2. the flint lacks the 3D camera tracking feature.
3. The flint lacks the Moduler Keyer.

[Dan Carr]

Flint can’t do 2K res? I have a flint here that can do 2K DPX comp for sure…

[Saran Sirikasamsap]

yes u can work at 2k on flint

[shannones riders]

@rego 25880 wrote:

2. the flint lacks the 3D camera tracking feature.
3. The flint lacks the Moduler Keyer.

OK, let’s consider the price difference between Flint and Flame. I don’t know the exact numbers, but it’s significant.

I would rather buy a Syntheyes for 400 USD, some Spark package. We do commercials here and we can live without the Modular Keyer. OK, I have to admit that last time I wanted to extrude a Geom from Gmask, but this feature is only avaliable in Flame… 🙂

If you compare the hardwares, they are the same, so the speed is the same. Now why would you buy Flame for commercials?

Only if your clients insist to work with Flame Artist…

Two years ago I asked the same question from an Autodesk Authorised trainer: what’s the difference between Flint and Smoke?

He answered me that Smoke is a very good workhorse if you have a small facility and want to solve wide range of problems. It’s like a Swiss Army knife. That’s why he always advised to start-up companies to buy Smoke. But hey, you have several machines…

Since then Flint inherited much better editing capabilities from Smoke. What’s more you know Flint much better, I wouldn’t hesitate…

pH.

ps: when we bought our Flints (3 years ago) they were cheaper with Smoke installed on the same machine than standalone, but we never touched Smoke 🙂

[Martin Krol]

I don’t think Smoke has projectors in Action, which are an incredibly useful tool for me. For those of us in the commercial world, I think we’ve all experienced time and time again that big blank spot in the edit, and no shot with which to fill it. Often, I’ve found that I at least have a chance when I ask the client for a still. 1 still frame + projectors can equal a completed shot out of thin air, and it can be done fast. The particle system (IFF only) is something that can also be incredibly valuable, assuming the effort is put into learning its syntax.

As for the Flint/Flame feature differences, the only that I know of for sure are the 3D tracker and the MK. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m probably a bit behind when it comes to the MK, but also that I’m certainly the type of artist that would love it- being both an anal neat freak and also one who likes to build big batch trees full of masks, logic-ops, blurs, and different keyers to get that perfect matte.

Now that I’m thinking about it, I don’t think Flint can do HSDL i/o, read keycode, or calibrate the display with the Lustre Color Management kit. None of these things are all that important to me at the moment, but could be soon 😉

Don’t take these comments as a push away from smoke and towards IFF. I’ve spent plenty of hours completing jobs on smoke. Rarely have I been in a situation where something needed to move to our flame suites because of a smoke feature set shortfall. No matter what, you’ll always find a great way to get something done (especially on a discreet system). That being said, I chose Flame to be the flagship Autodesk suite in our company’s new expansion. Our primary location currently houses almost too many discreet systems to count on two hands. There have been pains, there have been show stoppers, but if your current goal is to get a complete, efficient toolset into the hands of a talented artist, I really don’t think you can go wrong with either system.

[Author]

Posts