software like Shake but for windows??

#1

Hi All, Ive followed a few threads about the fact that Shake is only for Apple and Linux. Im not planning on changing from XP to Linux or Mac for that matter but want to find out what sort of software is out there that will do the same thing as Shake.

Anyone got any ideas for me? I saw this software called Pro Lab (sorry I think ythat was its name!) it was only £89 I knbow you generally get what you pay for so I just thought I would ask for advice.

Any thelp will be much appreciated… Dam I wish I could afford Mac!!

#2

Fusion (www.eyeonline.com) and Nuke (www.thefoundry.co.uk) is node-based; Like shake.

-the0

#3

Thanks for the links, im just sorting through a few things at the moment but just wanted to say thank you for your help in advance. I will have a good look at them in a mo. Merry xmas!! :slight_smile:

#4

Well considering Shake is $499 on the mac, by the time you bought Fusion or Nuke you would have payed for a mac.

#5

Also Toxik from Autodesk:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5561949&siteID=123112

Toxik and Nuke are US$3,500 and Digital Fusion is US$5,000. So as RiKToR mentioned you can buy a mac and Shake and still have a bunch of money left over.

#6

If your are looking for good value, Blender is free and has a compositor. I use it often.

#7

I’ve been using Nuke for a few months now and i love it

#8

Not to hijack this thread, but I’m having thoughts of buying a mac just to use Shake, as it would be cheaper than buying one of the high end compositors. However, what does come out to roughly the same price is a copy of Combustion - i.e. Mac mini + Shake ~ Combustion ~ £850. What are people’s opinions on Shake and Combustion?

#9

Firstly I couldn’t vouch for the GPU in the mac mini, I have never used an internal GPU for compositing or 3D.

I am now moving away from combustion in favour of Nuke (very much like shake).

Combustion is a 2D compositor, whilst it has some nice features like the discreet keyer it’s way of working in layers AND the outdated schematic view is rather sluggish.

If you are new to compositing Shake is an excellent start, I wish I had started with node based compositing a few years ago rather than Combustion. Working with nodes instantly gives you a better udnerstanding of the maths that goes into colour.

#10

That’s the thing. My grounding is in nodes having used Fusion a fair bit and I get frustrated by the layered workflow. I’m just starting up on my own and hence need the compositor, but cannot afford the £2.5k for fusion, so my choices are limited to AE (not a chance), Combustion, Shake + Mac to run it.
Someone on anonther forum pointed me towards Vision by Eyeon…which is interesting. It’s only a 16 bit engine, but if I do any film work, that should pay for the upgrade.
http://www.eyeonline.com/Web/EyeonWeb/Products/vision/vision.aspx

What do you think?

#11

I think Shake would be fine. If you are use to Fusion you should have no problem using it. Just forget Combustion all together. You are also open to use Nuke on a mac.

#12

It really depends the type of work your doing. More paint work like rig/wire removal is more Combustion’s forte. Personally I use Shake and Silhouette for that type of work, but that’s because I have the Furnace plugins which is another US$4k. Now for straight on compositing, just skip Combustion.

#13

No options on Vision? I really like to the look of Shake, but it’ll require the purchase of a machine is all :slight_smile:

#14

oh well if you have to get a new machine to use shake you may as well look at the windows and linux options again like Nuke, Fusion, Houdini etc.

Umm I would get a demo or trial license of vision first, email or phone a sales rep too, see what they say.

#15

I emailed eyeon and had some dialog. I asked about a trial version of Vision, but have gotten no reply…
I’d love to be able to afford Fusion straight away, but it’s just not an option at the moment as it’s just plain too expensive.

#16

Hey there, I don’t know if it’s too late or not, but… I use shake 2.5 for Windows, it works like it should (perfect), does anything later versions do - with the exeption of 2 1/2D in v.4 -, and is faster than a greased bat (I think greased bats are fast).

#17

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

#18

Have you actually used v4? 2.5 quicktime support is all broken with anything above qt v6.5, the trackers are buggy as hell(matchmove+tracker crash all the time), quickpaint is extremely buggy. I wouldn’t touch rotoshape with a 10 foot stick(quickshape oy veh!). Graph editor is worthless. No filmgrain, no warper, no morpher, no photoshop transfer modes, no optical flow, keylight+primatte only work in 16 bit, no pixel analyzer node, no truelight support. Should I go on?

#19 
  Yes I have used v.4, and you're right! It's way cool! But, I have had great success in v2.5 with tracking (though crashes can occur), as well as quickpaint, but not too many probs.  It's still an amazing piece of software.
  here is an older 2.5 script screenshot, messy, but it worked 'cause that's what the client wanted. -- [HERE](http://www.calebmerrick.com/Caleb/pics/synergicsScript.jpg)
  [img]http://www.livefromphoenix.com/synergicsScript.jpg[/img] 
   [img]http://www.livefromphoenix.com/synergicsScript.jpg[/img]
#20

Hi again all,
I’ve decided to get a seperate imac and a copy of Shake. I used it a little while back and it felt very comfortable and seemed to be able to do anything I wanted and appeared to be exceptionally versatile. I can also get Final Cut Studio now too :smiley: