Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

Thanks Peter! On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Peter Crossley wrote: > Hi John, > > This was bug #27045 - Overscan stretching left & right pixels, which was > fixed in 9.0v6. You're one version out! > > Hope that helps, > > Peter. > > On 06/04/2016 22:20, John Mangia

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

Hi John, This was bug #27045 - Overscan stretching left & right pixels, which was fixed in 9.0v6. You're one version out! Hope that helps, Peter. On 06/04/2016 22:20, John Mangia wrote: I'm working at a studio that uses Nuke for Windows 9.0v5 and experiencing a strange issue. I'm creating

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

Check the maillist archives (or the documentation), if I recall correctly there is a way to remove the limit. ./charlie n Thu, Apr 7, 2016, at 04:27, John Mangia wrote: > That's odd, I remember working with much larger images in the past. Why > is there a resolution limit? > > John Mangia > >

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

That's odd, I remember working with much larger images in the past. Why is there a resolution limit? John Mangia Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 6, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Ben Dickson wrote: > > This happens on Linux also. For example - if you enable the reformat and play >

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

This happens on Linux also. For example - if you enable the reformat and play with the slider, it stops cropping at about 8k wide: set cut_paste_input [stack 0] version 8.0 v6 CheckerBoard2 { inputs 0 format "25000 3402 0 0 25000 3402 1 " name CheckerBoard1 selected true xpos -152 ypos

[Nuke-users] (no subject)

I'm working at a studio that uses Nuke for Windows 9.0v5 and experiencing a strange issue. I'm creating a pano using offset transforms and I'm getting bbox stretching artifacts after a width of 8190 pixels wide. I've never seen this issue on Linux or OS X builds and was wondering if this is a

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

I am curious what version of Nuke you are doing these tests with. Perhaps 9.0v1 has improved performance on multithreaded systems? On Monday, December 8, 2014 at 2:36 PM, itai bachar wrote: the foundry should recommend an i7 not a dual xeon in their Windows Certified Box Hardware in their

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

Im on an extremely fast 2x10 core box with two k5200 cards and Also not really seeing the performance boost i was hoping for from my 4year old i7 :( other than having more ram... Maya and aftereffects are flying though. I would love to hear If Any new developments come up On Tuesday,

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

im on 8.06, i checked vers 9, it is the same. On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jed Smith jedy...@gmail.com wrote: I am curious what version of Nuke you are doing these tests with. Perhaps 9.0v1 has improved performance on multithreaded systems? On Monday, December 8, 2014 at 2:36 PM, itai

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

maya is archaic too, yet it uses all cores/threads and rendering is as fast as how many cores you feed it. On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM, itai bachar itaibac...@gmail.com wrote: im on 8.06, i checked vers 9, it is the same. On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Jed Smith jedy...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM To: Nuke user discussion Subject: [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd running windows). Just so happens that the old single cpu pc is faster

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd running windows). Just so happens that the old single cpu pc is faster at rendering, around 5

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

with `-m 16` on the Xeon box. -Nathan *From:* Ron Ganbar ron...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd running windows). Just so

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

?) performance problems on machines with many virtual cores. First thing I would try is running Nuke with `-m 16` on the Xeon box. -Nathan *From:* Ron Ganbar ron...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk'); *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

discussion *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd running windows). Just so happens that the old single cpu pc is faster at rendering, around 5%-30% than

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

wrote: Nuke has (always had?) performance problems on machines with many virtual cores. First thing I would try is running Nuke with `-m 16` on the Xeon box. -Nathan *From:* Ron Ganbar *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion *Subject:* [Nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

: Nuke has (always had?) performance problems on machines with many virtual cores. First thing I would try is running Nuke with `-m 16` on the Xeon box. -Nathan *From:* Ron Ganbar *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

with `-m 16` on the Xeon box. -Nathan *From:* Ron Ganbar *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

will almost always pale in comparison to those of 3D renders. -Nathan From: itai bachar Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 9:22 AM To: Nuke user discussion Subject: Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject) Ive tried extensively with regular and m16, the m16 sheds about 15-20% of render time, getting

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

in comparison to those of 3D renders. -Nathan *From:* itai bachar itaibac...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 9:22 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject) Ive tried extensively with regular and m16, the m16 sheds

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

always pale in comparison to those of 3D renders. -Nathan *From:* itai bachar itaibac...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 9:22 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject) Ive tried extensively with regular and m16

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

, December 08, 2014 9:22 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject) Ive tried extensively with regular and m16, the m16 sheds about 15-20% of render time, getting the dual xeon slightly closer to the i7. Another oddity, i

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

, December 08, 2014 9:22 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject) Ive tried extensively with regular and m16, the m16 sheds about 15-20% of render time, getting the dual xeon slightly closer to the i7. Another oddity, i tried

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

is nuke going to be optimised for multi threading any time soon? I don't work for The Foundry, so I can only speculate, but I wouldn't hold your breath. ___ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk,

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

i guess it depend a lot on how many single-threaded operations are in your script can you check your CPU load on your render tests? i'd guess that that the xenons will be 50% idle. if so, one way to get faster speed could be to start two renders simultaneously, each with half the frame

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

it is idiling at 40%-50%, same as the i7. it is frustrating. i give nuke 16 cores instead of 6, 64gb ram instead of 32, workstation grade supermicro mb, 3 times faster raid, same gpu, and it is slower... even after effects was (slightly) faster on the xeon... and it is not clock speed, the i7 is

[Nuke-users] (no subject)

Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd running windows). Just so happens that the old single cpu pc is faster at rendering, around 5%-30% than the dual xeon machine. Interactivity is also slightly

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

Nuke has (always had?) performance problems on machines with many virtual cores. First thing I would try is running Nuke with `-m 16` on the Xeon box. -Nathan From: Ron Ganbar Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM To: Nuke user discussion Subject: [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old i7 3930K 32GB gtx680, (both reading/writing to a same spec ssd running windows). Just so happens that the old single cpu pc is faster

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

with `-m 16` on the Xeon box. -Nathan *From:* Ron Ganbar ron...@gmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, December 07, 2014 6:21 AM *To:* Nuke user discussion nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk *Subject:* [Nuke-users] (no subject) Hey guys A friend is testing a dual Xeon e5 2689 64GB gtx970 vs his old

[Nuke-users] (no subject)

Hello All, I'm having an issue exporting alembic cameras from Maya 2014 to Nuke 7.0v9, and need some help. The alembic camera in nuke doesn't seem to update to the correct position for the frame in several situations: 1. Just clicking around on the timeline, the camera position stays at the

[Nuke-users] (no subject)

Anyone seeing this on nuke 7.0v6 when launching keylight? Constructor for OFXuk.co.thefoundry.keylight.keylight_v201 failed   Cheers Howard___ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/

[Nuke-users] (no subject)

Hello,i have a problem with the tracker.if track a feature and set transform = stabilze , copy the node and set transform = matchmovethe image is the same as the input. how it should be.the problem is if i put a roto node in between the stabilize and the matchmove node, the image is notmatchmoved

Re: [Nuke-users] (no subject)

Is it that the image then gets cropped? Ron Ganbar email: ron...@gmail.com tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ On 6 August 2012 13:23, podbo...@web.de wrote: Hello, i have a problem with the tracker. if í track a feature

[Nuke-users] (no subject)

~I would like to don't be anymore in this forum mail what i have to do? ___ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users