Autodesk Composite 2011

[Gavin Greenwalt]

" People tend to justify a 45k cine zoom and whine when a software package exceeds the 3k realm."

Classic so sadly true!!!

It's even sadder than that. I hear people regularly complaining about $600 annual subscription/upgrade costs for their *primary application*.

It's like: "do you have any idea what normal business expenses look like?"

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Jake, I don't want to come into an argument Smoke vs Nuke, AE, etc... I love all three. If Smoke does not meet your needs, fine. But implying it's a lame application that is severely overpriced is an unfair statement. For me, for instance, it does all FCP can do plus a whole lot more, including NO gamma shift. That alone is worth 10K. Smoke is basically a NLE on steroids with great archiving and versioning capabilities. It's NOT a compositing application like Nuke, nor a compositor/moving graphics solution like AE. I haven't used FCP for editing anymore since I got Smoke.

If you are looking for a Flame on Mac you will be disappointed with Smoke. If you look for a finishing application you may be the right candidate.

...CW is extremely limited. For example, in CW you can do just three secondaries. Again, it's so 1990s...

Your can stake unlimited CWs, ad an Axis Soft Effect for vignettes, track it or use the bezier garbage matte to tackle complicated tasks.

Smoke keyers are good, but Nuke has great keyers as well.

I never said that Nuke's key abilities are inferior. I just said that the Modular Keyer is very good and for certain tasks second to none.

Not sure what's your point. Are you saying, that software has to be expensive to be good?

No. I just said that software is to be expected to be cheap while hardware can gladly be expensive - the more the better, the bigger the myth.

That will be a surprise to Autodesk marketing, because that is exactly how they promote Smoke on a Mac. Remember, I'm talking about the neutered Mac version, not Smoke advanced.

They advertise Smoke as a finishing solution. Is AE a finishing app, or Nuke? Do they have an in-build NLE? Can you re-conform a complex project? Do you have dedicated audio tools, OMF ex- and import? AAF, EDL and XML import and EDL export? The closest competitor to Smoke is Avid DS, do we agree on this?

I'm assuming you're talking about Flame vs FCP, right?

Haha. No. I never would. Flame is a finishing application with a big emphasis on compositing, plus made for sessions that are supervised by hyper-demanding clients in the advertising industry. That alone is for many the reason to invest into Flame or Smoke.

Again, I'm talking about Smoke on a Mac. And how's FCP, AE and Nuke combo is "hardly less costly than Smoke"? It's not even close...

FCP is 1K, NukeX 6k, AE in the production suite round about 2k. That's software for 9K. Smoke is 12K. Not a big difference. But then we are talking about software and not lenses - different rules, why?

----------

Hard times for software developers. How do people think can a software company develop new technologies if the customer does not want to pay a dime for that? In the moment we see new products like Resolve on the Mac for the costs of FCP hitting the market but in which numbers? Apple sells each cycle million+ seats. Do people think that BM will sell the same amount? Do people think that developing such a software will have a meaningful ROI? In the moment we see a software bubble. Every one is getting wind of an assumed market niche and tries to occupy it. But then? The bubble will bursts and there will be only the 3 As left - and Autodesk, perhaps Quantel with their high-end applications. It's not happening in the future, it's happening now:

- Shake is dead. Too expensive to develop and maintain, even for a giant like Apple.

- Combustion is dead. To expensive to keep the software developing. Version 2008 is the last build.

- Toxic is now part of Maja and called Compositor. It started as a competitor to Shake and Fusion, then to Nuke. Do people rellay think that Autodesk will invest anything mentionable into this app?

- Apple Color is today very similar to the last build of Final Touch. There are NO new functions, tools, etc... only a few bug-fixes and workflow enhancements. For a 5 year "development" time not much. But it's virtually free now.

Hans

 

[jake blackstone]

Obviously this thread had been highjacked and I apologize for contributing to that.
So back to the subject in hand. Last I checked Smac, unless I'm incorrect, it is $16k, not $12 plus annual subscription. So, it's at least twice as expensive and I still would need to have something like FCP or AE to create a Prores or Avid MC for Dnxhd file. And now the whole concept of one software finishing solution is out the window. So now it's even more than $16k. And don't forget, you may need to get an AJA card for Smac. So now we're up to, what, $20k?
Said that, I do not advocate, that all software should be inexpensive. There is a place for high end software, that offers high end real time solutions, but that expensive software should also be good. Smac is not, for reasons I'd described.
As far as being able to grade with Smoke, what you had just described is more like a compositing job and less, than a CG. Why Autodesk insists on reinventing a wheel, when they have a truly world class CG software in Lustre? The reason is simple- monetization and legacy. Recently Autodesk made Lustre a part of Flame Premium suite, just like Color became a part of FCP suite. So, they basically made it free for Flame Premium users. Why not bite the bullet and replace CW with Lustre? In that case I could certainly overlook Lustre's abysmal conforming tools and Smoke's equally sad attempt at CG.
Smoke port for Mac was done poorly with all legacy issues still present. They had a chance to start with a clean slate and they chose a quick solution instead. As a result, up to now Smac sales had been abysmal. I honestly hope, that Autodesk will change it's approach to Smac development and come up with something more exciting and good? Will see at NAB...
And BTW, about that gamma shift. It's an easy problem to tackle, when you don't use the most popular compressed codecs, like Prores or DnxHD. The only decent QT codec available in Smac export are open source type, like v210 etc. There never were gamma issues with those codecs. DVCam? I think you'll have other more serious issues, than gamma, if you use that codec...

 

[Paul Lee]

This turned into a good discussion! What do y'all think of Nuke vs. Fusion?

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Last I checked Smac, unless I'm incorrect, it is $16k, not $12 plus annual subscription. ...The only decent QT codec available in Smac export are open source type, like v210 etc. There never were gamma issues with those codecs....

For the record: I paid 12k EUR and the uncompressed QT codecs in Smoke shift severely, to the more contrasty side. But fortunately you can export DPX or use a gamma tool for compensation.

Now back to the topic of the OP.

Hans

 

[jake blackstone]

This turned into a good discussion! What do y'all think of Nuke vs. Fusion?

I have no opinion as I don't use them. May be someone else can chime in...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I used to use Fusion but I found a lot of inconsistent and awkward workflow issues. It's really really hard unfortunately to articulate that sort of thing. Nuke just "Gets It" and is in my opinion the bar by which other packages should work. It's been about 3 years though since I last used it--but I doubt they've changed their core 'logic'.

 

[paulherrin]

i agree with gavin. nuke is the state of the art.

not sure the price difference, but if it's anywhere close to your budget i would definitely swing for it.

 

[Paul Lee]

This is great feedback. We were a smoke house (note that the "s" is in lower-caps, it was a long time ago) then really enjoyed Shake for a long while but think those days are pretty well done with. Darn Apple!