Well Fusion in the hands of Blackmagic is a start. One of the biggest travesties in Soft is how they left Illusion to stagnate and die. With a bit of effort it could have been a real contender. As it is its still used for quick comps even today. For something last worked on a long time ago thats impressive.
Then again the compositor in blender is shaping up to be very useable. So there are very viable alternatives to Nuke. ________________________________ From: Sebastien Sterling [[email protected]] Sent: 19 December 2014 01:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Lets Hope Autodesk Buys the Foundry! I'm pretty sure most of us are happy with Nuke, it would be nice if the next owner exhibited some shared passion or vision of the product and a willingness to further it's betterment. instead of begrudgingly stretching out and rationing feature quotas secure in the knowledge that there is no longer (oups..!) i mean no comparable alternative for people to defect to. :P On 18 December 2014 at 23:37, Luc-Eric Rousseau <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: More context for clarity: "worthless".. to build a new "greatest compositing" app. On Dec 18, 2014 6:01 PM, "Luc-Eric Rousseau" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I see what you did there, but that quote was about the 14-bit compositing code that was last developed in 1996, which I used 5 years later. On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Andi Farhall <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > "Personally I think all of this old source code base is now worthless." > > I would agree, and I would include Maya. > > > ________________________________ > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:22:00 +0100 > Subject: Re: Lets Hope Autodesk Buys the Foundry! > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > " I think people just want the existing, production-proven ones they are > used to," > > Well this goes also for Softimage for a lot of artist out there but doesn't > meant a thing later when it was chopped down > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Does anybody want a new compositor? I don't think they do. I think people > just want the existing, production-proven ones they are used to, cheaper. > What people have in their hands is pretty great already. > > btw autodesk doesn't own eddie/illusion/matador/ER, just the source code of > the fxtree, which doesn't really have any eddie in it and not that much of > the other ones. Personally I think all of this old source code base is now > worthless. > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Paul Griswold > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Doesn't ADSK own Toxik, Composite, Smoke, Flame, FX Tree (Eddie, Media > Illusion, Matador), as well as Elastic Reality (inside the FX Tree)? On top > of that they have a fantastic vector paint program called Sketchbook > Designer (not Sketchbook Pro, though that's pretty spiffy too). > > It seems like they already own enough technology to create the greatest > compositor the world has ever seen. I wonder what the problem is? > Leadership? Nah.... > > -PG > <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%;"> <tr> <td align="left" style="text-align:justify;"><font face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" color="#999999"><span style="font-size:11px;">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. </span></font></td> </tr> </table>
