Christopher Nichols Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 Just wondering. I saw that most of the posts in this "compositing" section seem to be about making DVDs and editing. That really has nothing to do with Compositing, but has to do with Post-production. Basically I think that there should be a section called "Editing and Authoring" This could be DVDs, multimedia, web, etc... But it also brings up the issue of Compositing, which very few viz-arch people do, or know how to do. If they knew how to do it, they could safe themselves mucho mucho $$$$ when doing animations. Plus if could really enhance the quality of their work. Was wondering why many people don't use compositing software. I have seen people use After Effects as editing package which seems like such a waste. Anyone ever touch Compostion, Digital Fusion, Shake, or, dare I say, Nuke? Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Warner Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 But it also brings up the issue of Compositing, which very few viz-arch people do, or know how to do. If they knew how to do it, they could safe themselves mucho mucho $$$$ when doing animations. Plus if could really enhance the quality of their work. Now that would be a DVD I would buy! Iv'e never used any of the real compositing programs, only after effects, and if you can call it a "compositing" program, premiere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 Now that would be a DVD I would buy! Yup I would love to know how. I am looking into combustion as I have gotten burned on too many of my animations in the past where I screwed something up and could not edit the images the way I would in ps. Chris, I got a lot out of your ext. vray dvd you do seem natural at teaching I imagine there would be interested if you were to set up a tutorial on how to do this work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 I have seen people use After Effects as editing package which seems like such a waste. guilty as charged. we own combustion 2.0, but i am always in a crunch when i need something, so i never actual sit down to mess with it. i tend to reach for aftereffects because of the comfort level of using adobe software. if you know one package, you know them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cassil Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 Anyone ever touch Compostion, Digital Fusion, Shake, or, dare I say, Nuke? Do you mean Combustion? And why is using AE "such a waste", I'm not saying it isn't, but maybe you could explain a little better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted August 15, 2005 Author Share Posted August 15, 2005 Do you mean Combustion? And why is using AE "such a waste", I'm not saying it isn't, but maybe you could explain a little better. What I was trying to say is using AE as an editing package and not taking advantage of its compositing capabilities. And yes I did mean Combustion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted August 15, 2005 Author Share Posted August 15, 2005 Well, actually it was not supposed to be a baited question really as I don't plan on doing a compositing DVD (hmmm... maybe I should... compositing for architect... maybe Alex would go for this). Anyway, Gnomon DOES have a bunch of compositing DVDs that came out same time as mine. This one is on Compositing fundamentals... http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/gja01.html I have not seem it, and have no idea about it. I have seen Rob's: http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/rne01.html http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/dvds/rne02.html and his kicks ass. But this is more hard core compositing than most architects would need. But if ever you wanted to know how much a compositing package CAN do... watch them. Generally in the film industry Shake tends to be the compositing package most people use, and most compositing packages look and feel similar to this. The only ones that are different are AE and Combustion. I personally am a Nuke person. But to be really honest, AE can do a LOT for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils Norgren Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 What in your opinion is the advantage to using a compositing package such as Shake, Fusion, or Nuke over something like AE? We have been using AE since it was COSA and it has always served us well. This is probably due to our skills and the software maturing at the same time. I have read "Art of Compositing" (or something like that) Many years ago, It went into many of the mathematical origins of compositing procedures, for the most part we can get AE to do all that. We are evaluating getting a seat of Shake, (we have combustion) I want to temper any "Cool New Tool" feelings with "This makes us better/faster/higher quality". I know that the speed and scriptablity of Shake is useful (at a price of a steep learning curve). I am interested in the image quality, color space, color management, also streamlining the finishing pipeline. How likely in your opinion is it that a studio with a half dozen experienced AE users would benefit from having A copy of Shake? One aside, I have a client who works on TV commercials and he swears up and down about bringing things into Flame at the end of the pipeline to give it the final "Sparkle" (at $700 an hour), then later in the same conversation I ask what compositing tool was used in the spot he is most proud of and he tells me it was finished in AE. -Nils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Ramsay Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I have actually just started using combustion so im still learning it but I can see the benefits of using it right away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted August 16, 2005 Author Share Posted August 16, 2005 What in your opinion is the advantage to using a compositing package such as Shake, Fusion, or Nuke over something like AE? We have been using AE since it was COSA and it has always served us well. This is probably due to our skills and the software maturing at the same time. I have read "Art of Compositing" (or something like that) Many years ago, It went into many of the mathematical origins of compositing procedures, for the most part we can get AE to do all that. We are evaluating getting a seat of Shake, (we have combustion) I want to temper any "Cool New Tool" feelings with "This makes us better/faster/higher quality". I know that the speed and scriptablity of Shake is useful (at a price of a steep learning curve). I am interested in the image quality, color space, color management, also streamlining the finishing pipeline. How likely in your opinion is it that a studio with a half dozen experienced AE users would benefit from having A copy of Shake? One aside, I have a client who works on TV commercials and he swears up and down about bringing things into Flame at the end of the pipeline to give it the final "Sparkle" (at $700 an hour), then later in the same conversation I ask what compositing tool was used in the spot he is most proud of and he tells me it was finished in AE. -Nils Well my wife is an inferno artist (same exact thing as flame but for film res) and if you want that final pow, yeah... you want to take it through a flame. Inferno time is around $700 an hour. Most of that pays for the hardware and software, which runs on one of those big, purple SGI refrigerators. She also does a lots of motion graphics and they do most of that on AE. You see the advantage that AE has in terms of motion graphics is that it is timeline based (as opposed to node based) so animating in AE is MUCH easier for things like motion graphics. Node based compositing (Shake, Nuke, etc..) can deal with huge complex networks of layers, and once you get it, it is awesome. On Stealth we had 63 channels of data for each plane. On I, Robot, the "make bot" script was over 500 nodes. The thing about compositing is that it "brings things together" You can separate things (background to foreground) and comp them on top of each other. Or, if you are fancy, you can render out in layers (Diffuse, Spec, GI, Shadows, Reflections) and if you understand the math of the shader you can put that all together using Overs, Plus's, and Multiplies. Then you can control all aspects of your render after it has already rendered. On Stealth we just ball parked he lighting in 3d and let renderman output all the layers. All the real lighting took place in comp, this includes tweaking lighting direction. We then passed the comped plane to a compositor that added effects like smoke, fire etc... and did all the final magic. At my current job, I am a lighter and compositor, so I get to final my own shots finally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 i can remember when i first started in 3d. i tried to do everything in the program i was using. i wanted my final render to be the final version. eventually i learned the power of post processing an image, and have never looked back. now i just need to jump into compositing, rendering out layers, ect.. ect.. i tried some basic depth blurs with a RLA files in AE one time. the results were pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchrender Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I have to say I get lost, I genaerally render the whole seen together, and photoshop in extras like people, the odd tree, or bush, if I am asked,but i am finding that more and more 3d trees are being requested, instead of 2d trees. What is the correct processs, and I have yet to asked for an animationas they proove too expensive and time consuming. what's your opinion. Chris, love the dvd, well done, what's next? phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.3dsmax.blogger Posted October 30, 2005 Share Posted October 30, 2005 I would love to work on SHAKE !! But I believe its available only on a Mac Platform. I am happily stuck on PC. Shake is very powerful. But I believe that each App is appropriate in its own right. AE is strong in fast & quick motion graphics. Combustion & Fusion are a class of its own, when it comes to Color corrections, Chromakeying & stuff. So There are no winners & every body wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now