RE: This is what I meant by AE integration
There needs to be a I Quietly use the FX Tree t-shirt ;) From: Jason S [jasonsta...@gmail.com] Sent: 08 April 2013 02:02 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Personally I do most of my 2D comps in Nuke, (only mostly because of the rather short bug/feature section of my post) So the previously discussed (if only) points that have been made about not needing Nuke -if only- there would be a *bit* of efforts made on it, were quite valid. But for me when I need to have tranparency mapped grids with comps on them (or on other models in space), I use the FXTree. When I need to PROCEDURALLY TREAT TEXTURES (all the time) I use the FXTree Fo quick previews and testing I use the FXTree (import passes) When I use SI, I use the FX Tree ( as many more than what magazines may portray ) Historically, many people have always (quietly) used the FXTree. On 07/04/2013 7:50 PM, Christopher wrote: Do you use the FXTree Guillaume, actively ? Some on the list grew with FXTree while others do there work in a compositing program. Whatever rocks your boat, I suppose. Christopher [cid:part1.03000407.06090501@gmail.com] Guillaume Laforgemailto:guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:04 PM How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Just people using XSI and doing rendering related stuff and knowing the FxTree :). [cid:part2.00060305.04010105@gmail.com] Christophermailto:christop...@thecreativesheep.ca Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:25 PM Gullaume - There are two meaning to 'dead' Dead as in it's not actively used and Dead as it's removed from the product. Dead as in Walking Dead :) How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Christopher [cid:part1.03000407.06090501@gmail.com] Guillaume Laforgemailto:guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:18 PM The FxTree is not dead of course. Every components of XSI can be improved at any time by the Softimage team. Improved by adding feature to the existing code or improved by creating a new version of the component (like when ICE replaced the old particle system). FxTree will be dead the day it will be removed from the product. Simple as that. Every other statements are just pure speculation. Period :). Guillaume [cid:part4.04020200.08070200@gmail.com] Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES]mailto:j.ponthi...@nasa.gov Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:13 PM Kaydara created Filmbox in the 1990s. FBX is the Filmbox format. http://aucache.autodesk.com/au2011/sessions/6341/class_handouts/v1_DG6341_Montgomery.pdf Filmbox became Motionbuilder in 2002. http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2002/Volume-25-Issue-7-July-2002-/Kaydaras-Filmbox-Becomes-Motionbuilder.aspx Alias acquired Kaydara in 2004. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112id=6901510linkID=14271594 Autodesk acquired Alias in 2006 http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886siteID=123112 -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Paul Griswold Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:29 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Thanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. It'd be nice to have Alembic in both.. -Paul On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mikael Pettersén mikael.petter...@gmail.commailto:mikael.petter...@gmail.com wrote: Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.commailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.camailto:christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Nuke pipeline
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
I see FXtree mostly used as a precomp tool: test your renders and ensure what you deliver to compositing department actually works. Although I’ve used it a lot for final compositing too – at those studios that didn’t have dedicated compositing seats. (yes they exist) It’s not uncommon to be able to do something quickly and intuitively in the FXtree and then having to do the same thing in the final compositing package and struggling to get it done. So I wouldn’t argue that the FXtree lacks all that much. (directly treating the alpha channel without needing to swap it to RGB and back, as well as selecting channels to be used for masking would make me happy ) As long as you’re doing compositing of 8bit/16bit passes from 3D without extensive relighting its quite ok. For me, it falls down flat on its face when you start using .exrs or want to use normals, motion vectors and what not. And if your comps are based on plugins then the FXtree is just not applicable. From: Christopher Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:40 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration What does the FX Tree lack compared to AE / Nuke ? Christopher Jason S Sunday, April 07, 2013 8:02 PM Personally I do most of my 2D comps in Nuke, (only mostly because of the rather short bug/feature section of my post) So the previously discussed (if only) points that have been made about not needing Nuke -if only- there would be a *bit* of efforts made on it, were quite valid. But for me when I need to have tranparency mapped grids with comps on them (or on other models in space), I use the FXTree. When I need to PROCEDURALLY TREAT TEXTURES (all the time) I use the FXTree Fo quick previews and testing I use the FXTree (import passes) When I use SI, I use the FX Tree ( as many more than what magazines may portray ) Historically, many people have always (quietly) used the FXTree. Christopher Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:50 PM Do you use the FXTree Guillaume, actively ? Some on the list grew with FXTree while others do there work in a compositing program. Whatever rocks your boat, I suppose. Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:04 PM How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Just people using XSI and doing rendering related stuff and knowing the FxTree :). Christopher Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:25 PM Gullaume - There are two meaning to 'dead' Dead as in it's not actively used and Dead as it's removed from the product. Dead as in Walking Dead :) How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:18 PM The FxTree is not dead of course. Every components of XSI can be improved at any time by the Softimage team. Improved by adding feature to the existing code or improved by creating a new version of the component (like when ICE replaced the old particle system). FxTree will be dead the day it will be removed from the product. Simple as that. Every other statements are just pure speculation. Period :). Guillaume compose-unknown-contact.jpgpostbox-contact.jpgpostbox-contact.jpg
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
If it is chosen not to continue FXTree
development, then at least all SDK hooks necessary should be
supplied to keep the "3rd-party backdoor" open.
Is it possible to write new nodes for the FXTree from the
"outside"? I didn't search in the SDK examples too thoroughly, but
it does not look like it.
Same goes for all other aspects of the software!
I'd prefer SI as an "open framework" above a "black box". Take
advantage of "the crowd", so to speak. This can only improve SI's
chances on the long run.
How long is the discussion about a better operator SDK going on
now? We could be much further, if things were as easy here as they
should be.
My first wish for the next release would be a serious effort to
improve everything that makes Softimage even more customizable,
ICE, SDK, PyQt...
Am 08.04.2013 09:06, schrieb pete...@skynet.be:
I see FXtree mostly used as a precomp tool: test your
renders and ensure what you deliver to compositing
department actually works.
Although I’ve used it a lot for final compositing too –
at those studios that didn’t have dedicated compositing
seats. (yes they exist)
It’s not uncommon to be able to do something quickly and
intuitively in the FXtree and then having to do the same
thing in the final compositing package and struggling to get
it done.
So I wouldn’t argue that the FXtree lacks all that much.
(directly treating the alpha channel without needing to swap
it to RGB and back, as well as selecting channels to be used
for masking would make me happy )
As long as you’re doing compositing of 8bit/16bit passes
from 3D without extensive relighting its quite ok.
For me, it falls down flat on its face when you start
using .exrs or want to use normals, motion vectors and what
not. And if your comps are based on plugins then the FXtree
is just not applicable.
From: Christopher
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 3:40 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE
integration
What does the FX Tree lack
compared to AE / Nuke ?
Christopher
Jason S
Sunday, April 07, 2013
8:02 PM
Personally I do most of my 2D comps in Nuke,
(only mostly because of the rather short bug/feature
section of my post)
So the previously discussed (if only) points that have
been made about not needing Nuke -if only- there would
be a *bit* of efforts made on it, were quite valid.
But for me when I need to have tranparency mapped grids
with comps on them (or on other models in space), I use
the FXTree.
When I need to PROCEDURALLY TREAT TEXTURES (all the
time) I use the FXTree
Fo quick previews and testing I use the FXTree (import
passes)
When I use SI, I use the FX Tree ( as many more than
what magazines may portray )
Historically, many people have always (quietly) used the
FXTree.
Christopher
Sunday, April 07, 2013
7:50 PM
Do you use the FXTree Guillaume,
actively ?
Some on the list grew with FXTree while others do there
work in a compositing program. Whatever rocks your
boat, I suppose.
Christopher
Guillaume Laforge
Sunday, April 07, 2013
7:04 PM
How many people
on this list use FXTree for Active work ?
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
yes there is an SDK for the fxtree, there was even two commercial plugins from RevisionFX, the most popular one being RealSmartMotionBlur On Monday, April 8, 2013, Eugen Sares wrote: If it is chosen not to continue FXTree development, then at least all SDK hooks necessary should be supplied to keep the 3rd-party backdoor open. Is it possible to write new nodes for the FXTree from the outside? I didn't search in the SDK examples too thoroughly, but it does not look like it. Same goes for all other aspects of the software! I'd prefer SI as an open framework above a black box. Take advantage of the crowd, so to speak. This can only improve SI's chances on the long run. How long is the discussion about a better operator SDK going on now? We could be much further, if things were as easy here as they should be. My first wish for the next release would be a serious effort to improve everything that makes Softimage even more customizable, ICE, SDK, PyQt...
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
What does the FX Tree lack compared to AE / Nuke ? It's not a good question to ask. It's like asking, what's the difference between OneNote and EMACS. People use EMACS for a thousand different reasons than taking notes, and so do people using AE or Nuke. The low hanging fruits that are missing in the fxtree, for its main intended purpose which it could hopes to fulfill are nodes for the most common post processing for CG renderers, which includes 2D motion blur and lens effects, and a quick text node. All of which is actually in Composite, but we didn't have any the FX RD at Avid (bafflingly, I still don't know what the DS fx team worked on). Then again, someone is always going to need some specific AE plug-in like frischluft lenscare for AE, and dismiss the FxTree for that.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Fighting to update the FXTree is not a solution imho. Supporting a compositing software in an already heavy lifting 3d software is quite hard. Especially if it wasn't thought off from the ground up. I'd be more happy with a plugin like what Maxon and Adobe is doing. Code something that reads a .emdl/.scn file straight into nuke or more likely an export-to-nuke xml file from softimage. Wouldn't that be more usefull and require less intense programming ? Js Guillemette // SHED 3D Artist www.shedmtl.com On 4/8/2013 10:31 AM, Paul Griswold wrote: Wouldn't the solution be to update the FXTree so it can use OFX plugins? That opens a lot of doors. -Paul On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com mailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote: What does the FX Tree lack compared to AE / Nuke ? It's not a good question to ask. It's like asking, what's the difference between OneNote and EMACS. People use EMACS for a thousand different reasons than taking notes, and so do people using AE or Nuke. The low hanging fruits that are missing in the fxtree, for its main intended purpose which it could hopes to fulfill are nodes for the most common post processing for CG renderers, which includes 2D motion blur and lens effects, and a quick text node. All of which is actually in Composite, but we didn't have any the FX RD at Avid (bafflingly, I still don't know what the DS fx team worked on). Then again, someone is always going to need some specific AE plug-in like frischluft lenscare for AE, and dismiss the FxTree for that.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Wouldn't the solution be to update the FXTree so it can use OFX plugins? That opens a lot of doors We could have done that; the last time we looked at the OFX API (I was involved in its early definition) OFX plug-ins were very expensive, so nobody would have bought one for the fxtree.OFX vs AE APIs allows plug-ins vendors to set different prices for Studio vs prosumer. Now in 2013, it's too late to bother putting work on that, xsi clients are using other compositors already. Note that Composite/Toxik... again... you know what's coming... wait for it... . . . supports OFX plug-in. It does everything except have a modern UI, that thing.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
I've always thought that the UI was acceptable but it's annoying that it's crashes all the time. On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Wouldn't the solution be to update the FXTree so it can use OFX plugins? That opens a lot of doors We could have done that; the last time we looked at the OFX API (I was involved in its early definition) OFX plug-ins were very expensive, so nobody would have bought one for the fxtree.OFX vs AE APIs allows plug-ins vendors to set different prices for Studio vs prosumer. Now in 2013, it's too late to bother putting work on that, xsi clients are using other compositors already. Note that Composite/Toxik... again... you know what's coming... wait for it... . . . supports OFX plug-in. It does everything except have a modern UI, that thing.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Mikael Pettersén wrote: I've always thought that the UI was acceptable but it's annoying that it's crashes all the time Hum, I never had much crashing, but I know that if you give it too much memory it will become very unstable. Although it manages even very big comps fine with normal memory limits. pet...@skynet.be (14 hours ago) I see FXtree mostly used as a precomp tool: test your renders and ensure what you deliver to compositing department actually works. Although I've used it a lot for final compositing too -- at those studios that didn't have dedicated compositing seats. (yes they exist) Yes! or that have limited number of comp seats. pet...@skynet.be (14 hours ago) ... (directly treating the alpha channel without needing to swap it to RGB and back, as well as selecting channels to be used for masking would make me happy ) As long as you're doing compositing of 8bit/16bit passes from 3D without extensive relighting its quite ok. For me, it falls down flat on its face when you start using .exrs or want to use normals, motion vectors and what not. And if your comps are based on plugins then the FXtree is just not applicable. Right! *relighting stuff*, and *effects also taking into consideration alpha channels* also being a biggie, how did I leave that out. But what do you mean by inability to use EXRs? It supports floating point (values beyond 1) pretty well as far as I used it, but maybe you know something I don't? And I would add to that, for motion graphics (or otherwise for general purpose), *Deeper 3D integration,* meaning having unrendered 3D elements (specifying or creating SI layers in 3D?) as sources in comp, rendered upon viewing and at comp output. Which would be more than just 'useful'! And.. (last one I swear :) already with the ablility to process (or animate) textures being quite something (and unique), (which for instance, gives the ability of using single image files, and *procedurally* treat them for various illumination parameters ) .. In the RenderTree itself, having 2D nodes that can be put anywhere before the Image node, as oppposed to having all procedural image editing references reside in the global scene FXTree, would be even more quite something :] (then also retaining texture edits when exporting models) and would perhaps be a good opportunity at actually merging nodal trees? ;) Although a dedicated comp solution would surely still be desireable even *with* those changes particularly for comp teams and departments where extensive 3D might be overkill, apart that most of the proposed changes would heavily concern the 3D creation process itself, *.. having the 2d part of SI (finally) updated *or more usable for final comps (more than it was in 2005), I don't think is unreasonable, especially given the high feasibility of (at least most of ) what has been proposed. Toxic comes with SI, yet has no vector paint(for example) and in no way can it be harnessed from 3D though it's 2d can harness some 3D... (through Maya interop) For upening-up to plugin standards, luceric (8 hours ago) Now in 2013, it's too late to bother putting work on that, xsi clients are using other compositors already. My point exactly, why are they using other compositors? And if I may, why bother putting work on SI altogether? Many clients are already using other apps ... (of arguably comparative versatility) If it were up to a certain few (perhaps impressionable) people, SI continuity would have ceased shortly after core dev reassignments. (or seemingly, after core dev (willful?) assimilation) ... Sorry don't want to make a fuzz.. but I think it's all the lingering/underlying (and perhaps unwarranted) SI deathwish seeping through (from original developers?) that I'm not particularly fond of. But whatever... On 08/04/2013 3:39 PM, Mikael Pettersén wrote: I've always thought that the UI was acceptable but it's annoying that it's crashes all the time. On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com mailto:luceri...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com mailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Wouldn't the solution be to update the FXTree so it can use OFX plugins? That opens a lot of doors We could have done that; the last time we looked at the OFX API (I was involved in its early definition) OFX plug-ins were very expensive, so nobody would have bought one for the fxtree.OFX vs AE APIs allows plug-ins vendors to set different prices for Studio vs prosumer. Now in 2013, it's too late to bother putting work on that, xsi clients are using other compositors already. Note that Composite/Toxik... again... you know what's coming... wait for it... . . . supports OFX plug-in. It does everything except have a
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
I know composite isn't the most stable program, if you don't like FxTree or it doesn't do it for you, there is composite and comes with Softimage. Jason S Monday, April 08, 2013 11:19 PM Mikael Pettersn wrote: I've always thought that the UI was acceptable but it's annoying that it's crashes all the time Hum, I never had much crashing, but I know that if you give it too much memory it will become very unstable. Although it manages even very big comps fine with "normal" memory limits. pet...@skynet.be (14 hours ago) I see FXtree mostly used as a precomp tool: test your renders and ensure what you deliver to compositing department actually works. Although Ive used it a lot for final compositing too at those studios that didnt have dedicated compositing seats. (yes they exist) Yes! or that have limited number of comp seats. pet...@skynet.be (14 hours ago) ... (directly treating the alpha channel without needing to swap it to RGB and back, as well as selecting channels to be used for masking would make me happy ) As long as youre doing compositing of 8bit/16bit passes from 3D without extensive relighting its quite ok. For me, it falls down flat on its face when you start using .exrs or want to use normals, motion vectors and what not. And if your comps are based on plugins then the FXtree is just not applicable. Right! relighting stuff, and effects also taking into consideration alpha channels also being a biggie, how did I leave that out. But what do you mean by inability to use EXRs? It supports floating point (values beyond 1) pretty well as far as I used it, but maybe you know something I don't? And I would add to that, for motion graphics (or otherwise for general purpose), Deeper 3D integration, meaning having unrendered 3D elements (specifying or creating SI layers in 3D?) as sources in comp, rendered upon viewing and at comp output. Which would be more than just 'useful'! And.. (last one I swear :) already with the ablility to process (or animate) textures being quite something (and unique), (which for instance, gives the ability of using single image files, and *procedurally* treat them for various illumination parameters ) .. In the RenderTree itself, having 2D nodes that can be put anywhere before the "Image" node, as oppposed to having all procedural image editing references reside in the global scene FXTree, would be even more quite something :] (then also retaining texture edits when exporting models) and would perhaps be a good opportunity at actually merging nodal trees? ;) Although a dedicated comp solution would surely still be desireable even *with* those changes particularly for comp teams and departments where extensive 3D might be overkill, apart that most of the proposed changes would heavily concern the 3D creation process itself, .. having the 2d part of SI (finally) updated or more usable for final comps (more than it was in 2005), I don't think is unreasonable, especially given the high feasibility of (at least most of ) what has been proposed. Toxic comes with SI, yet has no vector paint(for example) and in no way can it be harnessed from 3D though it's 2d can harness some 3D... (through Maya interop) For upening-up to plugin standards, luceric (8 hours ago) Now in 2013, it's too late to bother putting work on that, xsi clients are using other compositors already. My point exactly, why are they using other compositors? And if I may, why bother putting work on SI altogether? Many clients are already using other apps ... (of arguably comparative versatility) If it were up to a certain few (perhaps impressionable) people, SI continuity would have ceased shortly after core dev reassignments. (or seemingly, after core dev (willful?) assimilation) ... Sorry don't want to make a fuzz.. but I think it's all the lingering/underlying (and perhaps unwarranted) SI deathwish seeping through (from original developers?) that I'm not particularly fond of. But whatever... On 08/04/2013 3:39 PM, Mikael Pettersn wrote: I've always thought that the UI was acceptable but it's annoying that it's crashes all the time. On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Wouldn't the solution be to update the FXTree so it can use OFX plugins? That opens a lot of doors We could have done that; the last time we looked at the OFX API (I was involved in its early definition) OFX plug-ins were very expensive, so nobody would have bought one for the fxtree. OFX vs AE APIs allows plug-ins vendors to set different prices for Studio vs prosumer. Now in 2013, it's too late to bother putting work on that, xsi clients are using other compositors already. Note that Composite/Toxik... again... you know what's coming... wait for it... . . . supports OFX plug-in. It
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Thanks Christopher On 08/04/2013 11:50 PM, Christopher wrote: I know composite isn't the most stable program, if you don't like FxTree or it doesn't do it for you, there is composite and comes with Softimage. Jason S Monday, April 08, 2013 11:19 PM Mikael Pettersn wrote: I've always thought that the UI was acceptable but it's annoying that it's crashes all the time Hum, I never had much crashing, but I know that if you give it too much memory it will become very unstable. Although it manages even very big comps fine with "normal" memory limits. pet...@skynet.be (14 hours ago) I see FXtree mostly used as a precomp tool: test your renders and ensure what you deliver to compositing department actually works. Although Ive used it a lot for final compositing too at those studios that didnt have dedicated compositing seats. (yes they exist) Yes! or that have limited number of comp seats. pet...@skynet.be (14 hours ago) ... (directly treating the alpha channel without needing to swap it to RGB and back, as well as selecting channels to be used for masking would make me happy ) As long as youre doing compositing of 8bit/16bit passes from 3D without extensive relighting its quite ok. For me, it falls down flat on its face when you start using .exrs or want to use normals, motion vectors and what not. And if your comps are based on plugins then the FXtree is just not applicable. Right! relighting stuff, and effects also taking into consideration alpha channels also being a biggie, how did I leave that out. But what do you mean by inability to use EXRs? It supports floating point (values beyond 1) pretty well as far as I used it, but maybe you know something I don't? And I would add to that, for motion graphics (or otherwise for general purpose), Deeper 3D integration, meaning having unrendered 3D elements (specifying or creating SI layers in 3D?) as sources in comp, rendered upon viewing and at comp output. Which would be more than just 'useful'! And.. (last one I swear :) already with the ablility to process (or animate) textures being quite something (and unique), (which for instance, gives the ability of using single image files, and *procedurally* treat them for various illumination parameters ) .. In the RenderTree itself, having 2D nodes that can be put anywhere before the "Image" node, as oppposed to having all procedural image editing references reside in the global scene FXTree, would be even more quite something :] (then also retaining texture edits when exporting models) and would perhaps be a good opportunity at actually merging nodal trees? ;) Although a dedicated comp solution would surely still be desireable even *with* those changes particularly for comp teams and departments where extensive 3D might be overkill, apart that most of the proposed changes would heavily concern the 3D creation process itself, .. having the 2d part of SI (finally) updated or more usable for final comps (more than it was in 2005), I don't think is unreasonable, especially given the high feasibility of (at least most of ) what has been proposed. Toxic comes with SI, yet has no vector paint(for example) and in no way can it be harnessed from 3D though it's 2d can harness some 3D... (through Maya interop) For upening-up to plugin standards, luceric (8 hours ago) Now in 2013, it's too late to bother putting work on that, xsi clients are using other compositors already. My point exactly, why are they using other compositors? And if I may, why bother putting work on SI altogether? Many clients are already using other apps ... (of arguably comparative versatility) If it were up to a certain few (perhaps impressionable) people, SI continuity would have ceased shortly after core dev reassignments. (or seemingly, after core dev (willful?) assimilation) ... Sorry don't want to make a fuzz.. but I think it's all the lingering/underlying (and perhaps unwarranted) SI deathwish seeping through (from original developers?) that I'm not particularly fond of. But whatever... On 08/04/2013 3:39 PM, Mikael Pettersn wrote: I've always thought that the UI was acceptable but it's annoying that it's crashes all the time. On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Wouldn't the solution be to update the FXTree so it can use OFX plugins? That opens a lot of doors We could have done that; the last time we looked at the OFX API (I was involved in its early definition) OFX plug-ins were very expensive, so nobody would have bought one for the fxtree. OFX vs AE APIs allows plug-ins
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis, such as for film work, it’s perfectly fine but managing a complete edit is messy at best. So, in my opinion again, the choice for which type of compositor to adapt is very much tied in with your approach to projects. Does it all happen at once in a single timeline (eg. commercials and video clips) or does each shot have to be assembled separately (film) before it goes into the master edit. There are grey areas, where VFX heavy commercials are better off in a film workflow and films that can be handled with a motion graphics and video clip approach. And for some kind of work you can just use an editing software and bypass compositing completely. Avoid choosing the wrong type of compositor for your workflow – just because it’s supposedly a good software or just because it’s available. After effects used for film/vfx compositing jumps to mind as well as Nuke for motion graphics – it can be done but at your own risk and peril. From: Jason S Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:44 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Paul Griswold Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like Fusion is a little more artist friendly and therefore faster for me to work with. I heard lots of good things about Fusion... what are it's main strengths (and weaknesses) you were reffering to in you opinion, or what do you like most? Also had an extra 'with' in my reply :) .. timeline based [solutions] such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer with compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. cheers On 06/04/2013 7:31 PM, Jason S wrote: Node based workflows has the advantage of easily having the outputs of effect streams as sources very easily (visually), giving more space for complexity while remaning managable understandable. Whereas timeline based such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer with compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. Smoke (and DS) harness the best of both worlds. But as far a I know, both AE Fusion are excellent.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis, such as for film work, it’s perfectly fine but managing a complete edit is messy at best. So, in my opinion again, the choice for which type of compositor to adapt is very much tied in with your approach to projects. Does it all happen at once in a single timeline (eg. commercials and video clips) or does each shot have to be assembled separately (film) before it goes into the master edit. There are grey areas, where VFX heavy commercials are better off in a film workflow and films that can be handled with a motion graphics and video clip approach. And for some kind of work you can just use an editing software and bypass compositing completely. Avoid choosing the wrong type of compositor for your workflow – just because it’s supposedly a good software or just because it’s available. After effects used for film/vfx compositing jumps to mind as well as Nuke for motion graphics – it can be done but at your own risk and peril. *From:* Jason S mailto:jasonsta...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:44 AM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Paul Griswold Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like Fusion is a little more artist friendly and therefore faster for me to work with. I heard lots of good things about Fusion... what are it's main strengths (and weaknesses) you were reffering to in you opinion, or what do you like most? Also had an extra 'with' in my reply :) .. timeline based /[solutions]/ such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer /with /compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. cheers On 06/04/2013 7:31 PM, Jason S wrote: Node based workflows has the advantage of easily having the outputs of effect streams as sources very easily (visually), giving more space for complexity while remaning managable understandable. Whereas timeline based such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer with compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. Smoke (and DS) harness the best of both worlds. But as far a I know, both AE Fusion are excellent.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.frwrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis, such as for film work, it’s perfectly fine but managing a complete edit is messy at best. So, in my opinion again, the choice for which type of compositor to adapt is very much tied in with your approach to projects. Does it all happen at once in a single timeline (eg. commercials and video clips) or does each shot have to be assembled separately (film) before it goes into the master edit. There are grey areas, where VFX heavy commercials are better off in a film workflow and films that can be handled with a motion graphics and video clip approach. And for some kind of work you can just use an editing software and bypass compositing completely. Avoid choosing the wrong type of compositor for your workflow – just because it’s supposedly a good software or just because it’s available. After effects used for film/vfx compositing jumps to mind as well as Nuke for motion graphics – it can be done but at your own risk and peril. *From:* Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:44 AM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Paul Griswold Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like Fusion is a little more artist friendly and therefore faster for me to work with. I heard lots of good things about Fusion... what are it's main strengths (and weaknesses) you were reffering to in you opinion, or what do you like most? Also had an extra 'with' in my reply :) .. timeline based *[solutions]* such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer *with *compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. cheers On 06/04/2013 7:31 PM, Jason S wrote: Node based workflows has the advantage of easily having the outputs of effect streams as sources very easily (visually), giving more space for complexity while remaning managable understandable. Whereas timeline based such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer with compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects
RE: This is what I meant by AE integration
Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. From: Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com] Sent: 07 April 2013 01:47 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.frmailto:olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.bemailto:pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis, such as for film work, it’s perfectly fine but managing a complete edit is messy at best. So, in my opinion again, the choice for which type of compositor to adapt is very much tied in with your approach to projects. Does it all happen at once in a single timeline (eg. commercials and video clips) or does each shot have to be assembled separately (film) before it goes into the master edit. There are grey areas, where VFX heavy commercials are better off in a film workflow and films that can be handled with a motion graphics and video clip approach. And for some kind of work you can just use an editing software and bypass compositing completely. Avoid choosing the wrong type of compositor for your workflow – just because it’s supposedly a good software or just because it’s available. After effects used for film/vfx compositing jumps to mind as well as Nuke for motion graphics – it can be done but at your own risk and peril. From: Jason Smailto:jasonsta...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:44 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Paul Griswold Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like Fusion is a little more artist friendly and therefore faster for me to work with. I heard lots of good things about Fusion... what are it's main strengths (and weaknesses) you were reffering to in you opinion, or what do you like most? Also had an extra 'with' in my reply :) .. timeline based [solutions] such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer with compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. cheers On 06/04/2013 7:31
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
/Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. / Which is ? Le 07/04/2013 14:15, Angus Davidson a écrit : Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. *From:* Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 07 April 2013 01:47 PM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr mailto:olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be mailto:pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis, such as for film work, it’s perfectly fine but managing a complete edit is messy at best. So, in my opinion again, the choice for which type of compositor to adapt is very much tied in with your approach to projects. Does it all happen at once in a single timeline (eg. commercials and video clips) or does each shot have to be assembled separately (film) before it goes into the master edit. There are grey areas, where VFX heavy commercials are better off in a film workflow and films that can be handled with a motion graphics and video clip approach. And for some kind of work you can just use an editing software and bypass compositing completely. Avoid choosing the wrong type of compositor for your workflow – just because it’s supposedly a good software or just because it’s available. After effects used for film/vfx compositing jumps to mind as well as Nuke for motion graphics – it can be done but at your own risk and peril. *From:* Jason S mailto:jasonsta...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:44 AM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Paul Griswold Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
The FXTree. The FXTree desperately needs a complete overhaul. I'm guessing most people don't even know it exists. It's one of those things that could help sell Softimage to smaller shops who don't want to spend the money on Fusion or Nuke, but still need some compositing. -PG On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.frwrote: *Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. * Which is ? Le 07/04/2013 14:15, Angus Davidson a écrit : Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. -- *From:* Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com] *Sent:* 07 April 2013 01:47 PM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.frwrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis, such as for film work, it’s perfectly fine but managing a complete edit is messy at best. So, in my opinion again, the choice for which type of compositor to adapt is very much tied in with your approach to projects. Does it all happen at once in a single timeline (eg. commercials and video clips) or does each shot have to be assembled separately (film) before it goes into the master edit. There are grey areas, where VFX heavy commercials are better off in a film workflow and films that can be handled with a motion graphics and video clip approach. And for some kind of work you can just use an editing software and bypass compositing completely. Avoid choosing the wrong type of compositor for your workflow – just because it’s supposedly a good software or just because it’s available. After effects used for film/vfx compositing jumps to mind as well as Nuke for motion graphics – it can be done but at your own risk and peril. *From:* Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:44 AM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Paul Griswold Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Don't expect that to happen. Fusion / Nuke / AE are the only options, including Autodesk Composite which is very unstable. Christopher Paul Griswold Sunday, April 07, 2013 9:54 AM The FXTree. The FXTree desperately needs a complete overhaul. I'm guessing most people don't even know it exists. It's one of those things that could help sell Softimage to smaller shops who don't want to spend the money on Fusion or Nuke, but still need some compositing. -PG olivier jeannel Sunday, April 07, 2013 9:45 AM "Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. " Which is ? Le 07/04/2013 14:15, Angus Davidson a écrit : Angus Davidson Sunday, April 07, 2013 8:15 AM Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. From: Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com] Sent: 07 April 2013 01:47 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. Dan Yargici Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:47 AM Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists!There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN olivier jeannel Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:41 AM Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be a écrit :
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
I'm saying - when someone is looking to set up a new shop has a limited amount of investment to deal with. Having a modern version of the FXTree becomes a selling point if it does most of what you need and is included with the software. The argument would be - for now, lets put the money in Softimage because it's the most complete package out on the market right now. ICE, CrowdFX, Face Robot, solid rigging tools, the animation mixer, and a built-in compositor, etc. So why spend $5k+ per seat additional to get Nuke when Softimage is going to do fine in most cases? That money can be put to better use elsewhere like Arnold licenses, additional render boxes, etc. Trust me, I've dealt with investors setting up a budget for a new company. If you can save $5k per seat by simply picking one package over another, it will get noticed. I've been trying to get Autodesk to realize that for a long time. New companies spring up all over the world every day, so why not sell them some Softimage licenses? -PG On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.comwrote: what are these small shops using now to do 3d and compositing? how are they getting work done at all? they would spend the money and the trouble to switch to xsi? who did you speak to to know that these people exist? Le 2013-04-07 09:55, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com a écrit : The FXTree. The FXTree desperately needs a complete overhaul. I'm guessing most people don't even know it exists. It's one of those things that could help sell Softimage to smaller shops who don't want to spend the money on Fusion or Nuke, but still need some compositing. -PG On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. Which is ? Le 07/04/2013 14:15, Angus Davidson a écrit : Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. From: Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com] Sent: 07 April 2013 01:47 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
There are still potential new customers to invest in XSI, no ? I blindly believe I'm not a dying race. Not sure an hypothetic Fxtree rebuild would save SI, though. It's just too bad it has been completly abandonned, with no new (even small) improvements. Since we're a Particle software, I'm just hopping Ice developpement will continue to be the strong part of XSI. Weirdly, since AD bought us correspond to a time of prosperity for SI users . I mean, there are now a very big amount of Compounds and Addons available, much more then back in the Xsi-base days. Le 07/04/2013 17:25, Luc-Eric Rousseau a écrit : what are these small shops using now to do 3d and compositing? how are they getting work done at all? they would spend the money and the trouble to switch to xsi? who did you speak to to know that these people exist? Le 2013-04-07 09:55, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com mailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com a écrit : The FXTree. The FXTree desperately needs a complete overhaul. I'm guessing most people don't even know it exists. It's one of those things that could help sell Softimage to smaller shops who don't want to spend the money on Fusion or Nuke, but still need some compositing. -PG On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr mailto:olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. Which is ? Le 07/04/2013 14:15, Angus Davidson a écrit : Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. From: Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com mailto:danyarg...@gmail.com] Sent: 07 April 2013 01:47 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr mailto:olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be mailto:pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucking-about-with-images software – but granted, people can get some very nice artistic work out of them – that would be hard to do in a nodal compositor. As mentioned Smoke and DS offer a nice hybrid – where you can organize effects in a timeline or a nodal tree or both. Easy to get into but they offer a lot of depth. They offer something quite unique in the way they can handle a complete project, editing and effects combined. Then there are the purely nodal compositors. A nodal tree can look intimidating to people at first (although coming from a 3D background it really shouldn’t) – but it’s the very mechanism that allows to manage complex work. You could in turn categorize them by the complexity of the nodes. Shake would be a lot of very simple, low level nodes - in the extreme: one node does one specific operation. Fusion would be much higher level nodes - a single node can be almost a software in itself. Nuke sits somewhere in the middle – and I think that’s part of it’s success: it adapts well to both preferences – while Shake users would have a hard time in Fusion and vise-versa. While any nodal compositor should be able to get the job done – I haven’t seen any that handled the amount of nodes in complex trees with such ease as Nuke does – and with high bit depth and resolution as well, while allowing the tree to remain human readable. Not the most elegant software perhaps – and it can be a bit unforgiving at times – but for compositing multilayered/multi-pass CG it just sits (or rather stands) in a class of its own. The Achilles heel of nodal trees is timeline and editing based effects. If you work on a shot by shot basis, such as for film work, it’s perfectly fine but managing a complete edit is messy at best. So, in my opinion again, the choice for which type of compositor to adapt is very much tied in with your approach to projects. Does it all happen at once in a single timeline (eg. commercials and video clips) or does each shot have
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Trust me, I've dealt with investors setting up a budget for a new company. If you can save $5k per seat by simply picking one package over another, it will get noticed. I've been trying to get Autodesk to realize that for a long time. New companies spring up all over the world every day, so why not sell them some Softimage licenses? I think this scenario is absurd because it makes the case for saving 5000$ based on the assumption that startup studios would 1) want to use XSI in any great numbers and 2) are considering shelling out for Nuke at 5000$ to do some compositing on those 3D seats, when it's the kind of money you'd put in a dedicated compositing seat. Not do you toxik for free, you can get access to all Adobe apps including Photoshop+AE per seat for 70$/month. Or just rent After Effects itself for 20$. If you actually _needed_ nuke seats, I think you're probably doing a whole lot of things that wouldn't be present or well implemented in a revamped fxtree. The FxTree didn't replace the much simpler Shake seats when shake was 10,000$ and XSI+FxTree was just 3000$. A revamped FxTree probably wouldn't replace Nuke seats. Screw logic and clone enough of nuke and give it away for free anyway? I think there's little reason to think that product could be any superior than Toxik. They had a big and experienced team work on that one for many years. If Autodesk cared about compositing, revamping the Toxik UI would reach many more people. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: I'm saying - when someone is looking to set up a new shop has a limited amount of investment to deal with. Having a modern version of the FXTree becomes a selling point if it does most of what you need and is included with the software. The argument would be - for now, lets put the money in Softimage because it's the most complete package out on the market right now. ICE, CrowdFX, Face Robot, solid rigging tools, the animation mixer, and a built-in compositor, etc. So why spend $5k+ per seat additional to get Nuke when Softimage is going to do fine in most cases? That money can be put to better use elsewhere like Arnold licenses, additional render boxes, etc. Trust me, I've dealt with investors setting up a budget for a new company. If you can save $5k per seat by simply picking one package over another, it will get noticed. I've been trying to get Autodesk to realize that for a long time. New companies spring up all over the world every day, so why not sell them some Softimage licenses? On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.com wrote: what are these small shops using now to do 3d and compositing? how are they getting work done at all? they would spend the money and the trouble to switch to xsi? who did you speak to to know that these people exist? Le 2013-04-07 09:55, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com a écrit : The FXTree. The FXTree desperately needs a complete overhaul. I'm guessing most people don't even know it exists. It's one of those things that could help sell Softimage to smaller shops who don't want to spend the money on Fusion or Nuke, but still need some compositing. -PG
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: There are still potential new customers to invest in XSI, no ? I blindly believe I'm not a dying race. not sure.. XSI was just 450$ for four years and people hesitated to get it anyway. It should have taken the market by storm at that point. I've got a lot of opinions on all subjects - :P - but I'm really not sure why that didn't happen. Not sure an hypothetic Fxtree rebuild would save SI, though. It's just too bad it has been completly abandonned, with no new (even small) improvements. Since we're a Particle software, I'm just hopping Ice developpement will continue to be the strong part of XSI. Weirdly, since AD bought us correspond to a time of prosperity for SI users . I mean, there are now a very big amount of Compounds and Addons available, much more then back in the Xsi-base days. Then again Autodesk bought Softimage only four months after ICE was released.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Yes I remember that 450$ offer, it was limited (less option than advance) if I remember correctly. I remember there was a lot of discussion on xsi base around this as well. ... Well, the good news is price doesn't do everything. And for the rest, Asia is the future hoppefully. Le 07/04/2013 19:54, Luc-Eric Rousseau a écrit : On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: There are still potential new customers to invest in XSI, no ? I blindly believe I'm not a dying race. not sure.. XSI was just 450$ for four years and people hesitated to get it anyway. It should have taken the market by storm at that point. I've got a lot of opinions on all subjects - :P - but I'm really not sure why that didn't happen. Not sure an hypothetic Fxtree rebuild would save SI, though. It's just too bad it has been completly abandonned, with no new (even small) improvements. Since we're a Particle software, I'm just hopping Ice developpement will continue to be the strong part of XSI. Weirdly, since AD bought us correspond to a time of prosperity for SI users . I mean, there are now a very big amount of Compounds and Addons available, much more then back in the Xsi-base days. Then again Autodesk bought Softimage only four months after ICE was released.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
FX Tree like Composite were left behind. It's not that you can't do stuff in either of these, you may run into problems in your pipeline / workflow that will halt everything and you'll be left to switch programs, with that in mind why not choose between Ae \ Fusion \ Nuke \ EtC ? I know AE is a great package, whenever I see something neat done with it, there is a plugin that helped develop that effect for a few hundred. I respect that Adobe didn't buy out these plug-in companies that is so common nowadays, for those who are budget aware and you compare AE to lets say Fusion (I won't compare to Nuke because it's studio pricing is just that, for studios) Fusion will probably be a more attractive choice, with the annual subscription fee, or for some they may buy once license, no subscription and it may suffice for many years. Christopher Luc-Eric Rousseau Sunday, April 07, 2013 1:54 PM On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: There are still potential new customers to invest in XSI, no ? I blindly believe I'm not a dying race. not sure.. XSI was just 450$ for four years and people hesitated to get it anyway. It should have taken the market by storm at that point. I've got a lot of opinions on all subjects - :P - but I'm really not sure why that didn't happen. Not sure an hypothetic Fxtree rebuild would "save" SI, though. It's just too bad it has been completly abandonned, with no new (even small) improvements. Since we're a Particle software, I'm just hopping Ice developpement will continue to be the strong part of XSI. Weirdly, since AD bought us correspond to a time of "prosperity" for SI users . I mean, there are now a very big amount of Compounds and Addons available, much more then back in the Xsi-base days. Then again Autodesk bought Softimage only four months after ICE was released. olivier jeannel Sunday, April 07, 2013 1:01 PM There are still potential new customers to invest in XSI, no ? I blindly believe I'm not a dying race. Not sure an hypothetic Fxtree rebuild would "save" SI, though. It's just too bad it has been completly abandonned, with no new (even small) improvements. Since we're a Particle software, I'm just hopping Ice developpement will continue to be the strong part of XSI. Weirdly, since AD bought us correspond to a time of "prosperity" for SI users . I mean, there are now a very big amount of Compounds and Addons available, much more then back in the Xsi-base days. Le 07/04/2013 17:25, Luc-Eric Rousseau a écrit : Luc-Eric Rousseau Sunday, April 07, 2013 11:25 AM what are these small shops using now to do 3d and compositing? how are they getting work done at all? they would spend the money and the trouble to switch to xsi? who did you speak to to know that these people exist? Le 2013-04-07 09:55, "Paul Griswold" pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com a écrit : The FXTree. The FXTree desperately needs a complete overhaul. I'm guessing most people don't even know it exists. It's one of those things that could help sell Softimage to smaller shops who don't want to spend the money on Fusion or Nuke, but still need some compositing. -PG On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: "Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. " Which is ? Le 07/04/2013 14:15, Angus Davidson a écrit : Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. From: Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com] Sent: 07 April 2013 01:47 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be a écrit : Compositing comes in many flavors – and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have “hardly or not at all” and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view – but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if it’s not nodal it’s not a compositor – but rather a mucki
RE: This is what I meant by AE integration
not sure.. XSI was just 450$ for four years and people hesitated to get it anyway. It should have taken the market by storm at that point. I've got a lot of opinions on all subjects - :P - but I'm really not sure why that didn't happen. Theres one very big difference between then and now . At the time that that offer came out. The worlds economy was racing ahead. Money just wasnt so much of an object as it is now. People bought Maya mostly because it was all over magazines, websites etc. XSI was very rarely mentioned. Now the worlds economy is mostly in the gutter so I can bet that if that a similarly valued offer was given again with some decent marketing it would be a very different story.= table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td /tr /table
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Good points. Angus Davidson Sunday, April 07, 2013 3:00 PM not sure.. XSI was just 450$ for four years and people hesitated toget it anyway. It should have taken the market by storm at that point. I've got alot of opinions on all subjects - :P - but I'm really not sure why that didn't happen.Theres one very big difference between then and now . At the time that that offer came out. The worlds economy was racing ahead. Money just wasnt so much of an object as it is now. People bought Maya mostly because it was all over magazines, websites etc. XSI was very rarely mentioned.Now the worlds economy is mostly in the gutter so I can bet that if that a similarly valued offer was given again with some decent marketing it would be a very different story.=table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%;" trtd align="left" style="text-align:justify;"font face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#99"span style="font-size:11px;"This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td/tr/table olivier jeannel Sunday, April 07, 2013 1:01 PM There are still potential new customers to invest in XSI, no ? I blindly believe I'm not a dying race. Not sure an hypothetic Fxtree rebuild would "save" SI, though. It's just too bad it has been completly abandonned, with no new (even small) improvements. Since we're a Particle software, I'm just hopping Ice developpement will continue to be the strong part of XSI. Weirdly, since AD bought us correspond to a time of "prosperity" for SI users . I mean, there are now a very big amount of Compounds and Addons available, much more then back in the Xsi-base days. Le 07/04/2013 17:25, Luc-Eric Rousseau a crit: Luc-Eric Rousseau Sunday, April 07, 2013 11:25 AM what are these small shops using now to do 3d and compositing? how are they getting work done at all? they would spend the money and the trouble to switch to xsi? who did you speak to to know that these people exist? Le 2013-04-07 09:55, "Paul Griswold" pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com a crit: The FXTree. The FXTree desperately needs a complete overhaul. I'm guessing most people don't even know it exists. It's one of those things that could help sell Softimage to smaller shops who don't want to spend the money on Fusion or Nuke, but still need some compositing. -PG On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: "Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. " Which is ? Le 07/04/2013 14:15, Angus Davidson a crit: Hopefully if nothing else this AE Maxon collaboration might prod them into realising just what a great thing they had and forgot.. ____________ From: Dan Yargici [danyarg...@gmail.com] Sent: 07 April 2013 01:47 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Yes, it is - and this is coming from one of it's biggest evangelists! There are still cases where it's integration provides great opportunities unachievable outside the package, but those aside, it pretty much dead in the water... :/ DAN On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM, olivier jeannel olivier.jean...@noos.fr wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it completly out-dated ? Le 07/04/2013 12:03, pete...@skynet.be a crit: Compositing comes in many flavors and what to use will depend on your preferences and needs. The main aspect is how nodal it is. On one hand of the spectrum you have hardly or not at all and that is where AE and Combustion (remember me?) sit. Easy to get into for those who come to graphics from an Adobe point of view but not something to base a pipeline around. In my opinion, if its not nodal its not a compositor but rather a muck
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG compose-unknown-contact.jpg
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Thanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. It'd be nice to have Alembic in both.. -Paul On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mikael Pettersén mikael.petter...@gmail.com wrote: Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG compose-unknown-contact.jpg
RE: This is what I meant by AE integration
Kaydara created Filmbox in the 1990s. FBX is the Filmbox format. http://aucache.autodesk.com/au2011/sessions/6341/class_handouts/v1_DG6341_Montgomery.pdf Filmbox became Motionbuilder in 2002. http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2002/Volume-25-Issue-7-July-2002-/Kaydaras-Filmbox-Becomes-Motionbuilder.aspx Alias acquired Kaydara in 2004. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112id=6901510linkID=14271594 Autodesk acquired Alias in 2006 http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886siteID=123112 -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Paul Griswold Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:29 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Thanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. It'd be nice to have Alembic in both.. -Paul On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mikael Pettersén mikael.petter...@gmail.commailto:mikael.petter...@gmail.com wrote: Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.commailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.camailto:christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher [cid:image001.jpg@01CE33B3.3B7837E0] Jason Smailto:jasonsta...@gmail.com Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline [cid:image001.jpg@01CE33B3.3B7837E0] Paul Griswoldmailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG inline: image001.jpg
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
The FxTree is not dead of course. Every components of XSI can be improved at any time by the Softimage team. Improved by adding feature to the existing code or improved by creating a new version of the component (like when ICE replaced the old particle system). FxTree will be dead the day it will be removed from the product. Simple as that. Every other statements are just pure speculation. Period :). Guillaume On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] j.ponthi...@nasa.gov wrote: Kaydara created Filmbox in the 1990s. FBX is the Filmbox format. ** ** http://aucache.autodesk.com/au2011/sessions/6341/class_handouts/v1_DG6341_Montgomery.pdf ** ** Filmbox became Motionbuilder in 2002. ** ** http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2002/Volume-25-Issue-7-July-2002-/Kaydaras-Filmbox-Becomes-Motionbuilder.aspx ** ** Alias acquired Kaydara in 2004. ** ** http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112id=6901510linkID=14271594 Autodesk acquired Alias in 2006 ** ** http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886siteID=123112 ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. ** ** *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul Griswold *Sent:* Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:29 PM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration ** ** Thanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. ** ** It'd be nice to have Alembic in both.. ** ** -Paul ** ** ** ** On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mikael Pettersén mikael.petter...@gmail.com wrote: Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well. ** ** On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. ** ** Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. ** ** The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. ** ** -Paul ** ** ** ** On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher *Jason S* jasonsta...@gmail.com Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline *Paul Griswold* pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. ** ** This is what I was talking about: ** ** http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E ** ** Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. ** ** I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. ** ** -PG ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** image001.jpg
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Just people using XSI and doing rendering related stuff and knowing the FxTree :). On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Gullaume - There are two meaning to 'dead' Dead as in it's not actively used and Dead as it's removed from the product. Dead as in Walking Dead :) How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Christopher Guillaume Laforge guillaume.laforge...@gmail.com Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:18 PM The FxTree is not dead of course. Every components of XSI can be improved at any time by the Softimage team. Improved by adding feature to the existing code or improved by creating a new version of the component (like when ICE replaced the old particle system). FxTree will be dead the day it will be removed from the product. Simple as that. Every other statements are just pure speculation. Period :). Guillaume Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] j.ponthi...@nasa.gov Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:13 PM Kaydara created Filmbox in the 1990s. FBX is the Filmbox format. ** ** http://aucache.autodesk.com/au2011/sessions/6341/class_handouts/v1_DG6341_Montgomery.pdf ** ** Filmbox became Motionbuilder in 2002. ** ** http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2002/Volume-25-Issue-7-July-2002-/Kaydaras-Filmbox-Becomes-Motionbuilder.aspx ** ** Alias acquired Kaydara in 2004. ** ** http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112id=6901510linkID=14271594 Autodesk acquired Alias in 2006 ** ** http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886siteID=123112 ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. ** ** *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [ mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul Griswold *Sent:* Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:29 PM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: This is what I meant by AE integration ** ** Thanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. ** ** It'd be nice to have Alembic in both.. ** ** -Paul ** ** ** ** On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mikael Pettersén mikael.petter...@gmail.com wrote: Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well. ** ** On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. ** ** Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. ** ** The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. ** ** -Paul ** ** ** ** On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher *Jason S* jasonsta...@gmail.com Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline *Paul Griswold* pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. ** ** This is what I was talking about: ** ** http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E ** ** Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. ** ** I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Do you use the FXTree Guillaume, actively ? Some on the list grew with FXTree while others do there work in a compositing program. Whatever rocks your boat, I suppose. Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:04 PM How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Just people using XSI and doing rendering related stuff and knowing the FxTree :). Christopher Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:25 PM Gullaume - There are two meaning to 'dead' Dead as in it's not actively used and Dead as it's removed from the product. Dead as in Walking Dead :) How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:18 PM The FxTree is not dead of course. Every components of XSI can be improved at any time by the Softimage team.Improved by adding feature to the existing code or improved by creating a new version of the component (like when ICE replaced the old particle system). FxTree will be dead the day it will be removed from the product.Simple as that.Every other statements are just pure speculation. Period :).Guillaume Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:13 PM Kaydara created Filmbox in the 1990s. FBX is the Filmbox format. http://aucache.autodesk.com/au2011/sessions/6341/class_handouts/v1_DG6341_Montgomery.pdfFilmbox became Motionbuilder in 2002.http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2002/Volume-25-Issue-7-July-2002-/Kaydaras-Filmbox-Becomes-Motionbuilder.aspxAlias acquired Kaydara in 2004.http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112id=6901510linkID=14271594 Autodesk acquired Alias in 2006http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886siteID=123112--Joey PonthieuxLaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES)Mymic Technical ServicesNASA Langley Research Center__Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Paul GriswoldSent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:29 PMTo: softimage@listproc.autodesk.comSubject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integrationThanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. It'd be nice to have Alembic in both..-PaulOn Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mikael Pettersn mikael.petter...@gmail.com wrote:Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well.On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote:Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera.Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -PaulOn Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote:Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route.ChristopherJason SFriday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PMIf you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!)Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly!Must have in a XSi Nuke PipelinePaul GriswoldFriday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PMI brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement.This is what I was talking about:http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8EWatch the videos you'll see what I mean.I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now.-PG Paul Griswold Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:29 PM Thanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. It'd be nice to have Alembic in both.. -Paul
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Personally I do most of my 2D comps in Nuke, (only mostly because of the rather short bug/feature section of my post) So the previously discussed (if only) points that have been made about not needing Nuke -if only- there would be a *bit* of efforts made on it, were quite valid. But for me when I need to have tranparency mapped grids with comps on them (or on other models in space), I use the FXTree. When I need to PROCEDURALLY TREAT TEXTURES (all the time) I use the FXTree Fo quick previews and testing I use the FXTree (import passes) When I use SI, I use the FX Tree ( as many more than what magazines may portray ) Historically, many people have always (quietly) used the FXTree. On 07/04/2013 7:50 PM, Christopher wrote: Do you use the FXTree Guillaume, actively ? Some on the list grew with FXTree while others do there work in a compositing program. Whatever rocks your boat, I suppose. Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:04 PM How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Just people using XSI and doing rendering related stuff and knowing the FxTree :). Christopher Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:25 PM Gullaume - There are two meaning to 'dead' Dead as in it's not actively used and Dead as it's removed from the product. Dead as in Walking Dead :) How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:18 PM The FxTree is not dead of course. Every components of XSI can be improved at any time by the Softimage team. Improved by adding feature to the existing code or improved by creating a new version of the component (like when ICE replaced the old particle system). FxTree will be dead the day it will be removed from the product. Simple as that. Every other statements are just pure speculation. Period :). Guillaume Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:13 PM Kaydara created Filmbox in the 1990s. FBX is the Filmbox format. http://aucache.autodesk.com/au2011/sessions/6341/class_handouts/v1_DG6341_Montgomery.pdf Filmbox became Motionbuilder in 2002. http://www.cgw.com/Publications/CGW/2002/Volume-25-Issue-7-July-2002-/Kaydaras-Filmbox-Becomes-Motionbuilder.aspx Alias acquired Kaydara in 2004. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112id=6901510linkID=14271594 Autodesk acquired Alias in 2006 http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5970886siteID=123112 -- Joey Ponthieux LaRC Information Technology Enhanced Services (LITES) Mymic Technical Services NASA Langley Research Center __ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Paul Griswold Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 4:29 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: This is what I meant by AE integration Thanks - I'll give that a try. I know the Eyeon guys complain that Autodesk doesn't adhere to the FBX standards (even though didn't AD come up with FBX?) and so Fusion's FBX support isn't 100%. It'd be nice to have Alembic in both.. -Paul On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mikael Pettersn mikael.petter...@gmail.com wrote: Paul: If you export the fbx as 2010 in Softimage the animation will work in Fusion as well. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul On Fri, Apr
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
What does the FX Tree lack compared to AE / Nuke ? Christopher Jason S Sunday, April 07, 2013 8:02 PM Personally I do most of my 2D comps in Nuke, (only mostly because of the rather short bug/feature section of my post) So the previously discussed (if only) points that have been made about not needing Nuke -if only- there would be a *bit* of efforts made on it, were quite valid. But for me when I need to have tranparency mapped grids with comps on them (or on other models in space), I use the FXTree. When I need to PROCEDURALLY TREAT TEXTURES (all the time) I use the FXTree Fo quick previews and testing I use the FXTree (import passes) When I use SI, I use the FX Tree ( as many more than what magazines may portray ) Historically, many people have always (quietly) used the FXTree. Christopher Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:50 PM Do you use the FXTree Guillaume, actively ? Some on the list grew with FXTree while others do there work in a compositing program. Whatever rocks your boat, I suppose. Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:04 PM How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Just people using XSI and doing rendering related stuff and knowing the FxTree :). Christopher Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:25 PM Gullaume - There are two meaning to 'dead' Dead as in it's not actively used and Dead as it's removed from the product. Dead as in Walking Dead :) How many people on this list use FXTree for Active work ? Christopher Guillaume Laforge Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:18 PM The FxTree is not dead of course. Every components of XSI can be improved at any time by the Softimage team.Improved by adding feature to the existing code or improved by creating a new version of the component (like when ICE replaced the old particle system). FxTree will be dead the day it will be removed from the product.Simple as that.Every other statements are just pure speculation. Period :).Guillaume
RE: This is what I meant by AE integration
I bought the $450 version (XSI Foundation). It was a great bargain, but looking back I can see now that the lack of ref models in that version was pretty limiting and I could see why more experienced people would avoid it just for that reason. On a related note, I think it's a shame they stopped working on the Mod Tools, that is what brought me over to Softimage in the first place.. it really seemed like Softimage was the game-dev tool of choice back then. While I'm still using it as my primary 3d tool, it's much harder to hang on to that point of view these days. -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Angus Davidson Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 12:01 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: RE: This is what I meant by AE integration not sure.. XSI was just 450$ for four years and people hesitated to get it anyway. It should have taken the market by storm at that point. I've got a lot of opinions on all subjects - :P - but I'm really not sure why that didn't happen. Theres one very big difference between then and now . At the time that that offer came out. The worlds economy was racing ahead. Money just wasnt so much of an object as it is now. People bought Maya mostly because it was all over magazines, websites etc. XSI was very rarely mentioned. Now the worlds economy is mostly in the gutter so I can bet that if that a similarly valued offer was given again with some decent marketing it would be a very different story.= table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td /tr /table
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG compose-unknown-contact.jpg
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Despite fusion flaws would you still vouch for Fusion or should I stick with AE, unless another compositor in mind, excluding NUKE ? :) Christopher Paul Griswold Saturday, April 06, 2013 5:30 AM Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul Christopher Friday, April 05, 2013 11:11 PM Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline Paul Griswold Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like Fusion is a little more artist friendly and therefore faster for me to work with. There's a nice 3Delight connection now for Fusion that lets you use it right inside the compositor. And of course it already has both a software and a OpenCL renderer/accelerator. After Effects is great if you're editing something in Premiere Pro and need some motion graphics or quick effects. They have a shared cache system that lets you bring AE comps into Premiere as live elements. It's very broadcast friendly rather than being VFX friendly (I hope that makes sense). -Paul On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca wrote: Despite fusion flaws would you still vouch for Fusion or should I stick with AE, unless another compositor in mind, excluding NUKE ? :) Christopher Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Saturday, April 06, 2013 5:30 AM Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul Christopher christop...@thecreativesheep.ca Friday, April 05, 2013 11:11 PM Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S jasonsta...@gmail.com Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG postbox-contact.jpgcompose-unknown-contact.jpg
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
It's helpful information. I decided to go with Fusion, which I already hand in mind anyhow. I was going to go with a Autodesk Composite / AE workflow, that is a mixed mess IMO :) Like I said, I don't have hate toward AE, it's just if you factor in the price of AE plus some effective plug-ins budget wise, your paying for fusion anyhow, why not go fusion :) Christopher Paul Griswold Saturday, April 06, 2013 10:59 AM Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like Fusion is a little more artist friendly and therefore faster for me to work with. There's a nice 3Delight connection now for Fusion that lets you use it right inside the compositor. And of course it already has both a software and a OpenCL renderer/accelerator. After Effects is great if you're editing something in Premiere Pro and need some motion graphics or quick effects. They have a shared cache system that lets you bring AE comps into Premiere as live elements. It's very "broadcast friendly" rather than being VFX friendly (I hope that makes sense). -Paul Christopher Saturday, April 06, 2013 9:11 AM Despite fusion flaws would you still vouch for Fusion or should I stick with AE, unless another compositor in mind, excluding NUKE ? :) Christopher Paul Griswold Saturday, April 06, 2013 5:30 AM Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul Christopher Friday, April 05, 2013 11:11 PM Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
that second video... way to name drop ILM and not making any sense. anyways, maxon has done a great job! it would be difficult to match with softimage, at least the rendering part. cinema has its own renderer so they can implement their renderer more easily then one would with mental ray inside softimage. one could make a plugin which talks between the two for scene data though. like the xsi server plugin and the 'send to' features built in. s On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Paul Griswold pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com wrote: I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Node based workflows has the advantage of easily having the outputs of effect streams as sources very easily (visually), giving more space for complexity while remaning managable understandable. Whereas timeline based such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer with compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. Smoke (and DS) harness the best of both worlds. But as far a I know, both AE Fusion are excellent. On 06/04/2013 9:11 AM, Christopher wrote: Despite fusion flaws would you still vouch for Fusion or should I stick with AE, unless another compositor in mind, excluding NUKE ? :) Christopher Paul Griswold Saturday, April 06, 2013 5:30 AM Fusion is great with Softimage it's 3D environment is fantastic. Getting things back and forth isn't as easy as I'd like, though. You can export your scenes as FBX, but Fusion won't/doesn't see camera animation in FBX files from XSI for some reason. So you have to export your camera as a dotXSI, and then import it into Fusion - then you get your geometry your animated camera. Fusion doesn't support Sub-D's, though, so any subdivided object comes in un-subdivided. The new C4D-AE pipeline only interests me for motion graphics. I think AE is a real pain to work with for serious compositing. -Paul Christopher Friday, April 05, 2013 11:11 PM Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline Paul Griswold Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Paul Griswold Personally for compositing I would always go with Fusion. Especially now that they have Generation AM out and they just released some great open source Python modules for pipeline building. I know Nuke is the big boy these days and I think Nuke and Fusion both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I just tend to feel like Fusion is a little more artist friendly and therefore faster for me to work with. I heard lots of good things about Fusion... what are it's main strengths (and weaknesses) you were reffering to in you opinion, or what do you like most? Also had an extra 'with' in my reply :) .. timeline based /[solutions]/ such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer /with /compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. cheers On 06/04/2013 7:31 PM, Jason S wrote: Node based workflows has the advantage of easily having the outputs of effect streams as sources very easily (visually), giving more space for complexity while remaning managable understandable. Whereas timeline based such as AE (with stacked effects) it's easier to have longer with compositions with a number of effects shots as single projects while keeping an overview and control of the whole. Smoke (and DS) harness the best of both worlds. But as far a I know, both AE Fusion are excellent.
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline On 05/04/2013 8:53 PM, Paul Griswold wrote: I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG
Re: This is what I meant by AE integration
Nuke pipeline to expensive for me. The only thing I hate with AE is the slew of plug-ins, that is the plus Nuke has, it's all mostly within the software. Fusion is another alternative, considering the plugins for AE, maybe I should go the fusion route. Christopher Jason S Friday, April 05, 2013 10:33 PM If you work with Nuke, also be SURE to check-out T.I.M. XSI 2 Nuke (!) Imports objects (planes or more complex object along with UVs), cameras, all with anims (not sure about deforms) flawlessly! Must have in a XSi Nuke Pipeline Paul Griswold Friday, April 05, 2013 8:53 PM I brought up a little while ago that I really wish Softimage had better AE integration the announcement of the Adobe/Maxon agreement. This is what I was talking about: http://www.itsartmag.com/features/cineware-live-3d-pipeline-in-after-effect/#.UV9xH9ysh8E Watch the videos you'll see what I mean. I don't think Softimage necessarily needs that level of integration, but right now there is zero official support, so something would be better than what we've got now. -PG
