Well that doesn't sound like a point for me. You can easily convert relative to absolute in expressions too. I do prefer working in relative space though because for me it's more important to know where I am in space (center, left, right) then what pixel I'm on. A matter of preference I guess.
As to the fuses, there is a difference though. With fuses you have access to bigger parts of the Plugin API, which involves scripting OpenCL tools or (tested in 5.x and coming back in 6.2) particle systems. You can't tweak the access with simple gizmos sometimes. But it's a pain to work with C++ in lots of cases. With OpenCL users found that it works faster then CPU code in compiled plugins. Also bigger parts of the loops and of course all API calls are compiled code internally. The speed is suprisingly good. There are some great examples on this site: http://www.anatomicaltravel.com/research Not comparable to groups and gizmos IMO. Cheers, Blazej Sent from my Bügelbrett On 14.04.2011, at 09:06, Nathan Dunsworth <[email protected]> wrote: > You can code expressions so they are relative in Nuke, blame lesser skilled > tds for not working the system properly. > > Same goes for compiled script code, tds who dont know how to build groups and > efficient gizmos. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM, michael vorberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > sometimes i really like that in fusion everything is in relative values. > makes it very easy to adapt stuff to different resolutions: you can create > macros/gizmos which work in each resolution the same way even with splines or > transforms in it > > the premult is very easy to solve: each colorcorrection tool has an option to > premult/postmult in it and for a general tool you have many ways to do it (as > in most comp packages). if your lazy to do it over and over again, just build > a macro > > one unmentioned outstanding feature of fusion are the "fuses". this are > script plugins. its a kind of plugin but the code in it is actually the > script language and are "compiled" at run time. makes it a little slower than > a native plugin but its very cool to develop stuff > http://vfxpedia.com/index.php?title=Eyeon:Script/Reference/Applications/Fuse > > Am 13.04.2011 20:55, schrieb Ron Ganbar: >> I always found it very odd that everything in Fusion is measured in >> percentage rather than pixels. Am I the only one? >> Plus the way Fusion handles premultiplication is difficult and annoying as >> well. >> >> But in my opinion, Fusion's biggest hurdle is bad documentation and no user >> forum such as this one here. >> >> >> Ron Ganbar >> email: [email protected] >> tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] >> +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] >> url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> >> On 13 April 2011 21:49, [email protected] <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Yes, I have used it (the linux port), it is completely awful. >> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ned Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Well it's great that Fusion does all that 3D acceleration. However, and I >> > was on Fusion for years and went back and forth with the developers on this >> > many, many times... it has issues with functionality that is integral to >> > compositing, such as 2D tracking and paint. >> > Granted I haven't used Fusion 6, so perhaps this has changed. >> > Plus, Fusion is coded using MFC, not a cross-platform tool kit like Qt. >> > They >> > have no intentions of a Mac port, and the Linux version as Randy mentioned >> > is unstable. The Linux version is not native - it is the Windows version >> > running in a heavily customized version of WINE. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Apr 13, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Randy Little wrote: >> > >> > Nah fusion does a pretty good job. its just has crap support. Fusion 3d >> > and full openCL acceleration make it not horrible. but support is weird >> > and >> > some of the tools are weird and its pretty much windows only. Linux >> > version >> > has a history of unstable. >> > >> > >> > Randy S. Little >> > http://reel.rslittle.com >> > http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:09, andrei gheorghiu <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> There is no other product like Nuke at the present moment...and Nuke was, >> >> since the begining, an extremely well developed tool. >> >> >> >> It is very hard to compete with this....I don't see toady a legitimate >> >> competitor. >> >> >> >> But wait.... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Nuke-users mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Nuke-users mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Nuke-users mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Nuke-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nuke-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list [email protected] http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
