/"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 [[email protected]]
*Sent:* 07 April 2013 01:47 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody mentionned the Fx Tree. Is it
completly out-dated ?
Le 07/04/2013 12:03, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:44 AM
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*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.
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.
