PDA

View Full Version : Which Windows compositing software has the Biggest Future ?


Zaphod1
05-18-2003, 03:17 PM
Well, the thread says it all...
since Shake (for Windows) and cyborg 5d is more or less dead i wonder which of the remaining or future compositing programs will take the lead in your opinion...

Tex3D
05-18-2003, 09:37 PM
Hopefully Discreet won't screw up Combustion. I personally like it, but I have NO faith in Discreet/Autodesk.

My $.02

-Dave

dmeyer
05-18-2003, 10:10 PM
I'd guess combustion and DF will continue to gain share on the wintel side.

Shake's still where the money is at though, IMHO.

arvid
05-18-2003, 11:35 PM
DF is growing... they need to fix the interface a bit and introduce dedicated masking nodes a'la Shake, but it's pretty good these days, especially the Paint. It'll be competing with Combustion and AfterFX in the lower end of the market, I'm not sure what the higher end will look like on windows, to be honest...

bjoern
05-19-2003, 02:51 AM
DF !!!

Its a great combination
of AE and Combustion!!!
And its soooo fast ,except the particals :)


regards
bjoern

Zaphod1
05-19-2003, 03:47 PM
is it digital fusion that you are talking about ?

arvid
05-19-2003, 03:50 PM
Yes

FClub_TDurden
05-19-2003, 10:09 PM
Dont forget the new windows app that will fill Shakes void at high end.... NUKE

I guarantee its faster then shake was on windows too....


http://www.d2software.com/

rebo
05-19-2003, 11:52 PM
it looks like a dog tho, shake is so niiice to work with :D.

arvid
05-20-2003, 09:53 AM
I wont count on Nuke until I get a good chance to try it out, but from what I understand it's very proprietary in nature. Shake is most sertainly kicking its ass. I wonder what the first released version will be like tho...

ages
05-20-2003, 11:52 AM
I moved from combustion 2 to shake, shake was well worth the mac purchase.

X3M
05-21-2003, 04:42 PM
I would put my bet (or maybe a hope) on Combustion. Like Tex3D, said I dont have much faith in Discreet also so it is hard to say. Apple is playing their own game too, trying to pull dirty triks to sell more of their slow hardware so I guess I stay away from any of their products at least for now. To bad that Cyborg is dead, I think that it was the best product out on the market for wintel systems.

arvid
05-22-2003, 09:33 AM
I choose DF over Combustion actually. Unless it's getting real good (fast) in the next version

beaker
05-23-2003, 03:41 AM
for pure compositing shake even on a slow mac is still faster than combustion on a fast pc.

arvid
05-23-2003, 09:59 AM
I bet..

Is it that memory management of combustion that does it? :hmm: it seems to render every node and keep it in ram, so my gig of ram is filled only after a few frames with a midsized compositing tree :annoyed:

FClub_TDurden
05-31-2003, 12:32 AM
As far as NUKE being "proprietary"

Its still compositing....its still a layer over....still a blur.... the only thing somewhat proprietary is its 3D space......but after all.... how many apps have true 3D space like NUKE

NUKE is alot faster then SHAKE....so its your call to decide between prettier interface or speed

also.... DDsoftware just lowered the price of NUKE4 to $5K !!

beaker
05-31-2003, 01:07 AM
>>NUKE is alot faster then SHAKE....so its your call to decide between prettier interface or speed

I love eating my food with boxing gloves and a pickle fork :)

>>also.... DDsoftware just lowered the price of NUKE4 to $5K !!

round up $5 to 6k, not 5k :) :) :)

Shuddup BiOtch! :)

FClub_TDurden
06-02-2003, 08:17 PM
Man all I got to say about that is ....

Emergency breakthru from the operator......Samson ......momma called....


Shut Up Bitch!:thumbsup:

StefanA
06-05-2003, 08:13 AM
well, in the world of post-production I also see more and more people abandoning the Windows platform for Linux. I have no or little faith in Microsoft for making an decent OS. Tha battle will be faught in Linux/OSX :)

But... to stay on topic.

After Effects is comming out with a new v6 soon. We shouldn't forget that there are plenty of AE users out there doing gizillionz of broadcast effects. Great sets of plugins and a familiar interface (but renders too slow)

Combustion has the problem of being a product of the "New Media" division at Discreet (aka same division that makes max). And there is so secret that they have huge problems. And it's far too unstable to be in production.

Digital Fusion is lurking in the background and are gaining more and more users every month.

Shake is dead on windows (go f**k yourselfs apple)

5DCyborg dead (will toxic be the next killer app??)

Rayz will die....

So the verdict will be... Digital Fusion.

But I for one is leaving the MS platform and hope I will never return.

best regards

stefan andersson

Billy_the_Kid
06-05-2003, 05:17 PM
Hi StepfanA,

I should agree whith you about people abandoning the Windows platform for Linux.....

But we have more alternatives. At Topic "Jaleo", in this forum, chicolima give us some informations about Piranha:

http://www.ifx.com/pages/press/2002/prNAB2K2.html

and CoolBlueMan introduced us Mistika, but it runs on SGI machines....

http://www.sgo.es

Best regards,

carloseduardo

StefanA
06-05-2003, 05:32 PM
But jaleo isn't running on Windows, that's why I didn't mention it.

best regards

.stefan

beaker
06-05-2003, 08:50 PM
>>Rayz will die....

Rayz has been dead for a while(over a year).


>>5DCyborg dead (will toxic be the next killer app??)

Toxic has been dead for a while too. Anyways it was a hardware compositor, so I doubt it would be a killer app at 100-200k.

chicolima
06-05-2003, 10:44 PM
hi guys,

What tools do you guys think a compositing/effects system needs to have in order for it to be the Killer App??

Just curious to hear your opinion.....

Regards,

Francisco

Billy_the_Kid
06-06-2003, 08:23 PM
Hi Chico,

I think that we should separate movie apps of video/broadcast apps. I have no experience with films, i just can talk about broadcast softwares. I believe that the Killer app needs join agility and interactivity. This way:

1. Compositing and editing tools in the same software (as Avid Digital Studio)
2. A way to create our own effects through scripts (as Shake) or even accept a lot of plugins (as After Effects)
3. A good integration with a 3D software (as Combustion and 3DsMAX)
4. Network rendering,
5. Good price.......

Other comments will be great....

carloseduardo

chicolima
06-09-2003, 08:47 AM
Hi Billy_the_Kid,

Great to hear from you my friend.

I really appreciate your comments.

I hope more people reply to this subject.

I'll do the following: I'll copy your comments create a new thread on this subject.

Regards

dg
06-09-2003, 11:11 PM
Hi all,

- Clustering
- Multi processor support
- A Good tracker
- Scripting
- Network Rendering
- An awesome built-in keyer (Chroma, Luma etc..)
- Node view that works
- Good timeline
- Good integration with audio
- Quick preview
- Quick render times
- Speeeed!
- Some editing capabilities
- 3D Compositing
-------------------------------------------------------

DF rox a lot, he just needs a multi layer :surprised node, some inteface finishing, some touches in audio file support.

:bowdown: Cyborg needs to reborn! :bowdown:

Mattoo
06-10-2003, 01:54 AM
Whatever happened to Commotion?

I bought version 3 a few years back and have used it on and off when necessary and I was looking to upgrade to version 4. But I'm thinking I might aswell move over to DF as I just don't hear anything about further development of Commotion.

I remember when I bought it "people in the know" were saying it was the new messiah on the block... but now what?

Anyone got any background on this? Should I stick with the upgrade or move onto bigger and better things?

RudeYuut
07-18-2003, 04:59 AM
What!! DF doesn't have a multi layer node like shake. Does DF have something equvalent to it?

X3M
07-18-2003, 04:18 PM
There is a new player in the block, Quantel QEffects. It runs on PC and it is to their high-end systems like combustion to IFF.

dg
08-12-2003, 02:43 PM
Yeah Quantel Systems seems nice and expensive :D

opacity man you've said it all combustion is a ram eater, you have to flush it a lot, or he flushes you :)

jesta78 yep, in DF for each 2 layers you must have a merge node, or maybe I'm just to damn stupid and after all this time I didn't found the litlle magic node :)

See ya! 8)

taffy77
08-18-2003, 07:25 AM
Okay I would say to switch OS and go shake. Linux and Shake is an excellent combination. Its great being able to use the Unix style commands in a comp pipeline.

I was never an Apple lover but thus far they haven't done a bad job with shake. Shake 3 is starting to come together with some of the new features, although they still have some work to do on things like the curve editor.

Have looked at nuke and at the moment did not find it on par with shake, yes it has some nice features but overall it is not proven outside of DD. But look forward to seeing it in the future and what they come up with.

As for Cyborg that was a hardware solution anyway.

X3M
08-18-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by taffy77
As for Cyborg that was a hardware solution anyway.

Are you sure on this one? I had seen a manual for it with recomended hardware. Nothing propritory, it was regular Dual Xeon with Wildcat in it. That is why Discreet was shaking thair pants... :)

beaker
08-18-2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by X3M
Are you sure on this one? I had seen a manual for it with recomended hardware. Nothing propritory, it was regular Dual Xeon with Wildcat in it. That is why Discreet was shaking thair pants... :)
He is probably refering to the turnkey system they offered for it with a HDBoxx.

SalaTar
08-19-2003, 01:30 AM
I like combustion short itís SLOW. Painfully SLOW
DF is on my list (come on nix support we need to be free from the tyrannical MS)
:buttrock:

truedreamzz
09-01-2003, 07:20 AM
DF is pretty strong these days. It will rule Wintel. It's recenlty ported to Linux too. I don't know why is it not famous like shake. Combustion is good at paint.

My vote for DF for film :thumbsup:

beaker
09-01-2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by truedreamzz
I don't know why is it not famous like shake. Combustion is good at paint.
Thats because it was never scriptable untill version 4.0(I think they also had it for v3 if you were on support). Which is a big thing in film. Also it is much slower than shake, especially when it comes to rendering.

Mauritius
09-11-2003, 03:47 AM
Thats because it was never scriptable untill version 4.0(I think they also had it for v3 if you were on support). Which is a big thing in film. Also it is much slower than shake, especially when it comes to rendering.
Yeah, and I can add that their scripting docs plain suck. They have huge gaps.

Additionally, the level of scriptability is not near to Shake.
I was contracted by a shop here, to write them some DF scripts for their pipeline. After two months of trying to get the needed infos from Eyeon, I gave up (it took almost three weeks to get anyone to reply to my first question at all!).
Don't get me wrong -- I'm a seasoned coder and TD, but this was like running against a wall again and again, as much as I tried, w/o docs I got nowhere.
I've never undergone something like that. Even worse, the LUA scripting engine doesn't run in a sandbox -- crashing the main app is very easy which makes developing scripts by trial and error (as I had to) even less funny.
Last but not least one of my script crashed DF one time and another it didn't -- but when run the same comp (read, there's likely a memory leak somewhere).
I do belive though that the reason for the limited quality of the scripting and it's support is plain a lack of personnel at eyeon (maybe even one person would do). The problem is that the current user base of DF is not one that requires or relies on scripting to get their job done. Hence employing someone to fill this position at eyone is not justified currently, but on the other hand, the user base might not increase to people who depend on scripting, for exactly that reason ...

Anyway, after that experience I would seriously discourage anyone to use DF for comp work, who is relying on writing scripted extensions for stuff not covered by that app. The amount of time needed to write scripts for DF that go beyond simple batch jobs or building some networks automatically is simply incalculable at this time.

I do like DF a lot though. There are only three things that need to be buffed up/added imho to make this my favorite comp app:

- Scriptability (control over pixels, no just nodes) and Scripting Docs
- Mask Nodes
- 3D Compositing


Cheers,

.mm

Amyd
09-11-2003, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by beaker
Thats because it was never scriptable untill version 4.0(I think they also had it for v3 if you were on support). Which is a big thing in film. Also it is much slower than shake, especially when it comes to rendering.

Beaker, you make that false claim yet again. I invited you already to make a cross-platform benchmark to support your claims. Think up what you consider a common flow in Shake and I am sure we will find a way to duplicate it in Fusion. Then we render it, and we see what about "much slower".

Mauritius, did you try to get on the Pigsfly list as well to ask your questions? I do not remember you there, but you should know its a very valuable resource and scripting questions come up regularly - usually with good feedback from the rest of the community.

Cheers,
Andrei

beaker
09-11-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Amyd
Beaker, you make that false claim yet again. I invited you already to make a cross-platform benchmark to support your claims. Think up what you consider a common flow in Shake and I am sure we will find a way to duplicate it in Fusion. Then we render it, and we see what about "much slower".

I use both apps professionally at freelance jobs over the last couple months (4k stuff in DF, Oy Vey), I know what I am talking about. Don't claim that I am posting false claims unless you have proof. Your asking me to produce evidence that Shake is faster than DF to support your claims that I am wrong? Does anyone else see something wrong with this? Especially since you only use DF professionally and not Shake.

Although I do have plans to do something like this, but not just DF vs Shake. :)

When I have the time when I'm not working(which won't be any time soon). Im going to try to setup a scene from a shot I have done in Shake, Nuke, AE, Combustion and DF and give render results (film rez and maybe some 4k work Ive done, none of that ntsc crap:) ). It's going to be hard to gauge because there are going to be picky people who will tear it apart (damn religous software people). Ill submit the scene file to many people who might be more seasoned in some of the apps so they can help me optimize the scripts so they are as fast as possible and post the results. Ill keep you on my list for testing my DF scripts.

Amyd
09-11-2003, 10:46 AM
Thank you, but fact is I use DF everyday, and I used to use Shake in freelancing jobs, up to the point where they moved to Linux/OSX only - when the couple of companies in my region that used it abandoned it (they were Windows-only, maybe that's why Shake was so slow?). So I do have a fair comparison about speed. In my humble oppinion, Digital Fusion ran circles around Shake when it comes to interactive working *and* it rendered faster (though back then I didn't think of doing benchmarks to see exactly by how much), on comparable configurations.

True, Shake has evolved since then, but so has DF (version 4 is by far the fastest I have seen Fusion work), so unless Shake made quantum leaps in-between, the ratio should be the same. Of course, that is in my oppinion, as I said - the same oppinion that says your claims are false. It's basically just talk, until we make those benchmarks which I invited you repeatedly to make... ;)

And again, it's really not that hard to setup that scene, we don't need to make an exhaustive comparison between the two. I am sure that if Shake is that "much faster" than DF, it will show with a mere 2k regular flow with day to day compositing steps, n'est pas? A bit of b/c, a bit of masking, a bit blurring/sharpening & so on & so forth, and I am sure we can get a flow that renders slow enough to make the timings reliable as an overall benchmark. However, if you insist in doing it entirely by yourself, if I may suggest something, try to avoid using tools that are proprietary (like the third-party keyers in Shake) - they are very difficult to compare.

Cheers,
Andrei

taffy77
09-11-2003, 10:50 AM
I am with beaker. I still find shake overall faster than DF. We are doing some complex stuff here and nothing really competes.

Matt

Weta Digital Comp Dungeon

Amyd
09-11-2003, 10:53 AM
Out of curiosity, did you test-drive DF 4 at Weta? Does it have a place somewhere in the workflow or everything is done better/faster by Shake?

Just so that I am not completely negative, I'll list here a few of the things that *I* think make DF a great choice:

- very flexible pricing structure (if you need to equip roto-stations, you can just get DFX+modules, and upgrade later), including decent render node pricing (Shake imho has a worse deal here, unless you are using OS/X);

- very good plugin support, by virtue of both the AE plugin adapter, and the ever growing range of native plugins. By the by, here you can easily add true 3D workspace support to DF, with only ~$800 (Gaia3D), including object import, primitive creation, texturing & so on and so forth (to my knowledge a similar plugin for Shake is not available);

- a stronger set of tools for motion graphics design, not only for compositing. I am of course reffering here to the wonderful Text+ tool and the 3D Particle System. The last I remember of Shake, in this direction without third-party plugins you didn't have the same flexibility;

- (I forgot this one the first time - shame on me :blush: ) great interactive workflow tools, like the adaptative RAM caching of tools, background rendering spread over free CPU cycles and network slaves which really makes tweaking complex flows a pleasure (if you have the hardware & network infrastructure in place, of course). Here I am not sure Shake offers something approaching this level of sofistication - am I wrong?

- great video preview support, with the widest range of hardware directly supported (of the compositing software I know). Shake has caught up here on the OS/X platform, but the compatible solutions are still limited (2 atm, if I am not mistaken?). This is perhaps not an issue for people that work exclusivly with film material, but for us that still have to do video and HD jobs, it's very useful;

- great technical support from eyeon&co, including very quick response times and bug-fixing, plus very flexible upgrade pricing (for us, going from version 2 regular to version 4, which were 3 major releases, was only around $800 altogether) and great new features thrown in in point upgrades for free (like OpenEXR support - does Shake support that btw. already as a I/O format? I couldn't find an official statement from Apple about that...);

Some of the points where they could work still:

- mask nodes, even though I don't see much use for them, but it's the one requirement that comes from users migrating to DF, so I guess it doesn't hurt to have it;

- multiple input nodes. Not a deal breaker imho - but I got accustomed to working like it is today - but it sure would be nice to have them in certain cases;

- scripting with better documentation. Here, I have to say, we don't use the scripts for more than automating tasks and managing files & common operations. Probably in Shake it is different, but for pixel-based algorithms we always went with the SDK to develop the custom plugins, because we felt any high-level interpreted language would be too big of a compromise in terms of speed;

Cheers,
Andrei

P.S.: I still want the benchmarks... :applause:

beaker
09-11-2003, 12:37 PM
I'm still using shake 2.5 on windows at one job and I still find it faster than DF 4. On top of that Shake runs much faster on linux than windows. I work with two other guys that just loathe DF because of it's speed and other "issues".

P.P.S.: Does Shake support already I/O to OpenEXR? I tried to find something online, but I didn't manage to see any definite announcements from Apple.

No shake doesn't support OpenEXR yet. We really need a few more 3d applications to start adapting it before it will be more usefull.

Amyd
09-11-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by beaker
I'm still using shake 2.5 on windows at one job and I still find it faster than DF 4. On top of that Shake runs much faster on linux than windows. I work with two other guys that just loathe DF because of it's speed and other "issues".

OK, so let's wait for the benchmarks. I guess my impression of Shake comes from using the Windows version.

No shake doesn't support OpenEXR yet. We really need a few more 3d applications to start adapting it before it will be more usefull.

That's definately a pity. We already found uses for it here even in compositing-only applications for moving material around while keeping float quality, in intermediate steps.

I am sure it's trivial for Apple to implement it though, so it will come soon, no doubt.

Cheers,
Andrei

Flywaver
09-11-2003, 03:01 PM
Speaking of OpenEXR, how does it work with DF? Can we see some samples from within DF? Is it very different than the RPF format?

Too bad shake is mac only...I heard so much about it and when I wanted to give it a try it was too late! :thumbsdow

Cheers!

Amyd
09-11-2003, 04:22 PM
It's just another Loader/Saver node, like for the other formats. You can see a screenshot of the parameters on the eyeon site here (http://www.eyeonline.com/products/plugins/openexr/plugin_openexr.html).

Shake is also available on Linux&Irix, so you still have your chance to try it. Does Apple still offer downloadable timerestricted demos like Nothing Real used to?

Cheerfs,
Andrei

Mauritius
09-11-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Amyd
Mauritius, did you try to get on the Pigsfly list as well to ask your questions? I do not remember you there, but you should know its a very valuable resource and scripting questions come up regularly - usually with good feedback from the rest of the community.
Actually, Pigsfly was where I postet first. No one replied to that post ever.
I sent copies of that initial post to several lists, groups and forums, also to CGTalk.
Isaac Guenard, eyeon's Product Manager, answered me kindly. That took four days (as Isaac had been away -- nothing uncommon for a PM). Four days is too long btw., had I needed the answer for solving a problem on an actual production, like a commercial e.g. In this case it didn't matter that much though -- at first.

However, Isaac was very kind and he did solve some of my simpler problems. But then, he literally disappeared for one month (to visit customers, I found out later, which is a natural thing to do for a PM) and there was no feedback from anyone else at eyeon regarding my questions; even though I had resend my questions to another email adress they gave to me -- after persistent bugging --, and which was supposed to be connected to a person doing scripting support.
You can also imagine that my customer got quite a bit nervous.
After Isaac got back, he answered another few of my questions, but I still don't have gotten an answer to some more complex ones, regarding e.g. access to splines etc. via scripting.
After two months of no real success I plain gave up.
As I said, for me the reason all this happened is a plain lack of personnel. The scripting docs still have some "tbd" entries now, even though DF 4 has been out since a year almost.

Isaac would for sure be able to help me, but having worked as a Product Manager for a high-end digital imaging app myself in the past, I know it is absolutely impossible to fill this position and at the same time do support for customers.
It is impossible to write a script, if a tiny problem blocking you, takes a week to be answered by support. Anyone who ever used a tool with limited docs knows how frustrating this "trial and error" method is and how dependent one is of the people who created the tool to fill the gaps in the docs.

I'm not bashing eyeon, or beware -- Isaac -- here. It's just that their level of scripting support -- both passive (through the docs) and active (through email etc.) -- could be improved a lot and must be imroved to make scripting really useful in DF.

And as I said: there are too few people using DF script currently -- there's no board or community like e.g. highend2d for Shake, where you can exchange knowledge and scripts, simply because there are neither enough people scripting DF nor are the DF scripting capabilities as powerful as e.g. Shake's.

Cheers,

.mm

Flywaver
09-11-2003, 04:30 PM
Amyd, Thanks! :thumbsup:

Mauritius, sorry to hear...had a DFX+ bug and was answered within 5 minutes! Also, I got blown away by a DF demo by Isaac at the NewTek Siggraph party...and he had a few beers, that's the worst part! :beer:

I do business with lots of software companies and they all get to a point where they vanish for a few days and I can totally understand that...and yes, for a paid customer it can be very frustrating! :eek:

As for the lack of DF scripts exchange/discussion maybe we should do something? I didn't even have a look at it yet, it scares the heck out of me! :hmm:

Cheers!

Amyd
09-11-2003, 11:40 PM
Mauritius, I still cannot find your original message in my DFList archives (strike that, I found it after a while - tho' under a slightly different name. However, based on what I am looking at, you got quite a lot of feedback, especially with your later issues about absolute vs. relative coordinates, not only from Isaac, but from other guys at eyeon, that went quite in-depth to demonstrate why&how they approached the problem...), but anyway, your story is definately not a good mark on eyeon's pedigree, when it comes to support. They should have been more prompt in their answers. I am actually amazed that if Isaac wasn't there, Daniel or Stuart didn't jump to help you instead, but...

I, like Flywaver, got very fast (less than a day, mostly) helpful feedback from eyeon and they rank very high in our "best support company" list based on that. However, most of the issues were just bug solving/reporting and licensing problems, nothing as major and in-depth as your problems seemed to be. If I may ask, what was the gist of your problems that were left unsolved in the end?

And it's true, the updating of documentation has been slow - I wonder what eyeon is up to, after all Digital Fusion 4 is already a year old (and only very slightly revised & patched), they must have something up their sleeves. It seems though nothing that will be shown at this IBC (except all these new plugin announcements)... pity.

They did have their hands full with the Linux port and all the new DFX+ users coming from the sales of VelocityQ systems, opening new offices abroad & so on & so forth. I guess it is hard to make the transition from a smallish company to more of a global player.

Cheers,
Andrei

SalaTar
09-11-2003, 11:43 PM
the future of WINDOWS composite is the title I dont care about Shake its a MAC thing now

This got off topic a bit


ohhh shake is better than DF
OK go back to your mac.

beaker
09-12-2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by SalaTar
the future of WINDOWS composite is the title I dont care about Shake its a MAC thing now

This got off topic a bit


ohhh shake is better than DF
OK go back to your mac.
Saltar: we don't need smart ass remarks like that. Your post is a big Troll and it only lead to stupid playschool fights that you seem to want to start. You've been warned.

Ckerr812
09-12-2003, 01:40 AM
Speaking of shake....were is the shake forum?

I'll be an active participant if there is one?

SalaTar
09-12-2003, 01:56 AM
beaker,
I think the shit was flowing before my smart ass remark.
I also saw you as one of the problems.
Do you ever have anything positive to say or are you against everyone? Maybe I need to reread the whole thread and see if I misunderstood you, But I donít think I misread it really...

Have a good one

btw
Shuddup BiOtch!

Azod
09-12-2003, 02:20 AM
I remember your thread Mauritius, and I remember Isaac dealing with your scripting questions. The first thing I would like to point out in our defence is that we offer free tech support, not an excuse, just a window into our world. No maintenance feeís for any of our product support. That translates into a lot of tech support and I know for a fact our team works around the clock trying to answer as many questions as possible as quickly as possible, and they take great pride in what they do.

Scripting is more difficult because of the nature of the beast. Because there are issues that are not DF related or at least directly related to our product, such as pipeline issues or other hardware concerns, (keep in mind I am no expert) it can be difficult to consult scripting questions over the phone or via email.

Second, there is a scripting specific DF forum on Yahoo groups - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dfscript/ This forum was launched on our website and announced to the Pigsfly group and has 65 members. Your best chance other than direct contact to a tech support representative would be post on the scripting forum.

I do agree that you should have a quick answer, especially if you have deadlines, and I will bring up this issue at a future support meetings.

All I can say is we will continue to do our best to support every and all concerns as quickly as possible, and you are being heard regardless of where you post your concerns.

Kind Regards,

Adam

Mauritius
09-12-2003, 02:57 AM
Hey, Adam, thanks for stepping in -- no need for any defence. I know you guys care. ;)

I know what size your company is and that providing free tech support is not at all self-evident.
I didn't know about the yahoo group as I haven't payed that much attention to pigsfly over the course of the last months. I'm not sure when I'll find the time to look at this scripting problem again, but I'll definitely will show up on this group sooner or later -- thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Moritz

gmask
09-12-2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Zaphod1
Well, the thread says it all...
since Shake (for Windows) and cyborg 5d is more or less dead i wonder which of the remaining or future compositing programs will take the lead in your opinion...

AE will only get better. IMO it is the best all around compositing and animation program but it may lack the horsepower in some areas that hardcore effects compositors need.

beaker
09-12-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by SalaTar
beaker,
I think the shit was flowing before my smart ass remark.
I also saw you as one of the problems.
Do you ever have anything positive to say or are you against everyone? Maybe I need to reread the whole thread and see if I misunderstood you, But I donít think I misread it really...

Have a good one

btw
Shuddup BiOtch!
Dude, FightClub_TylerDurgan is my old college roomate and a good friend of mine, it was an inside joke. Thats why there were :) :) :) after it. Please take this into a private conversation if you want to be rude.

NueFoX
09-22-2003, 02:19 PM
I think that AE has no future, and Shake is dead for Windows. Combustion and Fusion will lead the way. If you ask which one, i shall answer Combustion is the software to go because discreet is getting bigger everyday...

Mauritius
09-22-2003, 02:43 PM
AE has no future? Lol! AE has the biggest installed base of all comp apps. Mind you that it is not only used for comp work, but also for motion graphics and that's not only a much bigger market than comp, it's also where most competition falls way short in terms of third party plug-ins.

.mm

gmask
09-22-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Mauritius
AE has no future? Lol! AE has the biggest installed base of all comp apps. Mind you that it is not only used for comp work, but also for motion graphics and that's not only a much bigger market than comp, it's also where most competition falls way short in terms of third party plug-ins.

.mm

Yes and it is gaining ground in film as well.

Mauritius
09-22-2003, 07:13 PM
Yes and it is gaining ground in film as well.

No intend to start a flame here, but seriously: I doubt that. Can you please show me any numbers to back up that statement.

The plain reason is that it is absolutely impossible to work with footage of, say 2k, and a few layers in AE. Advancing one frame will take up to 30 seconds on a simple comp on my 2.4 Gz Athlon with 1.5 GB RAM. I tried it on a recent project where the color correction for some footage was delivered as an AE project. As the comp was rather simple (about 20 leayers with only a bit nesting), I thought I give it a try and work from there. But after a few hours, I gave up and quickly rebuild the project in Shake. I think that anyone who tries to undertake a serious film rez comp project in AE must be nuts or enjoy picking their noses forever while waiting for the next frame to show up ... ;)

Unless it's motion graphics for film, you're talking about, (titles, credits etc.). AE is used for this and still may gain ground there as well.

.mm

Amyd
09-22-2003, 07:26 PM
Good thing you edited your post, Mauritius, I was just going to bring that up.

While I wouldn't want to use After Effects for day to day compositing chores (i.e. keying, roto, multi-layer, 3D elements integration, etc.) at film res, I have used it quite often for motion graphics for film work (main titles and commercials), and it was just fine. Granted, from time to time I had to work at proxy res, but there is simply not much out there to equal AE in this respect. I wouldn't want to do this kind of project in Shake, I wouldn't know where to begin... :eek:

However, as for AE remaining market leader, let's not forget the core market of motion graphic design is pretty much still based on Apple platforms, and we have all seen how aggresively Apple is promoting their Shake solution there. If they integrate it in FCP and if they bring some form of decent compatibility with plugins... well, let's just say that I already see many people migrating to Shake just because Apple tells them it is better&cooler*. :scream:

Cheers,
Andrei

P.S.: *Usually, 2 days after they got their Shake, they begin asking questions like: "OK, so where is the fancy text generator plugin I had in my AE6?".

gmask
09-22-2003, 08:06 PM
>>Unless it's motion graphics for film, you're talking about, (titles, credits etc.). AE is used for this and still may gain ground there as well.

Well that may be mroe the case but I do knwo of several studios that do effects and comping for film and they use AE but that is hardly their niche market and that is why they are successful and will be around forever.

dfusion
09-23-2003, 09:14 AM
Where does Combustion fit in all of this? It's still not as mature (expressions are just now being released in v3 later this year) but what it does, it does well. Mostly.

The question(s) I've been throwing out there is:


1. If my ambition is to go high-end such as Inferno/Flame, but I'm still "just starting out" (and c* is the only discreet compositing product I can afford) wouldn't it make sense for me to learn and use combustion as much as possible? Following some experience with combustion it would sort of be a stepping stone towards discreet's high end tools? Knowing combustion and being active in the c* community would help me network and get to know other discreet artists using Inferno/Flame/Smoke. Just a thought..


2) What are the real advantages of NOT going high-end (besides from a hardware cost perspective) and working with Desktop Compositing tools such as Digital Fusion?


Bottom line is I'd take either freelance/project based or full time work. I do not know if just because guys are working on $100,000 discreet systems, that means they are any better off than the next guy doing Digital Fusion compositing for comapny XYZ's feature film.

Is the "high end" of desktop compositing just as accomplished as the "high end" of reall-time effects editing?

Now for just a sec let me put the real-time aside. Combustion and 3ds max make a nice team. I really don't hear of too many people jumping on c* but it's mostly DF and Shake. Of course some AE and I'm sure Nuke is going to work its way in over time.

I'd love to hear some feedback. :thumbsup:

Regards,
Mark

andre_alder
09-23-2003, 04:55 PM
hey, just a question......

How many Cyborgs are there around the world?

Jayk2k
09-23-2003, 06:32 PM
The question(s) I've been throwing out there is:

Bottom line is I'd take either freelance/project based or full time work. I do not know if just because guys are working on $100,000 discreet systems, that means they are any better off than the next guy doing Digital Fusion compositing for comapny XYZ's feature film.

Is the "high end" of desktop compositing just as accomplished as the "high end" of reall-time effects editing?

Now for just a sec let me put the real-time aside. Combustion and 3ds max make a nice team. I really don't hear of too many people jumping on c* but it's mostly DF and Shake. Of course some AE and I'm sure Nuke is going to work its way in over time.

I'd love to hear some feedback. :thumbsup:

Regards,
Mark [/B]

Well, i just finished a job in Vancouver on a feature film, and I can say that DF is far more cost effective for most studios in film.

Part of the problem with having a flame for doing long term projects is that the cost is too high, and you have paid for something that you are not using. A flame also has a lot of extras with it, like HD or Betacam Decks, etc. So unless you are contantly moving footage in and out, you're paying for a machine to just sit there.

DF or C* or Shake on the otherhand, are software only, so you take what machines will fit in the pipeline, and toss as many compositors at them as possible. This makes things a lot more efficient in film. (scanning, storage on a mass drive, multiple people working on shots, output to film)

Commercials on the other hand, are a different story, as you are doing lots of capture, edit, and effects all in one place, and it's not so much a "back room" type thing. There you will be getting more bang for the buck, generally because the deadlines in commercials are in hours and days, not months.

dfusion
09-29-2003, 03:13 AM
I say bite the bullet and learn Combustion and Digital Fusion.


Combustion = the desktop version of its big brothers for front-room work. It also handles back room tasks very nicely!

Digital Fusion = Sort of a standard at this point for back room work. A lot of people are using it and it's good, solid app.


Currently Combustion and DF are designed for Windows, so you only need one powerful system to work on. You can get a Dell dual CPU system and 21" monitor(s) for around $1500. Cheaper if you build your own. If you use Shake, you're either trapped into expensive Mac hardware which could be devistating if you need to hire 20 compositiors. Or you go Linux and spend $10k per seat instead of $5k (DF) or $1k (c*) per seat.

Also, combustion and DF share many of the same compatabilities with framebuffer hardware such as DPS Velocity, bluefish444, and Video Toaster.

The way I look at is you can have more power, more flexibility, and serve the needs of more clients using c* + DF for the same cost as using Shake.

Also note discreet is taking Linux seriously. They just announced Smoke for Linux/Intel. I'm sure that's a sign for the future.


Regards,
Mark

Mauritius
09-29-2003, 12:24 PM
Currently Combustion and DF are designed for Windows [...]

DF is available for Linux for almost a year now.

.mm

Jayk2k
09-29-2003, 04:17 PM
Actually DF is NOT currently available for linux. It was announced about a year ago, but has yet to be released.

dfusion
09-29-2003, 04:29 PM
Eyeon was gung-ho about releasing DF for Linux then realized it would take a lot more work than they originally thought. We are still waiting to hear a release date. Not sure where you got your info from Mauritius.

dg
09-30-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by andre_alder
hey, just a question......

How many Cyborgs are there around the world?

I've heard something around 60 or 70 Official Cyborgs sold by 5D worldwide, but that isn't official since I never worked for 5D :)


See ya! 8)

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 05:03 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.