PDA

View Full Version : new Shake prices...any other takers?



jeremyhardin
08-14-2006, 09:15 AM
Hiya all. I jumped on the bandwagon when Shake's (http://www.apple.com/shake) prices dropped to $500 a month or two ago, and I LOVE it. It's by far my favorite composting package.

It's got a built in Footage Retimer (so no more need to buy RealVis's retimer). It's nodal. It's 100% scriptable (even the comp files can be opened and edited in a text editor). It's Universal Binary. It includes 2 industry keyers (Primatte and CFC Keylight). Not to mention all the other typical compositor goodies (color correction, footage remastering, etc.) And it can render from command line (not that I need to bother with that, since it comes with Qmaster, a batch render manager).

Absolutely brilliant. I love it, and I find it renders relatively quickly as well.

Anyone else take advantage of the new price? Or perhaps a long-time user or two? If you've considered it, or you're thinking of a compositing app (more than a motion graphics app), I strongly recommend Shake.

avkills
08-14-2006, 09:49 AM
I've considered it, but I find that AfterEffects handles my meager needs pretty well. I don't really even use Motion, even though I have it. I guess I like AfterEffects and am comfortable with the way it works.

-mark

wesleym
08-14-2006, 09:53 AM
Hey Jeremy, Yeah, I jumped on that pricing too. It's an incrediable app. I got it for 399.00 on sharbor.com! I had to wait about a month from them to get it back in stock, but it's worth it.

wes

paul summers
08-14-2006, 10:02 AM
Hi Jezza

I got my 4.1 today and a love it is super fast at rendering,
as i heve been useing Commbustion 4 and it is slow but good.

Love your work by the way.

have fun with SHAKE

Yours Paul

PS
When rendering with the Flipbook and turning on the videoOutput with my decklink card.

I keep getting an unexpectedly quit.

funny It all worked fine with the shake 4 demo

is it ok on your system?

jeremyhardin
08-14-2006, 10:05 AM
To be honest (aside from the pricing), nodal, UB, and retiming are what sold me. I got used to nodal with Fusion and very much prefer it. But I don't know of any other nodal compositors for Mac.

Have you messed with the retiming? It actually generates in-between frames based on pixel vectors. (No more messy frame blending with 1 good frame every 10).

The color correcting threw me for a loop though. I spent 2 days looking for a histogram, only to find that I can't do color correction changes with it. I can only cc with other nodes and view the changes in the histogram. Bit of a change coming from Fusion/Combustion/AE.

jeremyhardin
08-14-2006, 10:07 AM
Hi Jezza

I got my 4.1 today and a love it is super fast at rendering,
as i heve been useing Commbustion 4 and it is slow but good.

Love your work by the way.

have fun with SHAKE

Yours Paul

PS
When rendering with the Flipbook and turning on the videoOutput with my decklink card.

I keep getting an unexpectedly quit.

funny It all worked fine with the shake 4 demo

is it ok on your system?

Hmm. I haven't used flipbook with the videoOutput. Is it just when you preview to flipbook or when you render file out nodes? or both?

avkills
08-14-2006, 10:15 AM
The re-timing just might sell me on it. Not to mention I am really, really liking the Node system in Lightwave.

-mark

jeremyhardin
08-14-2006, 11:49 AM
The re-timing just might sell me on it. Not to mention I am really, really liking the Node system in Lightwave.

-mark
If you're interested in Shake and you're at all familiar with Motion, you might want to try out Conduit (http://www.dvgarage.com/prod/prod.php?prod=conduit). It's a plugin for Motion for realtime basic nodal compositing. It uses the GPU so it screams through a lot of tasks. It's cheaper than shake and less complex, and it has a fully functional demo with a watermarked render.

avkills
08-14-2006, 12:46 PM
Hmmm, conduit looks pretty interesting. Too bad they don't have a AE plug in.

-mark

jeremyhardin
08-14-2006, 12:51 PM
i doubt AE will ever be nodal. It's too rooted in the photoshop layers mentality. it's photoshop with keyframes, IMHO. while that's a great advantage for basic comps and for people that know photoshop...it really limits you on large scale complex compositing jobs (again, IMHO).

avkills
08-14-2006, 01:54 PM
How does shake manage with RLE or RLA images from Lightwave? I've never really messed with this stuff before, but it would be good to know it works? Specifically I care about the Z depth buffer.

And yes I agree AE is just PS on a timeline, but I still love it. ;)

-mark

jeremyhardin
08-14-2006, 02:21 PM
it supports rla i know, and it supports the extra channels in OpenEXR, so I assume it would for that format as well (can't test it now. rendering a green-screen shot in shake.)

shake also imports PSDs and preserves their layers, so you could render your Lightwave anim with PSD export and import it into shake. you'll have a basic composite already set up for you. it's quite nice.

if for some reason it doesn't see the depth channel of rla/rle though, you can always import it separately or switch to OpenEXR, PSD or other such format.

avkills
08-14-2006, 02:58 PM
Oh cool, does LW9 now support OpenEXR? I always want to mess with these things, but work usually takes over and I don't get a lot of time to play around much these days.

I guess what I am assuming is that you can take the Z Depth channel from a format like RLA and have text and what not go behind some objects and in front of others without multiple render passes of the objects in question.
I hope that makes sense.

-mark

archiea
08-14-2006, 03:06 PM
Have you messed with the retiming? It actually generates in-between frames based on pixel vectors. (No more messy frame blending with 1 good frame every 10).


what is great about this featue is how it can help you with some time consuming stuff with 3D. You can create a stragedy with Voxel renders where you render half the frames and have the retime do the rest.. for stuff without strong edges like a voxel render, youc an get away with murder sometimes!



The color correcting threw me for a loop though. I spent 2 days looking for a histogram, only to find that I can't do color correction changes with it. I can only cc with other nodes and view the changes in the histogram. Bit of a change coming from Fusion/Combustion/AE.

Color correction in shake is a little different. its streamlined so that you o the least possible damage to your data. usually, I just use the Add, Mult & gamma nodes. After long years of using the traditional historgrams and high/med/low color correctors, it took a bit getting used to. In the end, you become far more conscious as to how much "damage" color correcting does to your image.

RonGC
08-14-2006, 03:31 PM
Ordered Shake, it is coming with my new MacPro, Looks like a great addition to FCP studio. The missing piece LOL.
Have to checkout Conduit, could be useful.

Ron

archiea
08-14-2006, 03:34 PM
hopefully the new shake,in whatever form it may be, would interface with FCP even better. Problem with the current shake was that it was a script-based compositor on sterioids. I'm curious to see what they do with the engine in a future incarnation (iComp.. iComp Pro)

marble_sheep
08-14-2006, 07:14 PM
But I don't know of any other nodal compositors for Mac.

Don't forget Nuke! I'm pretty sure there's a Mac version available. Nuke is actually a pretty cool software... wouldn't say it's necessarily better or worse than Shake, but it's nice to have options.

I really should spring for a personal copy Shake now that it's pretty cheap. I think I'll wait till I get my MacPro first, though ;)

Coming from an After Effects background, I was surprised at how powerful nodal compositing can be. Cool software at a great price!

DavidL
08-15-2006, 09:18 AM
Can anyone who uses both AE and Shake give me any kind of pros and cons between the two? I've googled for comparisons but mostly find outdated info. I've been using AE since 5.0 so I know what it can do and I've read the Shake info at Apple. I'm just looking for some recent opinions.

marble_sheep
08-15-2006, 09:43 AM
Well, I haven't been using Shake for very long, but I have been using AE for a while (v.3.5) so these are my not-so-scientific impressions so far...

On the most basic level, Shake (and other nodal compositors) are great for compositing, but AE is still king of motion graphics.

AE, being sort of like a combination between Photoshop and a video editor, lends itself to putting graphic design into motion.

A nodal compositing app, on the other hand, while not so good for mograph spanks AE when it comes to compositing. Just based on my first impressions of Shake, there is so much more power and flexibility in what you can do. You can quickly assemble complicated comps in ways that would be difficult in AE, with more fine-detail control over the resulting image.

For example, comps that may require complicated nested comps-within-nested comps in AE might simply be a matter of adding an extra path from one node upstream to another downstream. Use one node to control several other nodes as opposed to having to make many copies of a layer or effect in AE. Things like that. Also, the toolset available in Shake seems more robust and powerful than AE.

But like I said... I'm no Shake expert! Those are just my impressions thus far. Someone with more experience please feel free to correct anything i said! :D

So, If you do a lot of compositing, I would say get it... no question. If you do mainly mograph, then no, I would say it's not very necessary.

Hope that helps!

ScottSullivan
08-15-2006, 01:40 PM
I used AE in the past since I was all Windows, but since my transition to MacBook Pro and FCS, the Shake hath called.

Just purchased Shake about two and a half weeks ago and so I'm still a very new user. I tend to like Shake better than AE as far as compositing and "fix-it" jobs ("Hey, can you take out that logo on the sign post and replace it with our NEW logo?" - NO PROBLEM!!)

I find Shake's tracker to be much better (and I'd even say faster) than AE, but that's just a guess; I haven't actually done any speed tests.

I'm still aching for the 9.x releases with LW to export diffuse shading, depth, and other pass renderings in OpenEXR to use with Shake. I tried PSD export, it's okay.

I'm also still getting used to using the z-depth info between the two so I can do better compositing (ie, depth of field, integrating elements better).

Also, regarding the comparison between Shake and AE, I have found that with AE, you could import footage of any duration and move it around on the timeline very easily. I'm still trying to figure out the way Shake works in this regard. Shake tends to work best (from what I've seen so far) when you have multiple elements that all are the same duration. Now I could be wrong, maybe Shake's timeline is easy to use and I'm an idiot (more like it's the latter!). I just haven't figured it out.

As was already mentioned, AE is great for motion graphics, but for now, Motion is getting me by. I figure once "Phenomenon" or whatever it's called is released in a few years, I'll upgrade to that.

But in the end, mixing Shake, LW and SynthEyes (a camera tracker) can give some GREAT results - and I'm doing it on a LAPTOP!!!. I'm still using my XP machine for LW, but will make that switch once NT releases the UB. Then it's all MacBook Pro, baby! As one reviewer said awhile back, "The big studios didn't spend thousands of dollars per seat on Shake because they had extra money to waste." It's a solid program and I love it.

Hope that helps a bit,
Scott

jeremyhardin
08-15-2006, 02:07 PM
Also, regarding the comparison between Shake and AE, I have found that with AE, you could import footage of any duration and move it around on the timeline very easily. I'm still trying to figure out the way Shake works in this regard. Shake tends to work best (from what I've seen so far) when you have multiple elements that all are the same duration. Now I could be wrong, maybe Shake's timeline is easy to use and I'm an idiot (more like it's the latter!). I just haven't figured it out.

Shake works the same way. Have you messed with the time view at all?

ScottSullivan
08-15-2006, 02:49 PM
I messed around with it VERY briefly but for some reason didn't get the results I thought I would get. I appreciate the heads up. I'm going to go back and dig into that part some more. Very glad it's just me! Thanks!

Scott

DavidL
08-16-2006, 07:54 AM
As was already mentioned, AE is great for motion graphics, but for now, Motion is getting me by. I figure once "Phenomenon" or whatever it's called is released in a few years, I'll upgrade to that.


Of course, none of us can know what Apple is doing with this, but I wonder if they're going to replace Shake with another $5000 app or a $500 one? It would stink to get Shake and really like it (the slow motion alone looks pretty good) and to drop AE, but then have no upgrade path (or a wicked expensive one).

jeremyhardin
08-16-2006, 08:26 AM
Of course, none of us can know what Apple is doing with this, but I wonder if they're going to replace Shake with another $5000 app or a $500 one? It would stink to get Shake and really like it (the slow motion alone looks pretty good) and to drop AE, but then have no upgrade path (or a wicked expensive one).

true, and I suspect the predecessor will be in the $5000-$10,000 range. but also keep in mind that the current toolset is MORE than sufficient for any compositing needs you might have. to prove this, look at a lot of big VFX houses. Many still use the last Windows version of the software (Shake 2 I think). So if you're just needing to upgrade at every version, it shouldn't be invested in. But houses are going to continue using Shake for another 10-20 years.

Really, IMHO, the only improvement that could be done in shake is relying more on the GPU (ala Motion) for faster processing, as well as integration into 3d/video apps. But in it's current "outdated" state, it surpasses even the newest version of Fusion and AE by far in functionality, toolset, and power.

marble_sheep
08-16-2006, 09:53 AM
Well, first... I suspect the new app will be in the under-5k range, since that's around what Nuke is right now, and Apple will need to stay competitive price-wise. Remember when LW cost thousands and thousands of dollars? :D

Secondly... you can't really look at it that way. If you want the power of a film-quality compositing app, you need to be willing to pay the current market value. Look at it as getting the deal of a lifetime, as opposed to thinking 500 is normal. But, like jeremyhardin said, you could get loads of life out of the current version, just as long as you didn't need the latest whiz-bang features that the new version might include.

But who knows, maybe this $500 promotion will push the market value of such apps even lower, so by the time New Shake gets released, it will be in a more feasible price range. Nuke, for example, has already dropped in price by several thousand since it was first released. (Probably not because of the Shake pricing, but just because all high-end apps tend to get cheaper over time...)

ScottSullivan
08-16-2006, 05:17 PM
There's a few tutorials over at Creative Cow called "Shake is Money" in which he basically makes that point.

For example, use Shake's awesome slow-mo (remap) on some footage, right there's a few bucks earned. Use Shake's tracker/distort to change or replace labels (I've already done this for a Real Estate company that wanted to change their logo on the sign in front of a building - after it was shot).

Who knows if Apple will charge $500 or $5,000 or includes it in their next version of Final Cut Studio. However, I seem to remember Steve Jobs saying something to the extent that his goal was to have a Mac in every living room as the media center. So, given that he wants a Mac in every home, his goal is to sell computers. Every move we've seen from Apple is consitent with this. Allow Windows to be run on Mac? Sure, if it sells more computers. Then get them to use OS X and they'll be hooked.

I think it's worth it. I can already see the benefit in the short time I've been using it.

RonGC
08-16-2006, 05:28 PM
You have to take in account Apples pricing moves. FCPro alone used to cost the same as FCPstudio does now, The softwareprices and hardware prices keep dropping, more power for less money. Apple has always stated (read Jobs) that they want to put the power to create in the hands of everyone. By these kinds of price moves they are doing just that.

Dont be afraid to buy software because of what the future may bring, if you need it buy it, especially at this price point, and you can still keep AE if you want to.

Apple has never been out to shaft anyone, they just want to sell computers and the software to allow you to do whatever your little heart desires.

Ron

Chilton
08-16-2006, 05:39 PM
Hi,

It seems there are a lot of FCPro users among our user base. Are there any features we could add to LightWave that would help out?

Thanks,
-Chilton

aa1037
08-16-2006, 05:46 PM
How about direct import/export support for AE, FCP, Shake and Motion similar to Cinema 4D?

Chilton
08-16-2006, 05:58 PM
What's a Cinema 4D?

I kid. Doing things the same way our competitors do, doesn't really appeal to me. I will definitely be looking at what they're doing, though.

I'd like to know if there are any requests, especially from people who haven't used import/export features in other apps. One cannot ponder the usefulness of an interface without being altered by using the interface. It's like reverse-Heisenberg.

For example... before iWeb, RapidWeaver, and Sandvox, people used to think of 'simple web page tools' in terms of Adobe PageMill, Claris HomePage, and Symantec's VisualPage. Those tools were very free-form, compared to the more modern equivalents, which are template based. If I were to create a web page tool today, I'd probably look back to the earlier apps. I feel those offer more creativity. But if I asked people who had used the newer tools how it should work, I'd get a more template based response.

-Chilton

aa1037
08-16-2006, 06:05 PM
Good points.

So, then, how about some kind of direct import/export support for AE, FCP, Shake and Motion :)

ScottSullivan
08-16-2006, 07:41 PM
Chilton, thanks for taking the time and responding to our requests. That's what really makes NewTek stand out, in my opinion. I started in LW by pure chance (as opposed to another 3D app) and every day I am more and more convinced that it was the best decision I've made.

The big request from my point of view is already in the works for the 9.x cycle, OpenEXR support. Being able to export an image sequence in EXR then import into Shake, comp, then bring into Final Cut. So I'm very grateful for that. Multipass renders in OpenEXR would be next on the list.

My dream is to be able to export a sequence with Z-depth, V channel (for motion blur in Shake) and standard multipass renders.

However, this is more Shake work and less Final Cut. I wish I could think of someting specific re: FCS.

riki
08-16-2006, 08:11 PM
What's happening with the future of Shake? Is it going to end up merging as a plugin for FCP?

jeremyhardin
08-16-2006, 08:13 PM
the only official word is that it's not being further developed and apple has implied there's a new comparable app down the line.

riki
08-16-2006, 08:24 PM
I think they said that the next app would be a few years off, with no future development to Shake. Which suggests that Shake could start to fall behind the other apps in the meantime. I like Shake and I guess if you buy it you're getting a great app to take care of your compositing needs today but I'm worried about it's future. The next App might be in the same price bracket as the old Shake. I'm hoping that's not the case, though you'd hope they'd do a cross grade deal in any case.

jeremyhardin
08-16-2006, 08:28 PM
I sincerely doubt Shake will fall behind any compositing apps. Haven't used Nuke, but Fusion is the only other one that comes close in functionality. And it's brand new implementation is still short of Shake's years-old toolset, IMHO.

archiea
08-17-2006, 01:25 AM
What's a Cinema 4D?

I kid. Doing things the same way our competitors do, doesn't really appeal to me. I will definitely be looking at what they're doing, though.


While its sometimes great to look at things with a fresh eye, the fact is that many of your customers like the way competitors do things. Consider it a springboard... :D




I'd like to know if there are any requests, especially from people who haven't used import/export features in other apps. One cannot ponder the usefulness of an interface without being altered by using the interface. It's like reverse-Heisenberg.

For example... before iWeb, RapidWeaver, and Sandvox, people used to think of 'simple web page tools' in terms of Adobe PageMill, Claris HomePage, and Symantec's VisualPage. Those tools were very free-form, compared to the more modern equivalents, which are template based. If I were to create a web page tool today, I'd probably look back to the earlier apps. I feel those offer more creativity. But if I asked people who had used the newer tools how it should work, I'd get a more template based response.

-Chilton

well, a template response can be considered by many as a 'standard", but yes we shouldn't limit idea to just current templates.


I agree with scott in the multipass arena..

how about this, chilton, taking a page out of Shake.. Sometimes I want to output to multiple formants.. I think LW allows for an image sequence and a movie file. How about a node based output? Imagine a small nodal window in the render options section, where there is always an 'Master render Output" node there.. you start from there and start creating branches.. Like one for Tiif sequence, and then a Jpg (say for easy "transport"), an AVI movie for your PC and a QT output for your client. Crap, who wants a 2K Qt output, well just put a resize node between the Master Render Output node and the QT output node.

One could extend this to be that LW can output a multipass output as a shake script with all of your inputs nodes built into the shake script. Just open the shake script and work with the confidence that LW has generated a script that has allof your elements.

Better yet, how about this: Say I render a character with GI and 5 lights with the background. LW will output the finished frames but also a shake script. Within the shake script will be the input files for all of the passes ( each of the 5 lights with no alphas for the FG x the spec/diff/reflec/channelmatte/zdepth etc pass (basically the buffers that you want), all separate from the BG, the FG beauty pass(all lights) with alpha and the BG alone. This is wheere the openEXR format canhelp. LW will also "reconstruct" what it does internally with the buffers (add the light passes, premultiply with the matte and do an over operation with the background) as a shake script, so that this outputted shake script will represent what your "traditional" Lw render (full FG and BG) buffers does at the time of output. the same can be said for a DF script, or even FCP composition.

So the idea is that while i like what I did with Lw, I may want to tweak it after the fact..instead of doing that with constant 3d renders, i can do it in the comp in near realtime. Considering how apps like Shake are basically script based compostors relying on math opps, there seems to be no reason why LW can't output a shake script mimicing what the buffers do... up to a point at least.

So imagine Joe Logo Work... he's a latte sipping, trendy eye glasses wearing, wardrobe conscious FCP editor who drives a Jetta and enjoys foreign films, bashing Bush, and quiet introspective walks in the park with his "partner". Uh.. anyway, imagine that he wants to use LW to do logo work, but doesn't like the "perceived" non realtime aspect of 3D compared to editing... He gets the client's logo, does a classic 3 light setup on it and just want to tweak it on the edit.. someplace he is more familiar with than a 3D program.. So he goes to the above proposed render options window, selects a possible premade "FCP elements" node that is pre programmed to breakout the lights and/or channels in the buffers, renders it out to an FCP composition. he loads up the composition and its a composite of the three light passes for the logo with a separate spec pass... now the FCP artist can "relight" the shot in the edit!!! and even control or animate (!!!) the amount of specular kick off the logo as it spins.

archiea
08-17-2006, 01:33 AM
I sincerely doubt Shake will fall behind any compositing apps. Haven't used Nuke, but Fusion is the only other one that comes close in functionality. And it's brand new implementation is still short of Shake's years-old toolset, IMHO.


Shake, in a way, already HAS fallen behind... its architecture didn't allow for a flexible paint/vectorshape system like combustion.. The timeline editor was perhaps the worst in any app. the 3D workspace was rudemntary at best.. nothing like Combustion or Nuke.

Nuke, as I recalled it, allowed for folks who knew C to really carve out a custom NUKE for themselves. the interface wasn't the prettiest, but the 3D workspace is mature and battleproven. The viewer node alone as a 9 framebuffer switcher has Shake's A/B frambuffer beat. Theres like 10 other things that I can't recall a tthe moment that made me prefer Nule over Shake.

Apple, I think, understands themarketplace, and the special place tht shake had in it. I can only guess that with the intel based mac allowing growth in the market that a proprietary PPC CPU mac couldn't, Apple will commit to an app to replace it. I just can't wait!!!:D

dsol
08-17-2006, 08:20 AM
More flexible/easier to modify output from LW would be great. After Effects is nice in this respect - you can define templates for output which define not only file type (TGA, quicktime, PNG etc.) but image size (post-render scaling - handy if you want to render PAL and HD versions simultaneously) and transparency colour pre-multiplication settings (straight or premultiplied with a background colour of you choice). You can also define multiple outputs from each render, using templates or custom settings for each output "pipe".

More control of how LW renders transparency (premultiplication) is definitely top of my list though.

Dan

PS. This really isn't mac/FCP specific I know, but it would make it a lot easier to generate anims with transparency that work directly in FCP and Avid (most edit software requires straight mattes - no colour premul)

jeremyhardin
08-17-2006, 08:24 AM
Shake, in a way, already HAS fallen behind...
well I suppose that comes down to opinion.


its architecture didn't allow for a flexible paint/vectorshape system like combustion..
I painted some frames yesterday with shakes paint system. what do you mean? I use vectorshape masks all the time. perhaps I'm just not understanding what your saying with this comment.


The timeline editor was perhaps the worst in any app. the 3D workspace was rudemntary at best.. nothing like Combustion or Nuke.
I agree the timeline needs work, but I'd hardly call it the worst in any app. Fusion's timeline is ****. I haven't used the 3d workspace in Combustion. Does it allow you to import 3d tracking data from Boujou or PFTrack? Or a Maya Scene with camera movement? Shake's interface may be lacking in the 3d workspace arena, but it's functionality is top-notch.



Nuke, as I recalled it, allowed for folks who knew C to really carve out a custom NUKE for themselves. the interface wasn't the prettiest, but the 3D workspace is mature and battleproven.
Now here, I'm definitely going to prefer shake. You don't need to know C to carve out a custom Shake. You can know ANYTHING, because the shake composites are simple text. I could use Lscript, Melscript, Python, Java, C, Bash scripting, even DOS to composite. I could build a thousand composites right out of the 3d renders based on what I need. I could set up temp greenscreen keys before I ever open the interface. Not to mention I can customize Shake's interface as well.


The viewer node alone as a 9 framebuffer switcher has Shake's A/B frambuffer beat.Now that sounds nice.

Nuke sounds nice though. I'll have to try it out despite the poor reviews I've gotten in the past. :thumbsup:



I just can't wait!!!:DNor can I! :D :agree:

archiea
08-17-2006, 03:29 PM
well I suppose that comes down to opinion.


I painted some frames yesterday with shakes paint system. what do you mean? I use vectorshape masks all the time. perhaps I'm just not understanding what your saying with this comment.


I agree the timeline needs work, but I'd hardly call it the worst in any app. Fusion's timeline is ****. I haven't used the 3d workspace in Combustion. Does it allow you to import 3d tracking data from Boujou or PFTrack? Or a Maya Scene with camera movement? Shake's interface may be lacking in the 3d workspace arena, but it's functionality is top-notch.


don't get me wrong, I luv shake, I've used it almost every day for the past 7 years. But as a platform to move into the future it needed to be taken to the back and shot, as apple did. its development since 2.5 has been slow.. the current 4.1 shake is more like what the v 3.0 should have been, IMHO.

The 3D workspace in combustion is far more "comfortable" with 3D than shake..

The timeline is cumbersome... I was comparing it to combustion/after affects/flame/FCP. I mean, once you get used to it, its hard to look back at how cumbersome it is. I'm of a school that apps like shake should have a timeline like an editor.. since you are dealing with multiple clips. The paint tools in Combustion are far more varied, for instance the ability to use tracking data to drive a spline tool to use as a rubrthough from a previous layer is something combustion has been able to do for years. The flipside, is that the node workflow in combustion is cumbersome... :D .

I only say all that because I dig shake, and I can't wait to see what apple does with it. I hope they maintain its simplicity and the elegance of its script based form, but with a modern robust timeline that offers flexibility in all ares that can be animated.



Now here, I'm definitely going to prefer shake. You don't need to know C to carve out a custom Shake. You can know ANYTHING, because the shake composites are simple text. I could use Lscript, Melscript, Python, Java, C, Bash scripting, even DOS to composite. I could build a thousand composites right out of the 3d renders based on what I need. I could set up temp greenscreen keys before I ever open the interface. Not to mention I can customize Shake's interface as well.


You know what, I also prefer shake's straight forward approach.. but it does come with its limitations..

One area that a saw nuke excell in was in mutipass compositng using the openEXR format.. for starters, imagine shake having more than just the RGBALZ channels.... imagine Shake having unlimited Channels!!! Like an uber-reorder node. What I've seen is folks take a multipass 3D render saved in a single openEXR file and load it into nuke. the artist was then able to acces the different light passes in the render from the multiple channels saved in the open exr format. In Nuke, you have the ability to acces any of the channels from within the node.. often artist use a "layer" node to kinda divide the cchannels into layers.. kinda like an organization tool.. so instead of channels 1->40, you channesl 1-> be the RGBA channels of yoru beauty, channe 5 be your Z, channel 6->8 be your spec pass, etc..

So for starters,instead of 5 or 10 fileins in shake, you have one in Nuke that is many layers deep. Instead of branches split off into different node ops for each of the channels or layers,in Nuke you have sometimes a single line of nodes, each addressing a diffferent channel or layer imbedded in the file. very elegant.



Now that sounds nice.

Nuke sounds nice though. I'll have to try it out despite the poor reviews I've gotten in the past. :thumbsup:



I say give it a decent try.. but don't try to compare it to shake too much.. speak to Nuke users and learn of their workflow methaodology. it helps to approach Nuke from a standpint of its strengths...

From a selfish standpoint.. I;d like to see nuke's eas witht he depth of Nuke's Channel deep compositing.. I've said for years to the apple people...

avkills
08-17-2006, 04:03 PM
How about camera motion exported and/or imported to/from AfterEffects, unless it already does it and I just haven't found it yet. ;)

That would be very handy for me.

-mark

dsol
08-17-2006, 08:01 PM
How about camera motion exported and/or imported to/from AfterEffects, unless it already does it and I just haven't found it yet. ;)

That would be very handy for me.

-mark

Hear, hear! That would be really useful to me too :)

Noclar7
08-18-2006, 07:21 AM
I've jumped on the bandwagon as well, allthough there will be a learning curve as I've been hard-core AE from the start. Still waiting on the order (3 weeks and counting)

Jeffers
08-18-2006, 08:09 AM
If you don't know about it already, pop over to:

http://www.fxshare.com/shake/

Lots of free Macro's and Scripts to make Shake even better..... :)

A truely great resource that i've been using for years!

Oh and for all you shake noob's, try http://www.cmivfx.com/tutorials.asp for some free Tut's.

ScottSullivan
08-18-2006, 09:07 AM
FX Share (http://www.fxhshare.com) is a great resource, indeed. Also, I think it's their "sister" site, Highend 3D (http://www.highend3d.com); both great resources.

There is a very good interview over at VFX Talk (http://www.vfxtalk.com) with the guys at Double Negative (they did Batman Begins). The interview is about their work on World Trade Center and they mention about the compositing work they did in Shake. Very interesting.

Nclar7, the learning curve from AE to Shake isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. I did it through immersion, I just started using it and learned by brute force. But that's also why there were some basic things I didn't know about (Thanks again Jeremy for the tip!) Welcome about and enjoy!

Scott

archiea
08-18-2006, 12:58 PM
My first reaction to the movie's smaoke effct is that its too "wispy" and not thick enough.. The smoke at the WTC has this thick pyroclastic look to it...