[Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread blemma
Hi. Is there a way to view the alpha as a transparancy grid? Like AE or Fusion. Thanks ___ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Ron Ganbar
Make a checkerboard and put everything over it? Wrap it up in a group and use it as VIEWER_INPUT. 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 5 October 2011 15:03, blemma

[Nuke-users] Re: Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread blemma
Ok, thanks. That's what i was afraid of. ___ 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

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Deke Kincaid
You can make the viewer go through any gizmo/group. Just take the example Ron gave and register it as a viewer process. -deke On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 06:14, Ron Ganbar ron...@gmail.com wrote: Make a checkerboard and put everything over it? Wrap it up in a group and use it as VIEWER_INPUT.

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Randy Little
Yeah how does that work if you already have a view process for a job. Randy S. Little http://www.rslittle.com http://reel.rslittle.com On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 10:39, Deke Kincaid dekekinc...@gmail.com wrote: You can make the viewer go through any gizmo/group. Just take the example Ron gave

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Ron Ganbar
You simply make a bigger viewer process with more options in it that can be turned on and off. 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 5 October 2011 19:06, Randy Little randyslit...@gmail.com

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Randy Little
Ron what I am saying is that I wouldn't want to be messing around with a SHOW template viewer process that may have all kinds of hooks inside of it. It would be nice if nuke could show Alpha as Transparent. I always feel like Nukes viewer is just antique even compared to what was capable in

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Ivan Busquets
If your show is using viewerProcess, then you still have the old Input Process for yourself, right? You can set up Input Process to happen either before or after the viewerProcess, depending on your needs, but you don't need to turn off either of them to see the other. Unless I'm misreading and

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Randy Little
Yeah I mean it would be nice to have more then one IP. LIke you could have several IP groups. Does that make since? Is there an easy way to have several IP groups. Never tried it. I think its that I miss shake built in overlays. Randy S. Little http://www.rslittle.com

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Deke Kincaid
You can define any number of gizmos as separate viewer processes just like srgb/rec709, etc So you can have more then one IP essentially. -deke On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:52, Randy Little randyslit...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah I mean it would be nice to have more then one IP. LIke you could

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Diogo Girondi
Perhaps it's possible by using a switch node as the output of your IP group. Never tried it my self but it could work. On 05/10/2011, at 15:52, Randy Little randyslit...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah I mean it would be nice to have more then one IP. LIke you could have several IP groups. Does

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Frank Rueter
if you feel adventurous you could create an IP gizmo/group that has nothing in it but creates precomp nodes on creation that are filled based on a specific folder/naming convention. This way you could use an arbitrary amount of external scripts that follow facility/show/user precedence. would

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Ivan Busquets
You can register multiple viewerProcesses, not IP's. That's why I was recommending to use viewerProcesses for anything that needs to be shared across a show (like a 3D lut, any additional looks, crop guides, etc), and leave the IP free for the artists to use anything they want in there. It's

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Howard Jones
I was working on a set of IPs which were simply swapped out via python - so  you would choose an IP from a panel and python would replace the current IP group with a predefined one from the list. It also added a bookmark so you could find it via find bookmarks... ...but then I got too busy.

Re: [Nuke-users] Odd gamma behaviour

2011-10-05 Thread Ivan Busquets
Yep, I don't think __alpha is defined when building on more modern machines (didn't know the history behind it, though. Thanks Jonathan) Ben, thanks for the credit, but this is not what I meant in the original post. What I was trying to say was that the original issue Ron posted was due to

Re: [Nuke-users] Transparancy grid

2011-10-05 Thread Randy Little
I am all for Ivans methodology.viewer process for show level and IP for artist. On most shows artist can't add to the viewer processes so some one can easily change them. Not a scripter but a nice menu that could hold these ip gizmos and you would just select them. Menu part I know is easy

[Nuke-users] All plugins- Update... slow in 6.3?

2011-10-05 Thread Ivan Busquets
Hi, Has anyone noticed the All plugins - Update command taking a lot longer in Nuke 6.3 than it does in 6.2? Not sure if it's specific to my/our setup, so I'm curious if anyone else has noticed a difference between both versions. Thanks, Ivan ___

Re: [Nuke-users] All plugins- Update... slow in 6.3?

2011-10-05 Thread Ron Ganbar
I used it several times and I didn't notice any change of speed at all. 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 October 2011 03:10, Ivan Busquets ivanbusqu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Has