hahah, i put -1 into the colour correction
node, i must admit it creeped the $#!^ out of me when i couldnt
find invert...
_sam
SAM CUTTRISS
3D
AFICIONADO
![]()
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>:
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]
On Behalf Of Andre DeAngelis
>>Sent: 27-January-2006 16:49
>>To:
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] On Behalf Of Francois Lord
>>Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:19 AM
>>To: 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
>>>
>>>---
>>>Unsubscribe? Mail 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
>>
>>---
>>Unsubscribe? Mail 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
|
