View Full Version : FFX, is really ready?

03-13-2010, 11:17 PM
Hello, I would like to know what is your experience in the use of FFX in demanding production environments.
So far, our workflow used Sasquatch whenever we needed characters with hair. But we attempted to force us to work with FFX, which we have other strengths compared to Sas (that is so good), especially regarding integration with the lighting of the rest of the scene (which must be the sasquatch looser)
The experience had its headaches, with some bugs so far in one way or another, we have been dodging.
These bugs, are typical of a new plugin and we expect to see as future versions will improve.
But now we run into something that has complicated already 48 hours of delivery of work.

Besides a spot for TV, need renderer in high resolution for print, and this has put us in a bind, which give more details on this other post.


How many of you have put FFX into their production workflow?
In our case is a bit late to do the query, but I would like to know your experience.

Thank you very much,

03-13-2010, 11:48 PM
From majority of posts about ffx at newtek, its only good for doing tests. Maybe good for stills but if you change image resolution, ffx settings render differently.

03-14-2010, 03:03 AM
I was lucky enough to complete a job using FFX. Wasn't fun, had so much OT days. The client also wanted print stuff, all I could say is that I had surprises (and not the good type). I would use it only for in house testings or maybe stills and that's edging it.

03-14-2010, 10:23 AM
Well, I decided to try using Advanced Camera, and using a subdivided plane, where each segment has a UV, and use each of these segments to renderings from a UV camera at low resolution.
For each segment, FFX make a low resolution renderings, I hope this work!.
I do this test and tell if it works

03-14-2010, 03:18 PM
You can use the shift camera even easier I think?

-Clone the camera to keep the original
-Make it a shift camera go to options
-Set the focal distance to 3x as much. So 100 becomes 300 -> effectively it is a crop of the original view to the center.
-With shifts of x and y at 0, you are dead center. And since we did a 3x focal length, we need 9 regons to render.
-On frame 0 set shift x to -1 on frame 1 set it to 0 on frame 2 set it to 1, repeat this untill frame 8.
-Set y shift at frame 0 to 1. Make it jump to shift 0 at 3 and to shift -1 at frame 6.
-Move slider from frame 0 to 8 and acknowledge your original image is cut up in 9 pieces and all look nice.
-Optional but nicer: don't shift with 1 but with 0.98 to create a 2% overlap for better blending when you merge them

Can be done with whatever amount of regions you need ofourse. I used it to render a 30k pixel wide archviz render (works great with renderfarm) but never thought it might work with the FFX issue too. nice one..

03-14-2010, 06:43 PM
The problem is that FFx is not a new plugin. Its been developed for around 2 years before NT aquired it and theyve been developing it for at least as long.
My experience is that its not suitable for demanding production environments. We had to go back to using Sasquatch which overall doesnt have all the features of FFx but in the end it works and produces nice, reproduceable results. :)

03-14-2010, 06:55 PM
Hello, my method did not work, the FFX not renders correctly in advanced cameras.
Now, I'll try what you propose, I hope for better luck, thanks for your explanation

03-14-2010, 11:17 PM
Hi Hieron, I had no luck.
The technique you mentioned works, allowing renderer high definition image in segments, but the FFX refuses

Here attached the character in low res with FFX, then one of the segments of camera shift without FFX, and finally the same segment with FFX ...




Apparently it's a dead end ... and I fear also is a dead end to keep the client ;)

Thank you!

03-14-2010, 11:28 PM
Sorry to hear its going badly. I definately can relate. For me seeing what youre experiencing is DejaVu for me. I was working at a studio where we almost lost an Animal Planet show for the same reasons. At the end we turned to Sasquatch which saved our butts. Its amazing how well it holds up after all these years and how bad Fiberfx STILL is after all these years.

03-15-2010, 12:22 AM
oh man! deja vu!!!!

Like Rogue, the images we had created at a smaller sized were signed off. Going to Sas would have not worked in the time frame and it would never look the same.

Goodluck with your project

03-15-2010, 01:40 AM
When I tried to use FFX in production and not just doing furball tests it failed me also.

Best avoided until it's fixed.

03-15-2010, 07:16 PM
And that is precisely the problem. It can look good. (and it was promoted as a cool feature and has video tutorials on it etc)
There should be a warning when you activate the plugin, not to use it in production :)

Sorry to hear the shift camera thing didn't work.....

03-15-2010, 07:58 PM
Yea there should be a warning. Hopefully 9.6.1 and HC has this fixed.

03-15-2010, 10:05 PM
The sad thing is that NT, rather then putting in other tools far more important, decided to go with FFX which is and has been broken now for years and at the rate theyre going, for the foreseeable future. Its not only a waste fo time for NT but for the end users.