Or, perhaps the Foundry could re-focus their efforts on a new target: Autodesk.
I know that at this point it is rarely used in feature film production, but in commercial finishing, Flame is still the top dog. A license of Flame Premium will run you $129k, PLUS the cost of hardware, putting the total price tag at around $180 grand, and that doesn't even include the cost of the bay, or optional extras like HDCAM SR decks. So, what if the Foundry releases a new product, let's call it H-Bomb, and it puts this in the market space to compete with Flame, which has no competition at all. Let's say that the Foundry prices the license at 50 grand, a huge savings over Flame, to encourage adoption. This will be a high end and potentially lucrative market, and will help cover R&D costs for compositing packages in general. This way The Foundry can offer Nuke at a lower cost ( like Autodesk has done with Combustion in the past, and now Toxik/Composite ), and just have it missing some of the features of H-Bomb so as not to cannibalize the high-end market. On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Randy Little wrote: > I think the issue is more that HUGE VC company owns The foundry now. HUGE VC > companies expect growth because VC money is put in by people expecting big > returns. VS small company that needs less profits to remain viable. > > VFX profits falling so soon if trend continues only people that can afford > nuke are big companies. Maya cost less then nuke. think about that. > > Houdini cost the same as nuke. I find it super hard to believe that the > cost to produce Nuke is the same as the cost to produce Houdini. But we have > no choice really in the market so we have to pay. > > > Randy S. Little > http://www.rslittle.com > > > > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:02, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, on the upside, you can always decide to stop paying the > maintenance and live without the upgrades (not that I'm encouraging > this). Specially after the 6.3 upgrades, even if you don't update for > years you will have the most complete feature set in the history of > compositing. Consider this: Shake continued to be used successfully in > production a full 6-10 years after it was discontinued, and it was > obviously a much more primitive software package. However, I don't own > personal copies of Nuke though, and I'm always glad to be able to use > the latest and greatest from The Foundry at work, and I think that the > maintenance price is a good investment for companies because of the > upgrades and excellent support. > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Nathan Rusch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Very true. Nothing in Nuke is “magic,” and nothing in Nuke is unheard of in > > other packages. It’s the particular way the tools and elements are brought > > together that makes it appealing, not some secret formula that makes your > > images come out better. But that doesn’t mean Nuke is the final word, or > > anything near it. For example, if 6.3’s particle system is 1/4 what Fusion’s > > was 6+ years ago, I’ll consider it a great addition. > > > > You can do A+B*(1-a) just as easily in Fusion as you can in Nuke... you just > > might not be as used to it. > > > > Oh, and you can RAM-cache your ops. :P > > > > -Nathan > > > > > > From: Randy Little > > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:26 PM > > To: Nuke user discussion > > Subject: Re: [Nuke-users] The Foundry is raising the maintance price...!!! > > > > yet some how many things are comped in other packages. One package is > > bad for everyone. I would rather comp in Nuke then Fusion but fusion does > > some cool stuff that nuke should. > > > > For that matter Toxik does some cool stuff that nuke should. Both > > Fusion and Toxik kill Nuke in paint and roto. I added 20 paint strokes to > > a comp today and it added a crazy amount of time to render farm times. > > CRAZY. > > > > One of anything is bad. Regardless of what it is. > > > > Randy S. Little > > http://reel.rslittle.com > > http://imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 19:52, Feli <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Looks like it's time for my yearly post: > >> > >> > >> I would get out of this business before I got stuck comping a show in > >> Fusion or anything other than Nuke. > >> > >> Been there, done that and never want to repeat that experience again. > >> > >> > >> > >> Feli > >> > >> > >> > >> ______________________________________________________________ > >> [email protected] 2 + 2 = > >> 4 www.elanphotos.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
