![]()
the simple reason you disagree with me is your definition of comp differs, form mine. But my vocabulary contains a different specification, and for me theres a another category that AE clearly belongs to
QUOTE(beaker @ 08/18/08, 09:33 PM) [snapback]289908[/snapback]
I have to disagree. Personally I'm not a big AE fan but I know hundreds of companies that use it for film compositing.
The fact that some application is used in a capacity does not mean its one. I mean i use scite for desktop publishing using xml, the end result is more or less the same as i get with inDesign and quarkExpress. Still it wouldn't cross my mind calling scite anything other than a editor!
Likewise, i could use maya*, mentalray standalone, photoshop, renderman, even paint as a compositioning software. Again it does not make them A comp software. Now let me clarify. If you consider the essece of your comp to be using fiters then ae would be a comp app, but theres the thing AE cannot manipulate the raw channel data. Hell youd be hard pressed to do some of the most basic channel manipulations in AE. Ae is however a motion graphics software and that makes it good for animating 2d things on screen. Its sometimes far better than shake is. However for pure comp its a bit bad, since its not meant as a comp app manipulating channels is not its main job.
Ok i agree the area is gray. Another app that goes into the same category of motion graphics is clearly Motion.
The problem with extending this gray area is that, if you start doing it far enough then you could say that most editting apps are comp apps also because it too can apply filters.
So just because something is used in some capacity does not mean it is. Again if i was to do end tiles then ae I would probably be the king because thats a motion graphics job! And ae beats shake here hands down.** Anyway, i do NOT dispute the fact that AE could be used for film. I never did!
*yes yes laugh all you like but i can do everything i can do in shake inside maya, but i wouldn't its slow and tedious slow and unpractical. Convolutions are a bit overkill to do but its still doable, same applies to the z. Anyway the point is even maya makes for a better pure channel manipulator than ae, no gui sure.
** again here i would agree maya may be better bacuse its much easier to describe some of the cooler stuffs in maya.