PDA

View Full Version : Nuke NC is here!



Surrealist.
04-14-2015, 01:49 PM
https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/nuke/non-commercial/

Marander
04-15-2015, 07:57 AM
Thanks for the info. Nice try of The Foundry but I prefer BlackMagic Designs license / capabilities.

Nuke NC key feature differences:

- Output resolution up to HD (1920 x 1080).
- Some nodes disabled including: the WriteGeo node, Ultimatte node, Primatte node, BlinkScript node, and GenerateLUT node.
- 2D format support disabled for MPEG4 and h264.
- Encrypted data storage and limited python scripting.

I don't like applications that encrypt my files. MPEG4 / h264 not possible? Ultimatte is in Fusion afaik and no such format limitations e.g. in Resolve.

50one
04-15-2015, 09:20 AM
Still prefer Fusion free - limitations in there are not that annoying.

If someone is really into high-end compositing than this is big I think.

Surrealist.
04-15-2015, 09:25 AM
Yeah I am kinda liking Fusion too. Fusion limit is 4K which is better. But curious why it is so many people prefer Nuke. Looking forward to checking it out. If something knocks me out in the features of Nuke, don't know. Just keeping an open mind that this point.

50one
04-15-2015, 09:45 AM
Yeah I am kinda liking Fusion too. Fusion limit is 4K which is better. But curious why it is so many people prefer Nuke. Looking forward to checking it out. If something knocks me out in the features of Nuke, don't know. Just keeping an open mind that this point.

Without the geonode you can't export 3D tracking data, so kinda like giving you Ferrari with gas tank removed.


Why? I guess the cool factor, you know it was created at Digital Domain and all the biggest and greatest studios use this:)
To be honest it's so highend that most people won't even use 20% of it's functionality.

For us mortals AE with shitload of plugs for Mograph & Fusion which replaced Shake IMHO is the way to go. Nuke is for really high-end stuff.

m.d.
04-15-2015, 10:09 AM
Yeah I am kinda liking Fusion too. Fusion limit is 4K which is better. But curious why it is so many people prefer Nuke. Looking forward to checking it out. If something knocks me out in the features of Nuke, don't know. Just keeping an open mind that this point.

Not everyone prefers nuke....

Nuke has a few strengths going for it....
First off it had a Mac edition, so they took a lot of the slack with the demise of Shake
Fusion was windows only....(will be on Mac as well this year)

Nuke has better 'scriptablity', has better exr support, and has the ability for deep compositing. It was digital domains proprietary in house compositor....so it is designed with large studio in mind. It also has more complete linear workflow...although they are both capable.

Fusion is way faster, has multiple depth support (nuke is always 32bit, fusion is assignable per node and can perform 8 bit math if you need to on masks etc) makes faster processing in large comps, fusion has a way better 3d space (although nuke has better 3rd party render integration)

The main reason why people like nuke over fusion however is marketing....
Most people never heard of fusion....they had an ancient templates website, and didn't go to the trade shows in recent years....a lot of people were unaware of its existence and are surprised it is over 25 years old.

Also the amount and quality of tutorials out there are in nukes favour.

Most nuke users who use fusion are impressed by the speed.

WilliamVaughan
04-15-2015, 05:31 PM
The main reason why people like nuke over fusion however is marketing....




I think a long line of studio artists would disagree with this statement.

Surrealist.
04-15-2015, 08:20 PM
Not everyone prefers nuke....

Nuke has a few strengths going for it....
First off it had a Mac edition, so they took a lot of the slack with the demise of Shake
Fusion was windows only....(will be on Mac as well this year)

Nuke has better 'scriptablity', has better exr support, and has the ability for deep compositing. It was digital domains proprietary in house compositor....so it is designed with large studio in mind. It also has more complete linear workflow...although they are both capable.

Fusion is way faster, has multiple depth support (nuke is always 32bit, fusion is assignable per node and can perform 8 bit math if you need to on masks etc) makes faster processing in large comps, fusion has a way better 3d space (although nuke has better 3rd party render integration)

The main reason why people like nuke over fusion however is marketing....
Most people never heard of fusion....they had an ancient templates website, and didn't go to the trade shows in recent years....a lot of people were unaware of its existence and are surprised it is over 25 years old.

Also the amount and quality of tutorials out there are in nukes favour.

Most nuke users who use fusion are impressed by the speed.

Cool thanks for the feedback.

Those are some points to look into. On both sides.

The cool thing is, we can spend our time doing something with it rather than just talking about it and make up our own minds.

However it does help to get some specific comparisons to look into. Thanks. :)

m.d.
04-15-2015, 08:36 PM
I think a long line of studio artists would disagree with this statement.

LOL probably...

Not saying it isn't a great app....but when one product is marketed properly and another almost non existent...that is a factor.

Give it a few years in BM hands and see what happens.....

Surrealist.
04-15-2015, 09:31 PM
Without the geonode you can't export 3D tracking data, so kinda like giving you Ferrari with gas tank removed.


Why? I guess the cool factor, you know it was created at Digital Domain and all the biggest and greatest studios use this:)
To be honest it's so highend that most people won't even use 20% of it's functionality.

For us mortals AE with shitload of plugs for Mograph & Fusion which replaced Shake IMHO is the way to go. Nuke is for really high-end stuff.

There are a lot of reasons to use a composting program besides camera tracking and mograph. For those of us interested in seeing what Nuke can do in comparison to other things, we can DL and test ourselves. Fusion looks real good, very curious about Nuke. That is all. It is there.

My entire philosophy about software centers around what both Fusion and Nuke are offering. The ability to freely at your leisure look into it and make up your own mind.

WilliamVaughan
04-15-2015, 09:36 PM
Watching Nuke in action makes me think about all the wasted time that I have spent over the years without Nuke in my pipeline. The Students have so many advantages for creative freedom that I wish I had. We used Fusion for a few years but the quality and ease of use changed drastically when we introduced Nuke. Nuke also introduce a new era of students that really latched onto compositing like never before.

jasonwestmas
04-15-2015, 09:43 PM
Like nuke, maya is for really high end stuff too but that doesn't mean I don't like to use it occasionally. ;)

ernpchan
04-15-2015, 09:52 PM
I've been learning nuke with the help of the comp dept at work. I like it. I don't think it'll replace what I can do with AE for what I have to do. But as a comp tool it's pretty fantastic. With what you can do via python and gizmos, I can see why it's the preferred composting program for studio.

Surrealist.
04-15-2015, 10:09 PM
Watching Nuke in action makes me think about all the wasted time that I have spent over the years without Nuke in my pipeline. The Students have so many advantages for creative freedom that I wish I had. We used Fusion for a few years but the quality and ease of use changed drastically when we introduced Nuke. Nuke also introduce a new era of students that really latched onto compositing like never before.

Curious on finding out the specifics on this for myself as to why this is the case. And second, if there have been any changes to recent versions of Fusion that would make some of these claims not as relevant anymore. Very curious to find out.

lightscape
04-15-2015, 11:16 PM
Watching Nuke in action makes me think about all the wasted time that I have spent over the years without Nuke in my pipeline. The Students have so many advantages for creative freedom that I wish I had. We used Fusion for a few years but the quality and ease of use changed drastically when we introduced Nuke. Nuke also introduce a new era of students that really latched onto compositing like never before.

Now this is what's missing with Newtek. The same stuff Brad can pull off with Modo.

50one
04-16-2015, 01:40 AM
Watching Nuke in action makes me think about all the wasted time that I have spent over the years without Nuke in my pipeline. The Students have so many advantages for creative freedom that I wish I had. We used Fusion for a few years but the quality and ease of use changed drastically when we introduced Nuke. Nuke also introduce a new era of students that really latched onto compositing like never before.


This sounds like something out of the TV advert for Nuke:D

but it's great to hear it works for you guys and it's much more easier to use and get quality effects in less time.

Reco
04-16-2015, 04:30 AM
Watching Nuke in action makes me think about all the wasted time that I have spent over the years without Nuke in my pipeline. The Students have so many advantages for creative freedom that I wish I had. We used Fusion for a few years but the quality and ease of use changed drastically when we introduced Nuke. Nuke also introduce a new era of students that really latched onto compositing like never before.

I have always thought that Fusion and Nuke was two different software that did the exactly the same thing, and it's more like a personal preference if you chose one over the other. The interface looks almost identical. So what is the dramatic difference between the two?


Reco

Netvudu
04-16-2015, 04:41 AM
Frankly, having used both for years I canīt agree with William.
Both are great, and both have stronger and weaker points. Thereīs nothing in Nuke that makes me thing it allows for huge creativity options above Fusion. Actually where the comparison gets more fun is in the 3D area of the program, where Nuke is strong on geometry, having a neat object modeller which can help to avoid much software-jumping, but suddenly they forgot about shading!! Meaning if you want to add a simple reflection in 3D youīre in big trouble (unless you pay extra for another engine or the likes). Guess what? Shading in 3D is really easy and well-solved in Fusion. Also particles in Fusion are notably stronger than Nuke particles. It certainly looks like Nuke artists accept that particle work will come from 3D.
On Fusion I miss Nukeīs elegant channel handing (very useful for exr) and very nice denoise and retiming tools.
On Nuke I need to add 4 different nodes to mimick the capabilities of Fusion wonderful color corrector.

So, as you see, thereīs always a trade-off. Both are strong, and as usual, none is the best.
Wait....Fusion is free for commercial work, so it IS the best.

A couple of final remarks.
Fusion is not 4K anymore for the free version. They just went down to HD1080.
Nuke absurd non-commercial policy forbids many things, the more ridiculous one being that..wait for it....you CANNOT use Nuke Free version at your regular work hours at work, even if youīre not doing commercial work with it....Seriously, someone does NOT understand marketing there....

Surrealist.
04-16-2015, 05:24 AM
Where is the reference to the free version dropping to 1080? They are still listing as ultra HD.

50one
04-16-2015, 07:12 AM
The only part that annoys me personally about the Fusion is the EXR support or the weirdness of it and the blues of z-depth saved in exr.
Chanel Booleans are great but holy cow so annoying at the same time.

If you consider price vs. features, Fusion wins as we're talking almost 5:1 ratio for Nuke.
With job salaries going down and people almost expecting you to work for free, good luck in shelling Ģ8k on a piece of software every year - frm a freelancer point of view that is, some studios are doing just fine with that model.

WilliamVaughan
04-16-2015, 08:45 AM
I use AE for my freelance and personal work. NUKE shows it's strength when plugged into a large pipeline. That is where it outshines Fusion hands down imo.

Netvudu
04-16-2015, 09:07 AM
I use AE for my freelance and personal work. NUKE shows it's strength when plugged into a large pipeline. That is where it outshines Fusion hands down imo.

Maybe, but you donīt mention exactly from which actual features or situation that outshining comes from, so for those of us who know how to use both of them pretty well, your opinion still comes as a mystery. Iīve also witnessed bigger pipelines working with Fusion and they were terrific.

Please, donīt take this as a personal attack (because it isnīt), but the fact that you use AE for your personal work does come as mystery, considering the reduced capabilities of AE regarding anything rendered above 8-bit color depth. Iīm guessing itīs mostly non-realistic work?

The problem with Fusion so far was the way eyeon was misselling and marketing it. Now with Blackmagic owning it things are changing fast.
You know, because economy is a bigger factor than a couple of tools.


Surrealist.
Where is the reference to the free version dropping to 1080? They are still listing as ultra HD.

I know! But this very week a couple of workmates told me the very last update (which I havenīt installed yet) is capping it to HD1080. I havenīt checked myself yet. Either itīs a huge bug, or more probably itīs there to stay.


50one
The only part that annoys me personally about the Fusion is the EXR support or the weirdness of it and the blues of z-depth saved in exr.

For quite a lot of time I had the same problem with the z-depth buffer! Not anymore. Add an Auto-gain node before and click the "Do Z" option. Done. Your z-buffer is normalized and ready to play.

50one
04-16-2015, 09:29 AM
For quite a lot of time I had the same problem with the z-depth buffer! Not anymore. Add an Auto-gain node before and click the "Do Z" option. Done. Your z-buffer is normalized and ready to play.


I'm not sure whether it was you or someone else that told me about the auto gain, but it only works with non-exr files, with exr files(16/32) buffer is just pure white and nothing happens say I want to use the Depth or Fog tool.

WilliamVaughan
04-16-2015, 09:55 AM
Fusion is a great compositing app that we taught for years. However when compared to NUKE, it falls short in several areas and shines in others. I asked Dan Smith, our VFX instructor, to help explain.Here are 5 things that make Fusion Better than Nuke and 5 that make NUKE better than Fusion. It all depends on your needs and how you work.


Fusion is better than NUKE.

1. Its free. How can you ague with Black Magics decision to price a
fully functional copy of fusion at a price of nothing? Nuke costs at
the low end $3500 to $7000 for NukeX. You can get unlimited render
nodes and many other features for Fusion Studio for the low price of
$999

2. Fusion has an incredible array of Open GL real-time shaders and a 3D
system that uses this shading parading to its fullest effect.

3. Fusion Studio has asset bins that can be a pool of shared resources
for many artists working on the same project.

4. Fusion Studio comes with Stereoscopic triage tools for free. This
are important to any stereo live action workflow to make stereo
footage more pleasing to the eye.

5. Fusion has some great roto tools that include the ability to see
frames before and after like 2D onion skinning techniques.



NUKE is better than Fusion

1. Nuke is the standard for big pipelines. Its far more extensible and
controllable for scripts and automation in larger pipelines. Gizmos,
Blink script, Python all have a robust architecture that allows almost
total control and customizing of NUKE.

2. NUKEX has a built in Camera tracker that works very well. This also
works in conjunction with other nodes to rebuild shot geometry from
point clouds, image based modeling, and the ability to extract depth
information from 2D sequences.

3. NUKE was engineered from the ground up to do all its math in linear
color space the color space of light. Nukes linear workflow is by far
the easiest and most robust in the industry. The need to work linear
in high end projects is easy to manage and implement. Fusion cannot
hold a candle to this.

4. NUKE has also the better channel based work flow. Not only for
channels and layers of channels like multi layer EXRs for multipass
composites, but also stereo workflow cannot be matched. Other
programs including Fusion try, but fail miserably in this area.

5. NUKE also has proper support for true DEEP compositing. This
workflow is taking over the industry and NUKE has this ability because
it also support the use of RENDERMAN inside of nukes 3D work space.
Using PRMAN's deep shadow data, or even Houdini and VRAY deep data,
Nuke can composite very complex shots with hundreds of characters
interacting with huge simulations without the need for hold out
mattes. Fusions attempt at deep compositing is not implemented to just
work, and requires a lot of steps to get similar but not as clean
results. With many high end projects now using deep as the new
standard, you just cant beat nuke.


Ultimately it comes down to your budget and scope of your projects. Nuke offers a robust proven high end solution at a higher cost. Fusion is free and can do most of what Nuke can and has been used far less. They are both good tools, and great work can be done in either package.

Netvudu
04-16-2015, 10:24 AM
I'm not sure whether it was you or someone else that told me about the auto gain, but it only works with non-exr files, with exr files(16/32) buffer is just pure white and nothing happens say I want to use the Depth or Fog tool.

I will check on LW, but on Houdini exr it does work very nicely. I just checked.

- - - Updated - - -


Fusion is a great compositing app that we taught for years. However when compared to NUKE, it falls short in several areas and shines in others. I asked Dan Smith, our VFX instructor, to help explain.Here are 5 things that make Fusion Better than Nuke and 5 that make NUKE better than Fusion. It all depends on your needs and how you work.

...

Ultimately it comes down to your budget and scope of your projects. Nuke offers a robust proven high end solution at a higher cost. Fusion is free and can do most of what Nuke can and has been used far less. They are both good tools, and great work can be done in either package.
....

So....what I said but long-winded?

CaptainMarlowe
04-16-2015, 12:57 PM
Very interesting inputs, here. As a hobbyist, when fusion arrive on Mac, it will be my natural choice over Nuke (because it's free and also because I like BMD betterave than TF and I can afford to be irrationnal, here). Yet, for a lot of simple things, I'll keep Motion as my swiss army knife, and go for Fusion only for complex tasks.

Reco
04-16-2015, 12:58 PM
I'm a "simple task" Fusion user and does not know much about complex compositing, but reacted on the "creative freedom" of Nuke over Fusion.
It more or less boiled down to technical issues which of course can be two sides of the same thing. However, I got curious on the Deep composition part, and checked the web for more info.
I came across this site which I found very interesting. http://renderman.pixar.com/view/thegrandtour especially point number seven. (just click on the headlines)
I'm not sure it has been posted before. It did not show up in any search on this forum.

Reco

Netvudu
04-16-2015, 04:15 PM
Thatīs indeed a very interesting article, Reco!
From the article I can clearly see how indeed our conclusion at this thread is more or less the overall idea. Some things are better in one software, some others are better in the other.
Regarding deep compositing, itīs starting to become an element in bigger pipelines, but even there, theyīre still wary about it because with our current hardware deep compositing slows down everything to a crawl because of the huge file sizes.
Itīs clear it will eventually became the next step, but so far itīs far from mainstream.

m.d.
04-16-2015, 05:40 PM
Fusion is a great compositing app that we taught for years. However when compared to NUKE, it falls short in several areas and shines in others. I asked Dan Smith, our VFX instructor, to help explain.Here are 5 things that make Fusion Better than Nuke and 5 that make NUKE better than Fusion. It all depends on your needs and how you work.


Fusion is better than NUKE.

1. Its free. How can you ague with Black Magics decision to price a
fully functional copy of fusion at a price of nothing? Nuke costs at
the low end $3500 to $7000 for NukeX. You can get unlimited render
nodes and many other features for Fusion Studio for the low price of
$999

2. Fusion has an incredible array of Open GL real-time shaders and a 3D
system that uses this shading parading to its fullest effect.

3. Fusion Studio has asset bins that can be a pool of shared resources
for many artists working on the same project.

4. Fusion Studio comes with Stereoscopic triage tools for free. This
are important to any stereo live action workflow to make stereo
footage more pleasing to the eye.

5. Fusion has some great roto tools that include the ability to see
frames before and after like 2D onion skinning techniques.



NUKE is better than Fusion

1. Nuke is the standard for big pipelines. Its far more extensible and
controllable for scripts and automation in larger pipelines. Gizmos,
Blink script, Python all have a robust architecture that allows almost
total control and customizing of NUKE.

2. NUKEX has a built in Camera tracker that works very well. This also
works in conjunction with other nodes to rebuild shot geometry from
point clouds, image based modeling, and the ability to extract depth
information from 2D sequences.

3. NUKE was engineered from the ground up to do all its math in linear
color space the color space of light. Nukes linear workflow is by far
the easiest and most robust in the industry. The need to work linear
in high end projects is easy to manage and implement. Fusion cannot
hold a candle to this.

4. NUKE has also the better channel based work flow. Not only for
channels and layers of channels like multi layer EXRs for multipass
composites, but also stereo workflow cannot be matched. Other
programs including Fusion try, but fail miserably in this area.

5. NUKE also has proper support for true DEEP compositing. This
workflow is taking over the industry and NUKE has this ability because
it also support the use of RENDERMAN inside of nukes 3D work space.
Using PRMAN's deep shadow data, or even Houdini and VRAY deep data,
Nuke can composite very complex shots with hundreds of characters
interacting with huge simulations without the need for hold out
mattes. Fusions attempt at deep compositing is not implemented to just
work, and requires a lot of steps to get similar but not as clean
results. With many high end projects now using deep as the new
standard, you just cant beat nuke.


Ultimately it comes down to your budget and scope of your projects. Nuke offers a robust proven high end solution at a higher cost. Fusion is free and can do most of what Nuke can and has been used far less. They are both good tools, and great work can be done in either package.

All good points...which I had listed in my post also mentioning the marketing.

A few advantages of Fusion not noted are particles and speed....
And nukeX tracker is great for $8000, but you can get the same power (or more) with syntheyes for $500
And those stereoscopic tools included in fusion are a $10k plugin in nuke.

And although nuke has better linear workflow....fusions is quite capable other then a few gotchas as far as color pickers, and range sliders and a few others.

Both tools are fully capable for Hollywood level effects (other then deep compositing) blur studios seems to like fusion for its pipeline and they seem to have no problem with the scope of shots required for Thor ...Nuke by far is more widely adopted with most of the others.

eon5
04-16-2015, 06:48 PM
NukeNC is great news !
but now Blackmagic announces Fusion 8 will be available on Mac OS X and Linux !
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/press/release/20150413-02

more fight for supremacy, i think is good for customers.

Surrealist.
04-16-2015, 07:10 PM
I'm a "simple task" Fusion user and does not know much about complex compositing, but reacted on the "creative freedom" of Nuke over Fusion.
It more or less boiled down to technical issues which of course can be two sides of the same thing. However, I got curious on the Deep composition part, and checked the web for more info.
I came across this site which I found very interesting. http://renderman.pixar.com/view/thegrandtour especially point number seven. (just click on the headlines)
I'm not sure it has been posted before. It did not show up in any search on this forum.

Reco

Yeah when I was skimming that article, the thing that impressed me was the difference in the final images from Nuke and Fusion.

127888

It goes without saying of course that there would be ways to tweak this to affect the final result in Fusion. But out of the box it sure does look to me like Nuke is the winner in this case as to dealing with color. The composite from Nuke looks so much richer to me.

KurtF
04-16-2015, 07:36 PM
for a lot of simple things, I'll keep Motion as my swiss army knife

Have you loaded up Conduit for Motion?

http://pixelconduit.com/

Gives you a node based work flow directly within Motion. Alex Lindsay has been advocating it for some time.

http://www.dvgarage.com/

lightscape
04-16-2015, 10:57 PM
This sounds like something out of the TV advert for Nuke:D


Yep. Newtek needs the same kind of shameless plugs. :D

CaptainMarlowe
04-17-2015, 04:02 AM
Have you loaded up Conduit for Motion?

http://pixelconduit.com/

Gives you a node based work flow directly within Motion. Alex Lindsay has been advocating it for some time.

http://www.dvgarage.com/

Wow, I didn't know but this is awesome! So many thanks for the info and the link !

jwiede
04-17-2015, 04:17 AM
Wow, I didn't know but this is awesome! So many thanks for the info and the link !

Yep, Conduit has come a long way, and is a great tool!

CaptainMarlowe
04-17-2015, 05:48 AM
Indeed ! Nodes in Motion, even more fun !

Markc
04-17-2015, 11:53 AM
I did read on The Foundry site, that Nuke is not tested on Yosemite, and there are issues with the nMP running it!
I suppose it's still worth a try.
I need a replacement for Shake (doesn't work in Yosemite :(), sounds like Fusion won't be out on Mac till about August.

rdolishny
04-20-2015, 12:52 PM
https://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/nuke/non-commercial/

Learn Nuke and get hired.

Surrealist.
04-20-2015, 06:04 PM
Sure if that is what you want to do for a living. If you want work as a compositor it does not require you own the app. NC version. Learn it, get a job.

If you are a freelancer on a budget you might have to make other choices due to the current pricing structure. But just great that it is there to evaluate in any case.

Eagle66
04-23-2015, 01:21 PM
I know! But this very week a couple of workmates told me the very last update (which I havenīt installed yet) is capping it to HD1080. I havenīt checked myself yet. Either itīs a huge bug, or more probably itīs there to stay.


That's totally nonsense, Limited is Ultra HD Output in the current Version.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/fusion/compare

Here is an amazing TIMELAPSE in FU for comp:

https://vimeo.com/124690527

The Limits in NC Nuke are more significant.

Surrealist.
04-26-2015, 04:06 PM
I have the recent Fusion update 7.71 and it is outputting Ultra HD no issues. :)

Netvudu
04-27-2015, 06:02 AM
Good to know. More power to Fusion.