|
you should see some of the "flows" here.. they are such a mess, while
thats an artist cleanliness problem. it seems to get illegible very
easy. i am not going to say the node count is greater than or less than
a similar network in shake but in my opinion fusion doesn't scream
minimalist to me...
again i am saying all this without using fusion5...
Francois Lord wrote:
This is a good example of the advantage of the "Shake" way.
Shake uses multiple simple nodes.
Fusion uses few big nodes that do many things.
With fusion, you need less nodes, you spend less time wirering nodes
together.
With Shake, when you look for something, you look that the tab where
it should be, and it's there somewhere. You want to pipe the change
the alpha channel for the red channel? Tab: Color, Node: Reorder. You
want to give a node the matte of another node? Tab: Layer, Node:
Switch Matte.
You get used to one workflow and you want to keep that workflow as
much as you can, no matter which one you begun with. The people at
Discreet discovered that when writing Toxik. They wanted to please
people coming from Shake and people coming from the other Discreet
products (which take the Fusion workflow described earlier to an even
more polarised end). What they did was to provide multiple simple
nodes that could be grouped together in a macro node. Many macro nodes
are provided already. This way, you get both ways in the same software.
I've had so many discussions about that with the Flame artists here.
They've always looked at Shake saying: "There're too many nodes, I
don't like it".
Steven Caron wrote:
cool thanks..
illogcial, no?
guillaume laforge wrote:
>funny thing for the life of me i couldn't
>find an invert node in 4.05 for days, until i found out that the
>compositors were using a plugin i didn't have. to do an invert that
>seemed off...
Clic on the "Bol" button, then choose Operation > Negative
Every new fusion user got this problem ;-)
guillaume
2006/1/27, Steven Caron <scaron(at)omation.com
<mailto:scaron(at)omation.com>>:
in my personal opinion, i found fusion to be illogical...
i haven't used 5.0 we are on 4.05. the timeline bothers me, a lot.
the
way to apply a bitmask bothers me, the viewer controls, and
navigating
the "flow", all seem clunky to me. i have heard the bitmasks are
nodes
now in 5 so thats better, imo. funny thing for the life of me i
couldn't
find an invert node in 4.05 for days, until i found out that the
compositors were using a plugin i didn't have. to do an invert that
seemed off...
kim aldis wrote:
>I'm surprised people aren't finding Fusion easy, I found it
really logical
>and simple.
>
>It's worth pointing out that Fusion 5 will take After Effects
plugins.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM <mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>
>>[mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>] On Behalf Of Andre DeAngelis
>>Sent: 27-January-2006 16:49
>>To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM <mailto:XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>>Subject: RE: OT: Digital Fusion v Shake
>>
>>I think Fusion has actually shown it is more flexible
>>architecturally than shake, especially when you consider the
>>3D implemtation in both applications. Shake is really a 2.5D
>>implementation whereas DF 5 has a pretty comprehensive
>>implementation. Importing fully animated 3D meshes into DF5
>>is very handy, whereas I cannot see this happening any time
>>soon in Shake.
>>
>>I have used both,on and off, since they were released on
Windows. I
>>can't say I find one or the other easier or harder to use,
>>but I find Shake's workflow nicer. Some of the tools seem
>>more refined, but then again, there are missng features.
>>
>>I agree that for the time being, DF is a not a Shake killer,
>>so much as a replacement. Toxic doesn't appear anywhere near
>>ready to compete, andthe development sine v 1.0 was released
>>has been anything but stellar. They really have to rethink
>>the packaging of it to make it a success. Shake was rappidly
>>accepted because it was freely avalable for 30 day trial
>>periods from day 1. Autodesk seem to be adopting the
>>opposite approach, by keeping anyone but big name account at
>>an arms distance. Maybe this is because the product is not a
>>standalone single seat app, and too dependent on a database
>>backbone to be useable.
>>
>>Nuke has some impressive specs, but the UI is just a complete
turnoff.
>>The guys at DD, or people who've worked there and used it,
>>swear by it, but I have not heard any entusiasm about it from
>>anywhere else.
>>
>>A
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM <mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>
>>[mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>] On Behalf Of Francois Lord
>>Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:19 AM
>>To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM <mailto:XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>>Subject: Re: OT: Digital Fusion v Shake
>>
>>Here, we use Shake a lot and we love it. But as Kim said,
>>it's no longer available on windows and because of that, we
>>have to make a choice and switch to another software. We have
>>delayed this switch as long as possible because nothing was
>>as good as Shake. Things have changed recently when Fusion 5
>>got out. We had a private demo and a seminar on it and we
>>were impressed. It has more features than Shake. But it's not
>>as easy to learn. Shake is simple, very very simple.
>>We felt that Fusion is a Shake replacement, not a Shake
>>killer. And because of that, we have chosen to wait a little
>>more. Toxik 2.0 might be good (v1.1 really isn't ready).
>>I remember when Maya got out and we were still stuck on
>>Softimage|3D. We prefered to wait for XSI because we thought
>>Softimage would do something cool for the new generation.
>>When XSI 1.0 got out, it was simply unusable in production.
>>We waited for 1.5, and it was still unusable for medium to
>>big production. Then we thought "Maybe we should switch to
>>Maya". But we waited more. And today... boy am I glad to have
waited.
>>Well I think it's the same thing with Toxik. If v2.0 looks
>>good and promising, you can bet it will rock in two years and
>>I wouldn't want to be stuck with that 15 years old software
>>(don't get me wrong, Fusion is good, but it shows its age).
>>On the other hand, if Toxik becomes too much like its cousins
>>Flint,Flame,Inferno, then we will have been waiting for
>>nothing and wasted time on a old version of Shake on Windows
>>while Fusion got way better.
>>That's our current state of mind.
>>And we're thinking that we should give another look at Nuke.
>>Three years ago it was very good, I suspect it got better.
>>
>>Jonathan Ridge wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi folks.
>>>
>>>Just wondering how Digital Fusion measures up to Shake.
>>>
>>>
>>Having seen
>>
>>
>>>some brief tutorials of Digital Fusion, it seemed pretty
impressive.
>>>Having said that, I've not seen Shake in action yet - I'm
>>>
>>>
>>downloading
>>
>>
>>>a demo to try it out and was hoping someone could shed a
>>>
>>>
>>little light
>>
>>
>>>on the pros and cons of these two compositors.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jonny.
>>>
>>>www.jonny3d.com <http://www.jonny3d.com>
>>>
>>>---
>>>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in
>>>body:
>>>unsubscribe xsi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>---
>>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in
>>body:
>>unsubscribe xsi
>>
>>---
>>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following
>>text in body:
>>unsubscribe xsi
>>
>>
>>
>
>---
>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in body:
>unsubscribe xsi
>
>
>
>
--
Steven Caron
doer of things somewhat technical
scaron(at)omation.com <mailto:scaron(at)omation.com>
949-366-4422 x601
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
<mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body:
unsubscribe xsi
--
Steven Caron
doer of things somewhat technical
scaron(at)omation.com
949-366-4422 x601
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
