|
> I agree. Photoshop - Collada - GO GO GO!
Wait.
I only have CS2 here, isn´t Photoshop CS3 allready
able to import Collada (>*.obj) files?
I can´t remember. The open CS3 beta had *.obj I/O,
and I *think* I remember reading something about Collada.
AE 8 doesn´t have it afaik (don´t have AE 8 either, here).
But maybe with AE 9 it´s planned with in?
Cheers
tim
Helge Mathee wrote:
I agree. Photoshop - Collada - GO GO GO!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Tim Leydecker
Sent: March 27, 2008 11:19 AM
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: After Effects and Xsi Again
How about filing a *.fbx feature request with Adobe?
After brooding about it, imho, it´d be most desireable to have Photoshop and AE understand *.fbx (crosswalk).
Photoshop allready has *.obj handling, limited, quite quirky implementation but this at least signals they allready got requests or stumbled about the idea themselves.
The advantage of Crosswalk/Collada would be that this also allows to interface with other compositing apps, all sorts of 3D apps and maybe even some gameengines.
*that would be really cool*
Cheers
tim
Kris Rivel wrote:
I don't care who the heck makes it. 3rd party would be fine and I'd
be willing to pay for it too. I'm just saying I want better AE
import/export tools. I agree; it may not be a great idea to have Soft
invest time and money into this on their end. But the fact of the
matter is that AE is an indispensable tool. Its by far the dominant
choice when doing motion graphics and it would just be nice to not
have to rely on and old script which doesn't usually work. No offense
to the scripts author, its better than nothing and it does work
sometimes. Its just tied to a specific frame rate and usually
produces errors or requires a lot of tweaking to get everything to match.
Kris
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Raffaele Fragapane <
raffsxsilist(at)googlemail.com> wrote:
I don't know if it's a special talent not to read previous mails and
jumping to answering them, or if it's just some cosmic flux...
In regards to:
"BTW please show me any other "compositor", that can match AE in ease
of use and production speed in ANY motion graphics project"
re-read the part that says " all make it a good editorial and mograph
300$ software" please. It's excellent for that, and that alone.
As for "taking those 10 minutes" it was my personal wish that Soft
wouldn't spend even that much on just considering the idea, but
nowhere it's said that it would take that much, quite the opposite instead.
This is exactly the kind of things you leave to plug-ins and don't
dump on core developers who have much more important things to do,
not to mention what a pain in the ass of a feature it is to manage.
C4D is the only exception to this rule because cad imports and
re-renderings and mograph represent well over half their userbase, so
it's not that valid of an example as doing otherwise would cost them
a good chunk of userbase. It's like saying motionbuilder handles
mocap files better, of course it does, it's all people use it for
it'd be pretty embarassing if it didn't.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:47 PM, pingo van der brinkloev <
xsilist(at)comxnet.dk> wrote:
I'm not gonna battle compositors like Nuke or Fusion and whatnot,
which I believe anytime will be not even comparable to AE for Bigtime FX shots.
But for what I do I use Aftereffects all the time. And think an
XSItoAFX button it's a pretty small "whish" to have. It doesn't need
to do much more than Helges script does, but it really would be a nice internal feature.
BTW please show me any other "compositor", that can match AE in ease
of use and production speed in ANY motion graphics project.
- That's a challenge, I would seriously be interested to know if
there's something out there worth a look.
C4D and AE work extremely well together (it can also export to some
other highend packages). C4D made Mograph which is integrated and
they are definitely selling more copies of their software because of
these two factors.
- I see more and more of these posts on this list containing the
words Cinema4d, Motion Graphics, AfterEffects... Oh and Houdini. And
what's funny is that they're all about other software and stuff that
XSI can't do. It's interesting.
I agree with David. And I think Soft should use those 10 minutes.
cheers!
On 27/03/2008, at 13.21, Raffaele Fragapane wrote:
It's also guaranteed headache for Soft when adobe releases a new AFX
version while they're in a dec cycle with other priorities, not to
mention a feature that's only remotely useful for a small percentage
of the userbase, and indispensible for none.
It would require a developer to spend valuable time dealing with
another app that needs to be maintained and updated and learning
things that really aren't that important to XSI as an actual 3D app.
Why don't you ask Adobe to start releasing plugins for 3D softwares?
:)
and what "across platforms"?
AFX only runs on win32 of all the platforms xsi works on.
If there is one feature I really don't want to see Soft spending
even 10 minutes on, it's one that supports a PoS, overrated,
overpriced and overused application that shouldn't even be on the
market in first place, let alone have further diffusion supported.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:56 AM, André Adam <a_adam(at)49games.de> wrote:
A native solution is a guarantee that the feature is available
across all platforms and, in case of new releases, properly maintained.
---
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
|
