flame vs shake

[Hugh]

Now I don't use either of these professionally, but here's my take on things....

Flame is a very fast hard-ware based system. It will give you almost instant results, which is great if you've got a client sitting behind you who is paying by the hour.

Shake is a lot cheaper, so if you have more artists and need more shots done, then it might be the better bet.


Both systems are used extensively for features (well, maybe Inferno, Flame's big brother is used more than Flame itself...), though.

You might want to ask over at VFXTalk.com (http://www.vfxtalk.com) - it's dedicated to compositing, and we have a number of professionals who frequent the board (including one who has just finished working on a number of shots for Matris Revolutions)

[moovieboy]

Originally posted by storaro
...what will be the best tool to work on for a full 3d ficher film...

That's too general a question and it's one of the problems with asking "which is better?"

It's wiser to focus on what each feature film (or company that wants to composite for feature films) wants and needs and can afford.

Both will easily do the job, but there are many additonal issues. Like Hugh said, Flame will give you a real-time advantage but it better since it costs well over $100,000 compared to Shake's $5,000 mac/$10,000 linux licenses...

There are issues of infastructure, pipeline workflow, formats, storage, etc...

Are you just wondering in general in case you someday want to film a feature needing compositing work? Even from that aspect, sitting in a suite with a flame artist (I think) still runs you $120.00/hour and my guess if shake could be had for less...

-Tom

[Hugh]

His question could be to do with the fact that he wants to someday work on features, and wants to know which tool to focus on learning at this stage....

In which case, I don't know - I get the impression that they are both used for different kinds of compositing - if you're looking at commercials/promos as well, then there's probably a lot more work on the Flame front (but then again, I could be talking rubbish here... I don't work in the industry myself...)

[storaro]

thnx for the coment's:)
my task now is to find the best tool for the up coming project thats i am working on:
its a full length movie (3d rendered in maya) at hd (1920x1080).
i am talking about 3 work stations with composit soft on them.
let's say :what would be you'r recomandation for the compositores to work on?
will you go for the flame for shure,or consider a diferent packeg
regarding the fact that mony is an issue over here.
thnx
storaro.:beer:

[arvid]

flame probably wont play anything that big in realtime, so there's no huge realtime-benefit, the best for such a project must be a mixture of several systems and/or apps. flame is easily 20-30 times more expensive, and that probably to makes a difference. Shakes biggest advantage is its bit depth which you may or may not have any use for if it's 100% CG we're talking about. Perhaps you should find out what your needs are before you decide. :)

[Aruna]

storaro:
The new flame on octane2 will play HD in
realtime (1920x1080) at 30fps or 24fps, whichever you prefer. It's quite beautiful. :)

If money is an issue, I would not go with flame since it will be tough trying to pay back the loan that you bought them with if you have no extra income after your project. Most inferno/flame artists are very technically and creatively skilled, so you will be paying a bit more for their talent. (Not saying anyone just working on shake isn't as talented either!)

This is an "apples to oranges" comparison, so to speak. They both excel in compositing, but the needs and requirements of the production and pipeline should dictate what package you should go with.

Your mention of money is an issue 'over here' doesn't help much, since we don't know where over here is!

If you really want to see for yourself, call up your local shake and discreet distributor, and arrange for a demo. Tell them what you want to do, and see how they 'sell' the package to you. As just opinions on a message board, I do hope we don't have the final say in what you choose in production!

moovieboy:
Sitting in a flame suite is a bit more than 120 an hour. :) Try doubling or tripling that rate.

Hugh:
Good to see ya here. :) I'm talk to ya back at vfxtalk.

opacity:
Nice to see ya here too. :)

[Hugh]

Originally posted by Aruna
Hugh:
Good to see ya here. :) I'm talk to ya back at vfxtalk.

Hehe - hope you didn't mind me referencing you in my little plug earlier! ;) Being able to chuck big names around is useful when trying to plug the site!

[arvid]

Originally posted by Aruna
storaro:
The new flame on octane2 will play HD in
realtime (1920x1080) at 30fps or 24fps, whichever you prefer. It's quite beautiful. :)
ah, sweet!

opacity:
Nice to see ya here too. :) Dito! :beer:

[Phred42]

Not much to add, but I feel I should mention that flame (here in Chicago, at least) is even more than Aruna mentioned per hour...anywhere from $500/hr to over $1000/hr for inferno work. Crazy!

[moovieboy]

Originally posted by Aruna
moovieboy:
Sitting in a flame suite is a bit more than 120 an hour. :) Try doubling or tripling that rate.[/B]

Yeah, I was going with the lowest rates I've seen from a couple small companies for suite rentals. There's so much sticker shock value when people first look into Flame* & Inferno* when they're used to price ranges of Maya/Lightwave or Shake/Combustion!

I watch the same thing happen when editors start looking into online Avid solutions and watch the costs soar into six-figures and beyond.

Scary stuff when these post production products can eat your entire budget! :D

-Tom

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.