Hi Sven, I understand what you are saying, and there are aspects of it that I agree with 100%. For instance, you are totally correct with the statement that old tools can still create great work.
Of course they can, and the analogy you created was perfect. What I disagree with is that clients don't really know or care about the software. They actually know almost nothing, except the name "Maya". When you say "Softimage" they do look skeptical, yes, but if the work is good, they don't care that much. However, now that Softimage is EOL, they will see that (many, many of them look up what software is "standard" and many also ask around to producer friends they know. When they mention Softimage now, it will instill fear, not faith. They may know next to nothing about the software, but when they look into it (and they will), they will all of the sudden become scared. The other thing is that the last sentence you wrote gave me pause. 5 years in this business is an eternity. We will be lucky to get 2 years out of it with things starting to change enough that it will become a problem much after that. No we don't NEED the newest updates, but often there are updates that make us able to compete with others who would be using non-EOL software. Things that will make it harder over time, not a long amount of time, to do what we do. I say 2 - 3 years at the most. Really non of us knows for sure, of course. All I know is that I won't be hanging all I have on Autodesk to find out. On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Sven Constable <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm angry as every Softimage user but maybe I can help to tamper your > anger down. My english is not so good to express my intentions in depth > but maybe it comes through somehow. > > > > CG and 3D animation in general is not different from other businesses. > It's all about perception. If a company produces clothes, they will not > succeed by using the newest machines to make the cloth. In fact they can > produce on old machines and child labour to produce a Levi's jeans. The > market will see it as high quality because of the name and the output they > will create with any machinery they use. > > Clients usually have no clue about 3D-Animation software in depth'and they > really don't care most of the times. I had conversations with clients and > they asked about the software I use. I told them I was using XSI (that was > a few years ago when we used that term). They didn't had any idea what > 'that XSI software' was all about and they seemed sceptical. Then I told > them, it's 'Softimage'. They instantly changed their minds, recogniced the > name and they were happy. :) Of course that will not work forever. > > > > What I really want to say is, that words do the damage to us. Words like > 'EOL'. It's a killer! Its like telling someone he has bad breath. We were > able to produce top notch 3D-animation four weeks ago. Now someone says a > software is EOL and that should be the reason no one can produce anything > with it? > > Lots of small studios, solo freelancers and even medium sized companys > producing their animations with software from several years ago. It's a > misconception, that we desperatly *need* every new fancy feature and the > newest version of a software. Surely it's different for the big companies, > but they have their own inhouse tools anyway. In fact even having those > inhouse tools like Vodoo (and that seems to be something that AD will not > remotly be able to develop in the next 10 years), it doesn't prevent them > from going bankrupt. > > Of course they're other reasons for the VFX business situation in the US > than that, but using newest software didn't help them. > > Somehow I think we are more concerned about a software than the actual > work. Do you need Bifröst do be in the business? Do you really need an > edge-loop-fancy-magnet function to do 3D-animation? > > There are so many workarounds, especially in Softimage so that we are not > have to rely on a specific software or version. At least not for the next > five years and thats a long time. > > > > sven > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David Gallagher > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:11 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Digital Golem : Brillant and beautiful > > > > > > Our pipeline is Softimage->Arnold->Nuke and despite all the turmoil I can > tell you I have no intention whatsoever to change that in the near future. > > It works, it works well, and nothing else right now can touch it. > > > > So Autodesk can shove their "innovation" right back up their collective > arse and choke on it -- as far as I'm concerned they've just killed a > member of my family. > > > Exactly right. > Trying to keep my anger tamped down. > > > > > Cheers, > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > On 19 Mar 2014, at 04:39, Tenshi Sama <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Nice! All in Softimage? > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Francisco Criado <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Excelent work, so nice! > > > > On Tuesday, March 18, 2014, olivier jeannel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > https://vimeo.com/groups/ice/videos/89426397 > > Kudos to Digital Golem ! > > > > > > > -- Perry Harovas Animation and Visual Effects http://www.TheAfterImage.com <http://www.theafterimage.com/>
