Wellity, wellity, wellity! Now that’s the question, isn’t it? Or to put it another way, it’s not really the question but it is a fairly common (and understanable) one. Let’s make this clear: I am definitely filing this post under the ‘Opinion’ tag 
There are a lot of different opinions on this and of course you could easily say “It’s the artist, not the software”, which is about as helpful as being kicked in the family jewels. The thing is, even if you aren’t a raw beginner, learning software takes time and effort and it makes sense to focus your time and effort on something that is going to give you the best bang for buck.
Take 3D apps for example. XSI, Houdini and Blender are fantastic apps, although XSI took a hit recently IMO by dropping their cheap Foundation software. However, the cold hard steely fact is that Maya is king. Whether it is ‘best’ or you like using it or not, the fact is that it is used in more production facilities than other software. Sure 3ds max has a solid foot in the door in gaming and dominates architectural visualisation and Houdini kills with VFX, the fact remains that if you are going to spend 3 years studying something, you want to study something that is most likely going to help you get a job.
So, back to compositing apps, which one? Before I give a brief breakdown on each of the major applications, let’s differentiate between node-based and layer-based compositing. You may have heard the terms before, with an aura of mystique and high-end awesomeness surrounding the fabled “node-based compositing”.
So what is it? Well, node based compositing is essentially like a flowchart. You have a node for an image, if you want to blur it, you attach a blur node underneath it. At the end, your composite looks like a ‘tree’ with several starting branches all converging in the final output node or nodes.
Layer-based applications deal with the comp like Photoshop. You have an image or images and effects or operations stack up in layers on top of them. To merge them you can do pre-comps (render out branches) or create groups and then merge them.
So why one over the other? Well, in my (and many others opinions), the advantage of node-based compositing lies in the clarity of your compositions. Very complicated comps can be followed very easily, because you just follow the flow chart. Given it is a flow chart, at any part in a branch, you can branch off again, do some adjustments and then just come back into the main flow. This allows you to experiment very quickly and efficiently. This kind of thing can be done in layer-based compositing apps, but it can get very unwieldy for complicated shots, or shots involving a lot of elements.
The flip-side of this, however, is that layer-based compositing apps tend much stronger in their animation/timeline capabilities. Doing motion graphics in Shake is not my idea of a good time. In fact I would rather stick a pencil in my ear, and a blunt one at that!
So, with that it mind, what app you want to use may come down to what industry you want to work in. If you are really into design and motion graphics, you would be nuts not to focus on After Effects and maybe know a bit of Shake/Nuke/Fusion. If you are wanting to go into feature film, it’s node-based all the way baby! It is worth noting that both Nuke and Fusion both have full-featured free Personal Learning Editions, with Nuke now having the upper hand in free training materials to get you started. Also, the last time I checked, you can use the student editions of the Adobe suite applications to do commercial work, which is a massive bonus as the discount is for students is pretty decent. Of course, double check the Adobe website to see if that is still the case.
Shake: (Node Based) Undisputed king. As far as I know, still the most used compositing application in high-end facilities. The price drop to $500 a few years ago put a lot more seats out there and as a freelancer, it is a great deal to pick up a copy on Mac (Unix pricing is still $$$$). Shake is a great place to get started as it really is very straightforward. What you see is what you get. But, and this is a huge but, Shake is dead. Stone cold dead. Dead as a Dodo. It is no longer be developed, no longer being supported and as per Apple’s usual mode of business, there is zero information on anything to replace it.
Nuke: (Node Based) The “new” kid on the block. Nuke was developed as the inhouse compositing tool for Digital Domain for many years (although sold commercially) up until about version 4.8 or so. The Foundry bought out Nuke and started pouring some time and actual development dollars into it. Version 5.0 was a major upgrade, especially in terms of interface and it was clear that Nuke was looking to pick up Shake users, and it looks like they are being successful. Given that it was developed in direct response to what their artists needed, the tools are very flexible and powerful and immediately make sense. So much of the stuff I am learning in Nuke has me saying “Bloody hell, I wish Shake could have done that”. Impressive.
Fusion: (Node Based). Fusion has been around for a while and version 5.0 was a significant update. I have only had a bit of experience with Fusion but it seems to have a solid pipeline and in-software 3D particles and 3D comping. Seems to be popular with a growing number of smaller studios, however it is definitely capable of doing the big shots.
After Effects: (Layer Based). The king of affordable desktop compositing apps and the reigning champ for plug-ins. AE has definitely moved on in the last couple of years and is a very capable piece of software. You can operate in 3D and with the plugins, you can get some excellent results. Used mainly for motion graphics/broadcast design stuff, but is fully capable of doing high-end TV and feature film work. Excels at time/animation dependent comps but intense film compositing can get complicated when dealing with many layers which need pre-comping etc.
Combustion: (Layer Based) See description of After Effects, but divide everything by 2 
I love Combustion and started out on it, but it is no secret that it hasn’t really progressed over the last 4-5 years. Also, don’t believe anyone who says that a benefit of Combustion is that once you learn it you will be able to jump on a Flame/Inferno suite. Apart from the fact that some of the user interface looks kind of the same, they have nothing in common.
So, the winners are . . . BUP BADDA BAAAAAAHHHH (from Zoolander ) Nuke and After Effects. Chances are that as a student you are probably going to be exposed to After Effects in your courses and that is not a bad thing, but I would also suggest getting the Nuke PLE and all the free tut’s just to see how it works.
Remember, it’s all about the principles. If you understand the principles of compositing, then you can quickly apply them across different apps. We are lucky in that compositing concepts transfer relatively painlessly across apps, as opposed to 3D where you often face very different ways of doing the most basic things.
‘Til next time.
Matt
