i dont know about shake, but one feature of fusion is that it can
remember transformations and apply them only once in the
compositing/branch.
its part of that merge tool, which is being criticized for being
complex. in bigger compositions there is quite some difference in
quality visible.
the group feature sounds like what Greg is describing, though we are
already start out with complex nodes ;)
it lets you group as much tools as you want into ONE group tool. if
you open that one you get a flow in a flow window, which is
transparent. nice way of dealing with these groups. inside this group
window you can zoom, pan, doing whatever you like and still navigate
outside in the bigger composition at the same time. i found that very
helpful. you can save these groups as premade tools and drop them
enywhere else or use them in different projects.
again, i dunno shake, maybe these things are standard there as well...
ciao
franky
Monday, January 30, 2006, 7:17:45 PM, you wrote:
GS> I agree on basic nodes, if you can replicate the functionality of
GS> a big node with that of a simple nodes, you have that flexible
GS> level of abstraction. I have to say though, after getting more
GS> exposure to compositing in general, one of the most interesting
GS> concepts in tree organization came from the most unlikely of
GS> places. When I worked for Disney, we used USAnimation for
GS> compositing, a sub-par compositor for sure, but the way it
GS> orginized its networks was cool. It worked in multiple levels of
GS> networks where in your root tree, a subtree would be represented
GS> as a single node, as you clicked in that node, it would open up
GS> that subtree. Reminds me of how windows explorer works. Granted it
GS> doesn't give you the ghestalt of having every component on one
GS> layer, but if a simple and clean flow is really important. That feature seems pretty nifty!
GS> Just thought I add my nonsensical ADD banter :-p
GS> Greg
GS> ----- Original Message -----
GS> From: kim aldis
GS> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
GS> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 2:25 PM
GS> Subject: RE: OT: Digital Fusion v Shake
GS> it's an interesting analogy. personally I've always argued for
GS> more basic nodes in the rendertree.
GS> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
GS> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of guillaume laforge
GS> Sent: 27-January-2006 20:36
GS> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
GS> Subject: Re: OT: Digital Fusion v Shake
GS> 2006/1/27, guillaume laforge <guillaume.laforge.3d(at)gmail.com>:
GS> >This is a good example of the advantage of the "Shake" way.
GS> >Shake uses multiple simple nodes.
GS> >Fusion uses few big nodes that do many things.
GS> >With fusion, you need less nodes, you spend less time wirering nodes
GS> >together.
GS> Oups my last mail is gone to fast...
GS> So I said, I prefer big ... nodes ! Flows ( fusion trees )
GS> are often huge, I can't imagine how it is in shake :-p
GS> And I use groups very often in fusion ( would be so cool in xsi...).
GS> Now imagine a render tree with only simple nodes ! No more
GS> phong/lambert with tabs for example. It would be a very very big one :-)
GS> My 24 nodes
GS> Cheers
GS> Guillaume
GS> 2006/1/27, Francois Lord <francoislord(at)gmail.com>:
GS> This is a good example of the advantage of the "Shake" way.
GS> Shake uses multiple simple nodes.
GS> Fusion uses few big nodes that do many things.
GS> With fusion, you need less nodes, you spend less time wirering nodes
GS> together.
GS> With Shake, when you look for something, you look that the tab where it
GS> should be, and it's there somewhere. You want to pipe the change the
GS> alpha channel for the red channel? Tab: Color, Node: Reorder. You want
GS> to give a node the matte of another node? Tab: Layer, Node: Switch Matte.
GS> You get used to one workflow and you want to keep that workflow as much
GS> as you can, no matter which one you begun with. The people at Discreet
GS> discovered that when writing Toxik. They wanted to please people coming
GS> from Shake and people coming from the other Discreet products (which
GS> take the Fusion workflow described earlier to an even more polarised
GS> end). What they did was to provide multiple simple nodes that could be
GS> grouped together in a macro node. Many macro nodes are provided already.
GS> This way, you get both ways in the same software.
GS> I've had so many discussions about that with the Flame artists here.
GS> They've always looked at Shake saying: "There're too many nodes, I don't
GS> like it".
GS> Steven Caron wrote:
GS> > cool thanks..
GS> >
GS> > illogcial, no?
GS> >
GS> > guillaume laforge wrote:
GS> >
GS> >> >funny thing for the life of me i couldn't
GS> >> >find an invert node in 4.05 for days, until i found out that the
GS> >> >compositors were using a plugin i didn't have. to do an invert that
GS> >> >seemed off...
GS> >>
GS> >> Clic on the "Bol" button, then choose Operation > Negative
GS> >>
GS> >> Every new fusion user got this problem ;-)
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >> guillaume
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >> 2006/1/27, Steven Caron < scaron(at)omation.com
GS> >> <mailto: scaron(at)omation.com>>:
GS> >>
GS> >> in my personal opinion, i found fusion to be illogical...
GS> >>
GS> >> i haven't used 5.0 we are on 4.05. the timeline bothers me, a lot.
GS> >> the
GS> >> way to apply a bitmask bothers me, the viewer controls, and
GS> >> navigating
GS> >> the "flow", all seem clunky to me. i have heard the bitmasks are
GS> >> nodes
GS> >> now in 5 so thats better, imo. funny thing for the life of me i
GS> >> couldn't
GS> >> find an invert node in 4.05 for days, until i found out that the
GS> >> compositors were using a plugin i didn't have. to do an invert that
GS> >> seemed off...
GS> >>
GS> >> kim aldis wrote:
GS> >>
GS> >> >I'm surprised people aren't finding Fusion easy, I found it
GS> >> really logical
GS> >> >and simple.
GS> >> >
GS> >> >It's worth pointing out that Fusion 5 will take After Effects
GS> >> plugins.
GS> >> >
GS> >> >
GS> >> >
GS> >> >>-----Original Message-----
GS> >> >>From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM <mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>
GS> >> >>[mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
GS> >> <mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>] On Behalf Of Andre DeAngelis
GS> >> >>Sent: 27-January-2006 16:49
GS> >> >>To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM <mailto: XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
GS> >> >>Subject: RE: OT: Digital Fusion v Shake
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>I think Fusion has actually shown it is more flexible
GS> >> >>architecturally than shake, especially when you consider the
GS> >> >>3D implemtation in both applications. Shake is really a 2.5D
GS> >> >>implementation whereas DF 5 has a pretty comprehensive
GS> >> >>implementation. Importing fully animated 3D meshes into DF5
GS> >> >>is very handy, whereas I cannot see this happening any time
GS> >> >>soon in Shake.
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>I have used both,on and off, since they were released on
GS> >> Windows. I
GS> >> >>can't say I find one or the other easier or harder to use,
GS> >> >>but I find Shake's workflow nicer. Some of the tools seem
GS> >> >>more refined, but then again, there are missng features.
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>I agree that for the time being, DF is a not a Shake killer,
GS> >> >>so much as a replacement. Toxic doesn't appear anywhere near
GS> >> >>ready to compete, andthe development sine v 1.0 was released
GS> >> >>has been anything but stellar. They really have to rethink
GS> >> >>the packaging of it to make it a success. Shake was rappidly
GS> >> >>accepted because it was freely avalable for 30 day trial
GS> >> >>periods from day 1. Autodesk seem to be adopting the
GS> >> >>opposite approach, by keeping anyone but big name account at
GS> >> >>an arms distance. Maybe this is because the product is not a
GS> >> >>standalone single seat app, and too dependent on a database
GS> >> >>backbone to be useable.
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>Nuke has some impressive specs, but the UI is just a complete
GS> >> turnoff.
GS> >> >>The guys at DD, or people who've worked there and used it,
GS> >> >>swear by it, but I have not heard any entusiasm about it from
GS> >> >>anywhere else.
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>A
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>-----Original Message-----
GS> >> >>From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM <mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>
GS> >> >>[mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
GS> >> <mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM>] On Behalf Of Francois Lord
GS> >> >>Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:19 AM
GS> >> >>To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM <mailto: XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
GS> >> >>Subject: Re: OT: Digital Fusion v Shake
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>Here, we use Shake a lot and we love it. But as Kim said,
GS> >> >>it's no longer available on windows and because of that, we
GS> >> >>have to make a choice and switch to another software. We have
GS> >> >>delayed this switch as long as possible because nothing was
GS> >> >>as good as Shake. Things have changed recently when Fusion 5
GS> >> >>got out. We had a private demo and a seminar on it and we
GS> >> >>were impressed. It has more features than Shake. But it's not
GS> >> >>as easy to learn. Shake is simple, very very simple.
GS> >> >>We felt that Fusion is a Shake replacement, not a Shake
GS> >> >>killer. And because of that, we have chosen to wait a little
GS> >> >>more. Toxik 2.0 might be good (v1.1 really isn't ready).
GS> >> >>I remember when Maya got out and we were still stuck on
GS> >> >>Softimage|3D. We prefered to wait for XSI because we thought
GS> >> >>Softimage would do something cool for the new generation.
GS> >> >>When XSI 1.0 got out, it was simply unusable in production.
GS> >> >>We waited for 1.5, and it was still unusable for medium to
GS> >> >>big production. Then we thought "Maybe we should switch to
GS> >> >>Maya". But we waited more. And today... boy am I glad to have
GS> >> waited.
GS> >> >>Well I think it's the same thing with Toxik. If v2.0 looks
GS> >> >>good and promising, you can bet it will rock in two years and
GS> >> >>I wouldn't want to be stuck with that 15 years old software
GS> >> >>(don't get me wrong, Fusion is good, but it shows its age).
GS> >> >>On the other hand, if Toxik becomes too much like its cousins
GS> >> >>Flint,Flame,Inferno, then we will have been waiting for
GS> >> >>nothing and wasted time on a old version of Shake on Windows
GS> >> >>while Fusion got way better.
GS> >> >>That's our current state of mind.
GS> >> >>And we're thinking that we should give another look at Nuke.
GS> >> >>Three years ago it was very good, I suspect it got better.
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>Jonathan Ridge wrote:
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>>Hi folks.
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>Just wondering how Digital Fusion measures up to Shake.
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>Having seen
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>>some brief tutorials of Digital Fusion, it seemed pretty
GS> >> impressive.
GS> >> >>>Having said that, I've not seen Shake in action yet - I'm
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>downloading
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>>a demo to try it out and was hoping someone could shed a
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>little light
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>>on the pros and cons of these two compositors.
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>Thanks.
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>Jonny.
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>> www.jonny3d.com < http://www.jonny3d.com>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>---
GS> >> >>>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
GS> >> <mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in
GS> >> >>>body:
GS> >> >>>unsubscribe xsi
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>>
GS> >> >>---
GS> >> >>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
GS> >> <mailto: Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in
GS> >> >>body:
GS> >> >>unsubscribe xsi
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>---
GS> >> >>Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
GS> >> <mailto: Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following
GS> >> >>text in body:
GS> >> >>unsubscribe xsi
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >>
GS> >> >
GS> >> >---
GS> >> >Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
GS> >> <mailto: Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM > with the following text in body:
GS> >> >unsubscribe xsi
GS> >> >
GS> >> >
GS> >> >
GS> >> >
GS> >>
GS> >> --
GS> >> Steven Caron
GS> >> doer of things somewhat technical
GS> >> scaron(at)omation.com <mailto:scaron(at)omation.com>
GS> >> 949-366-4422 x601
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >> ---
GS> >> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
GS> >> <mailto: Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM > with the following text in body:
GS> >> unsubscribe xsi
GS> >>
GS> >>
GS> >
GS> ---
GS> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
GS> unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
