Jump to content


Post-production software?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 no_soft_shots

no_soft_shots
  • Guests

Posted 27 November 2005 - 11:37 PM

I have no idea what programs like shake, flame, inferno and smoke do?

I'm thinking they have somthing to do with 2D or 3D compositing.

cheers
no_soft_shots
  • 0

#2 Rolfe Klement

Rolfe Klement
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Director
  • London | LA

Posted 28 November 2005 - 05:26 AM

not sure what your question is but all of the above are 2d | 3d compositing and finishing fx software (except Smoke which is more edit based)

Shake - is mainly used (and more frequently used) on feature clean ups
Smoke - is used as high end editing with loads of features
Flame is 2nd best and Inferno is top of the heap (but at in excess of USD$5 000 000 a decent set up it is quite expensive)

read more at

http://www.apple.com/shake/

and

http://usa.autodesk....3112&id=5708192

thanks

Rolfe
  • 0

#3 Dirk DeJonghe

Dirk DeJonghe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Kortrijk,Belgium

Posted 28 November 2005 - 06:36 AM

Some packages run on dekstop computers, others are on dedicated hardware. The difference in features between both becomes smaller and smaller every year.

Some packages are made to be front room applications with the client in attendance, others are backroom applications where the client only comes to look at a semi-finished product.

I use both Digital Fusion on Windows and Shake on LInux. Both are very powerful packages, the limit is more in the operator than in the software.
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 November 2005 - 07:55 AM

Smoke - is used as high end editing with loads of features
Flame is 2nd best and Inferno is top of the heap (but at in excess of USD$5 000 000 a decent set up it is quite expensive)

Rolfe


Hi,

There is not much betweem Inferno and Flame. Inferno runs on faster and more expensive hardware. In the past Flame was only 8 bit but that is not so today. Costs are much lower than $5,000,000. 10 years ago about $500,000 today nearer $200,000, but deals are done.
Smoke has a timeline, so is better to edit with and can achieve most of the features of Flame/Inferno. The upgrade costs of all 3 are very high so many facilities have kicked them out.

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Rolfe Klement

Rolfe Klement
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Director
  • London | LA

Posted 28 November 2005 - 09:17 AM

Yeap the problem with Discreet is you have to buy properitery hardware and Storage so the software might not be that expensive but the hardware mounts up.

Try time a render of 6k files in floating bit colour in DPX or Cineon - with 32 layers in 3d space and the SGI Origin 3000 with inferno will win everytime and there will always be someone prepared to pay for that time advantage when you have busy directors and DOPs

but I agree the lines below 2k and below 10bit are blurring - a quick Powermac running Shake can do more than a flame could 6 years ago - the software deals are getting better but the super computer hardware high end will always be very expensive

Not sure who else knows this but Discreet 3DSMAx bought Alias Maya a while back which might push | force people into a Autodesk Discreet workflow

thanks

Rolfe
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 November 2005 - 09:42 AM

Try time a render of 6k files in floating bit colour in DPX or Cineon - with 32 layers in 3d space and the SGI Origin 3000 with inferno will win everytime and there will always be someone prepared to pay for that time advantage when you have busy directors and DOPs


Rolfe


Hi,

Thats true, but as you can work proxies, so you don't have to render @6k when the DoP/Director whants to play!

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 November 2005 - 10:05 AM

Hi,

One to watch is Cinelerra, a Linux-based edit application with some very interesting features. The actual edit and composite functionality is half-finished at best, but it has the ability to network render over a conventional network to any number of render nodes. Now, clearly, there's a limit to the bandwidth of this sort of setup, but the total throughput is potentially enormous and it's expandable with very cheap commoditised hardware.

Expensive status toys like Inferno, and hardware colour correctors like Pogle and DaVinci, have got to see the writing on the wall with this sort of thing.

Phil
  • 0

#8 Michael Most

Michael Most
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 November 2005 - 10:31 AM

Expensive status toys like Inferno, and hardware colour correctors like Pogle and DaVinci, have got to see the writing on the wall with this sort of thing.


As long as there are segments of the industry - television programs and commercials, for example - that need very fast turnaround (I'm talking hours, not days), client interactivity, and integrated video I/O - all at HD or higher resolutions - there will be a significant market for all of the devices you just mentioned. And I don't see those segments going away very quickly, at least not in the major markets (L.A., New York, London, etc.).
  • 0

#9 Rolfe Klement

Rolfe Klement
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Director
  • London | LA

Posted 28 November 2005 - 06:11 PM

It might be my overdose of chocolate cake but Autodesk Media have some sneaky plan (which is fine by me - good products deserve it - I say)

Since autodesk (discreet) now own the world's 3D market since they bought Maya and many poeple want to switch to Lustre CC and they have the high end sorted - all they need is a fancy new propietery format like the new ILM one - and everyone will have to use them

my conspiracy monopoly mind at work :ph34r:

ahhhh - they just need to break shake. I can see it on their coffee cups "BREAK SHAKE"

thanks

Rolfe
  • 0

#10 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 November 2005 - 07:24 PM

Hi,

Michael, I disagree. I have experience on a colour corrector that's effectively just a pile of PC hardware, and not that special PC hardware at that, which does 2K realtime grading as you describe. I'd hazard that Cinelerra on an infiniband cluster would probably be similarly capable. The days of being stuck on Altera gate arrays for realtime colour work are frankly over already.

The fact that systems like these have vastly, vastly improved flexibility and capability over welded-in hardware is another persuasive factor. I'm used to being able to drag and drop effects as I need them, the hardware stuff seems so limited in comparison.

Phil
  • 0

#11 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 02 December 2005 - 03:03 PM

Let's not forget After Effects - the all-can-do program that delivers most bang for the buck. Most high end post houses turn to it on virtually every project the minute the client leaves the room.... :P
  • 0

#12 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 08 December 2005 - 05:37 AM

Hey Adam,

I've set my entire post to Adobe Video Collection. The ease and compatability between workprints in Premiere and matching scans in After Effects is a fine experience. Audition has sufficient tools to t**d polish most dialogue tracks. Then it's an easy pop over to Encore to make DVDs.

I know Adobe isn't the cool stuff, but it works quite fine for me.
  • 0

#13 seth christian

seth christian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Director
  • Nashville, TN. USA

Posted 13 December 2005 - 07:01 AM

I started out using ALL Adobe setup.
Then I splurged and bought a new G4 Mac when it came out and
went Apple for a while..using Final Cut, and eventually Shake.
Then I interned with a tv station and was forced to learn
Avid System, which is probably in the top 2 of post workflow.

But now, in the end and for the past 2 yrs., I am completely
sold on sticking with this setup:
layer edit with Premier Pro 1.5 (renders close to the speed of
Final Cut HD anyway, plus its cheap upgrades)
then I use my Combustion for all colorization, compositing, and
effects. The footage ALWAYS ALWAYS comes out looking
warmer and more professional then using anything else I've
used. Maybe its partly just cause of my experience now, but
I've had brief moments with those past paths, and I just
retreat to Discreet Combustion every time......
it rocks!!!
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Ritter Battery

CineTape

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC