PDA

View Full Version : Fusion and Nuke, which one to learn?



Soth
01-23-2010, 01:51 AM
Hi,
I want to do some compositing/corrections of what I have rendered in the LightWave but I cannot make a choice here... and do not have time to play with both... so I would like download trial, learn a bit and ask my manager to buy it (of wife for EDU) or eBay or whatever. :)

Just need a kick in right direction.

Captain Obvious
01-23-2010, 05:55 AM
If you get a move on, you can get Fusion for $1000, compared to the $4500 Nuke will cost you.

Check it out: http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=261888


They're both great applications, you really can't go wrong with either one. I honestly prefer Fusion. I find it easier and more straight-forward to use, while still very powerful.

Pavlov
01-23-2010, 07:54 AM
my question is: beside animation, which are the advantages in doing still post/comp in Fusion instead of Photoshop ?

dballesg
01-23-2010, 09:23 AM
my question is: beside animation, which are the advantages in doing still post/comp in Fusion instead of Photoshop ?

I will say their nodal workflow! :)

Captain Obvious
01-23-2010, 11:04 AM
my question is: beside animation, which are the advantages in doing still post/comp in Fusion instead of Photoshop ?
Nodes makes it easier to have a less destructive workflow, and makes it significantly easier to swap out renders and the like. It also makes it easier to generate different versions without having to duplicate the PSD. It saves you a lot of hard drive space, because you're only referencing the original render files, instead of actually loading the pixel data into a new file as you do with Photoshop. That also means you won't sit there for ten minutes waiting for a gigabyte-sized PSD to load or saved — a Fusion script for a still image generally weighs in at less than 100 kilobytes. I'd argue that performance is generally better, as well, especially if you're working on high dynamic range files.

Oh, and unlike Photoshop, Fusion actually respects and lets you work with alphas and both premultiplied and unpremultiplied renders without any problems.

Photoshop is better at painting, but that's pretty much it.

Pavlov
01-24-2010, 10:44 AM
thanks a lot,
Paolo

Greenlaw
01-24-2010, 04:14 PM
Yes, working with nodes is far more flexible than working with layers. We do all our compositing with Fusion, by the way, and the current sale is a fantastic deal. (Fusion normally goes for about $5000.)

However, I have to say that for motion graphics type of work, I liked using After Effects better, which is layer based rather than nodal. Having said that, I usually wind up doing this kind of work in LightWave though. For most compositing and fx work, I much prefer working in Fusion.

Greenlaw

Titus
01-24-2010, 05:12 PM
If you get a move on, you can get Fusion for $1000, compared to the $4500 Nuke will cost you.

Check it out: http://www.spinquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=261888


They're both great applications, you really can't go wrong with either one. I honestly prefer Fusion. I find it easier and more straight-forward to use, while still very powerful.

That's a sweet deal! Thanks for the link.

Titus
01-24-2010, 05:14 PM
my question is: beside animation, which are the advantages in doing still post/comp in Fusion instead of Photoshop ?

Also in Fusion you can work with a sequence of images, with Photoshop you have to manually apply all the effects/transformations to all the images.

Dexter2999
01-24-2010, 06:49 PM
Also in Fusion you can work with a sequence of images, with Photoshop you have to manually apply all the effects/transformations to all the images.

Or record a macro and batch process...still easier in FUSION but cheaper in PS.

BlueApple
01-24-2010, 07:33 PM
Or record a macro and batch process...still easier in FUSION but cheaper in PS.

Absolutely correct to say that batching in Photoshop is cheaper than buying a standalone compositor, however animating an effect over time through batching in Photoshop is challenging.

Buy what you need. If you need only uniformly alter all frames of a rendered sequence, stick with Photoshop (provided you already own it.) Otherwise, look into the other applications. I use AfterEffects personally, but just like 3d there are ups and downs to all packages. Demo what you can for free and then choose.

Mr Rid
01-25-2010, 03:31 AM
Hi,
I want to do some compositing/corrections of what I have rendered in the LightWave but I cannot make a choice here... and do not have time to play with both... so I would like download trial, learn a bit and ask my manager to buy it (of wife for EDU) or eBay or whatever. :)

Just need a kick in right direction.

Fusion is great, but Nuke is more of an FX industry standard.

Soth
01-25-2010, 04:35 AM
I am watching Fusion tutorials right now and I really like it... no more silly batch processing in Pohotoshop! :D

Captain Obvious
01-25-2010, 04:59 AM
That's a sweet deal! Thanks for the link.
It's pretty awesome. I bought it pretty much straight away. Eyeon were very easy to deal with, answered all my questions and shipped it in record time. I ordered it monday night and I had the DVD and dongle by morning tea break on wednesday. Considering it travelled all the way from Toronto to London, that's pretty good work I think.




Or record a macro and batch process...still easier in FUSION but cheaper in PS.
So... how do you preview that on a sequence? How do you animate your masks? Honestly, it's really not something I would wish on even my worst enemy.




Fusion is great, but Nuke is more of an FX industry standard.
At least in movies, sure. Besides, if you know Fusion, learning Nuke is a snap. I'd previously used Shake. Started using Fusion at a new job, and it was a very easy transition. Getting to grips with Nuke ought to be about as easy.

Yog
01-25-2010, 06:30 AM
I was looking at both Nuke and Fusion about a month ago, as I was looking to upgrade. Although I had some experience with Fusion (DFX+ ver-4), for the last few years it has all been After Effects.

I trialed the latest version of Fusion, and it was pretty much how I remembered it, it "seemed" a little basic for an app of todays standard, but easy to use.
I then trialed Nuke, and thought it was really good. I found it a little cumbersom (probably more familiarity with DFX+), but it seemed ti have a lot more functionality than Fusion.

Then I did a bit more research on Fusion, looked up some additional tutorials and gave it another spin. I found that all the "new" and exciting features that I oticed in Nuke, had actually been in fusion for some time.
An example would be the lightwrap node in Nuke, at first it doesn't look as though Fusion has this function, but 2 or 3 nodes combined gives you the same effect, two more clicks and they are bundled into a macro, two more clicks and the macro appears on the toolbar for future projects. There was a lot like this.
Also Fusion can use the vast majority of After Effects plug-ins out there, so if you already have them for AE, then you get a big bust for the Fusion toolset right from the start.

Lightwolf
01-25-2010, 06:39 AM
Also Fusion can use the vast majority of After Effects plug-ins out there, so if you already have them for AE, then you get a big bust for the Fusion toolset right from the start.
With the exception of 64-bit Fusion of course. But then there's OFX support (which Nuke supports as well).

Cheers,
Mike

mikala
01-25-2010, 08:44 AM
Just wish there was the Furnace plugs for Fusion 64bit. 32 bit only with no plans to develop them either.

Captain Obvious
01-25-2010, 05:34 PM
Also Fusion can use the vast majority of After Effects plug-ins out there, so if you already have them for AE, then you get a big bust for the Fusion toolset right from the start.
Reeeally? I had no idea about that! Might actually turn out useful on a project I'm working on at the moment. More info, please! I'm not too concerned about 64-bit Fusion right now; a normal less than a minute 720p project certainly doesn't need more than 32-bit!

Lightwolf
01-25-2010, 05:36 PM
... a normal less than a minute 720p project certainly doesn't need more than 32-bit!
Wait until you had a project like that completely in the RAM cache and then worked on it :D

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
01-25-2010, 07:11 PM
Wait until you had a project like that completely in the RAM cache and then worked on it :D

Cheers,
Mike
Leeet's see...

1280x720 resolution
3 bytes per pixel in the output buffer
40 seconds
25 frames per second

1280x720x3x40x24 = 2.637 gigabytes

Still fits! :D Besides, the longest individual shot in this particular project is only about ten seconds. No problem.

Greenlaw
01-25-2010, 10:14 PM
...at first it doesn't look as though Fusion has this function, but 2 or 3 nodes combined gives you the same effect, two more clicks and they are bundled into a macro, two more clicks and the macro appears on the toolbar for future projects.

Yes, macros are a very powerful feature. We have many dozens of custom Fusion tools that were created like this (mostly by my boss John-Mark Austin, or our master tech guy Mike Popovich,) that do all sorts of things like lightwraps, normal lighting, subsurface scattering, depth blur and fog effects, and vector blur tools (for applying motion blur as a post effect using motion vectors embedded in the .exr files; we also have vector tools for merging vectors from various layers, bridging vectors to any part of a flow, and even a tool for 'growing' vectors to cover Sasquatch fur and hair.) Many of these tools help us spend less time tweaking in LightWave, and do final quality HD renders from LW with significantly fewer passes.

Also, being able to use AE plug-ins in Fusion is great. I like to use Twixtor and many of the other Re:Vision plug-ins. (The plug-ins that don't work, I found, are the ones that work with AE's 3D environment.)

I've been using Fusion's paint tools more and more. Ever since they added the multi-stroke pens, it works a little more like a real paint program now.

Greenlaw

mikala
01-25-2010, 10:17 PM
Speaking of lightwraps...does Fusion have one native or is that why you guys made a macro?

Greenlaw
01-25-2010, 10:38 PM
There's no tool specifically called 'lightwrap', but a basic lightwrap effect is easy to do. For example, use Sobel to pull an edge from an alpha channel, apply glow to soften the edge, and then use the alpha as a bitmap mask and offset it if you want the wrap to look like it's coming from a particular direction. A more sophisticated version would use rendered normals to help simulate light hitting the edge. We actually have many 'light wrap' type tools, each using different methods of edge detection, or variations of the merge tool that include built-in light wrap options. Since you can create your own interface in a macro, these tools look like any other Fusion tool, and are technically 'native' tools.

By the way, you can use similar techniques to blur and blend edges in cg elements too, which helps to integrate elements in a live plate more realistically.

Greenlaw
01-25-2010, 10:43 PM
BTW, I believe you can request an evaluation version of Fusion from their website. I'm not sure what the limits or restrictions are since I've never had to use this version.

Greenlaw

mikala
01-25-2010, 10:44 PM
Thank you for the quick response.
That is excellent as that is the reason I ask about lightwrap or the technique. A more realistic integration.
Can you recommend any tutorials that a person might access to get a better grips with macros in Fusion?
Sorry for all the questions.

Greenlaw
01-25-2010, 10:52 PM
I don't typically make Fusion macros myself unless it's a pretty simple one, but I'll ask our experts at work when I go back. (I'm on vacation right now.) :)

Greenlaw
01-25-2010, 11:00 PM
I just did a quick Google search for 'Fusion macro tutorials', and found a YouTube video that might help get you started:

Fusion 6 - Macro Tools (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWjxqsXwWC4)

Greenlaw

Lamont
01-27-2010, 05:42 AM
I've been thinking of getting into this stuff, but maybe just concentrate on making the assets/props and that's it, and make purdy stills in photoshop.

Also, I'd need a job in order to pay for Fusion. Looks killer.

AbnRanger
01-28-2010, 12:32 AM
Fusion 6 came out with some sweet features like GPU accelerated rendering (not OpenGL viewport performance...)...and the true 3D particles it has had for some time, put it over the top, IMHO.