PDA

View Full Version : why do vfx artists in battlestar galactic prefer using eyeon fusion with lightwave?



octopus2000
08-08-2010, 05:39 PM
i've read somewhere that battlestar galactica vfx artists used eyeon fusion alongside lightwave, what does eyeone fusion offer that other compositing software don't?

tyrot
08-08-2010, 06:12 PM
hello octo

i have asked almost similar thing over liberty3d.forum ...

http://liberty3d.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=121

Danner
08-09-2010, 01:27 PM
In the last place I worked we used fusion for a lot of stuff, it's a really good compositing app, very complete and functional. It's not as straight forward as AfterFX and using a nodal system takes some getting used to, but now that I don't have it I miss it enough to want to buy a licence for myself.

erikals
08-27-2010, 07:06 AM
as far as i can see,

eyon fusion is more for compositing...
after effects is more for effects...
premiere is for cutting and editing...
speed edit is for fast cutting and editing...

Eagle66
08-28-2010, 03:25 PM
i've read somewhere that battlestar galactica vfx artists used eyeon fusion alongside lightwave, what does eyeone fusion offer that other compositing software don't?

Does this work with AfterEffects?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo-x_eXRveo

erikals
08-29-2010, 08:33 AM
i think it could, no pro in AE though...

Captain Obvious
08-29-2010, 10:26 AM
In general, it's because Fusion is a kick-*** piece of software. I don't even use Photoshop for retouching and grading still renders anymore, Fusion is just much more betterer.

Greenlaw
08-29-2010, 04:44 PM
as far as i can see,

eyon fusion is more for compositing...
after effects is more for effects...
premiere is for cutting and editing...
speed edit is for fast cutting and editing...

We've been using Fusion for fx work for the 10 years or so I've been with the Box at R+H Studios, and it was used long before I got there. These days, with all the passes we can embed in .exr files, we've been using Fusion for motion blur, dof fx, fog, refraction, and in many cases we can relight and enhance the lighting in a scene. Of course we also do many particle fx (including some gooey liquid and smoke fx,) as well as 2 1/2D tracking, volumetric rays, and all the usual image enhancing, chromakeying, roto-scoping and wire-removal stuff you would expect to be able do with a compositing package. Because it's nodal, it's much more flexible and efficient than AE's layers based system, and in recent versions it's started to leverage the GPU more for speed. Oh, yeah, it's also compatible with most AE plug-ins, so in many cases you have the best of both worlds. Also, the program is very scriptable and customizable; we been able to add tons of in-house plug-ins and enhancements to our Fusion pipeline. Being able to import LightWave cameras and scenes is another plus.

I've preferred using Fusion for a long time, but I feel it's becoming too expensive to maintain, especially for an 'indy' artist. (I have two personal licenses which I may not bother upgrade further because it will cost me about $1300 to get them up to date. Considering I only do one or two non-commercial short subjects a year with Fusion, it's probably not worth upgrading anymore. Sigh!)

That said, there are some very interesting 3D plug-ins for AE I wish we could use which are not compatible with Fusion.

For editing, we use Velocity HD. Personally I like Vegas Pro.

G.

djlithium
09-08-2010, 03:13 PM
i've read somewhere that battlestar galactica vfx artists used eyeon fusion alongside lightwave, what does eyeone fusion offer that other compositing software don't?

Well it wasn't always that way.
Originally when I got onto BSG full time in may or whatever it was of 2005 they wanted me to help out doing compositing in combustion. I pretty much flat out refused, then offered to bring in my own seat of fusion to do the work, which I did. There were two main reasons for this. 1. Combustion was already pretty much dead on its feet and I knew this, as did others 2. I had been using Fusion since 1993 or 1994 and while I had worked in combustion and AE as well, I couldn't stand either of them. The third reason was that at the time Fusion artists were much easier to find in Vancouver, because so many houses here use it. So it made sense to flip from combustion to fusion for the in-house VFX team. Initially there was resistance to this, but after a while it was clear that the choice was very wise indeed. And there was rejoice all around.

Every single compositor in Vancouver, while they may have used other packages like AE or shake in the past picked up fusion immediately in-house and got to work. It was easy to get people ramped up on it and have them adjust from other packages.
One of the other main reasons was speed. Fusion's flow methods and rendering speed still can't be matched in my opinion and that was a major reason I pushed it and it got accepted there. We had to turn shots around fast and that meant no ffing around. Fusion was the best choice and for me, it still is.

erikals
09-08-2010, 03:50 PM
AE is pretty good in my experience, just not for those kind of jobs...
it's sort of like a big plugin, best to use for video effects, but falls behind in other areas.