Smoke on MAC is here!!

[Emery Wells]

From Autodesk PR:

“Starting Nov 17th 2009 Autodesk began technology previews of Autodesk Smoke for the Mac at InterBEE, Japan. Priced at $14,995 (US SRP), Autodesk Smoke is a software-only solution with industry-leading creative editorial finishing capabilities. Subscription pricing is $1995 (US SRP). Don’t just edit. Finish with Smoke!”

This is huge news for the industry. There is a massive GAP in the marketplace for an affordable finishing system and Smoke on the Mac (and Flare for that matter) is a good sign that Autodesk is taking a cue from Avid and adapting their product philosophy with the changes in the marketplace.

More news is trickling out:
http://smokeosx.blogspot.com/

 

[MichaelHalsell]

Yea!

 

[Danish P.V.]

From Autodesk PR:

There is a massive GAP in the marketplace for an affordable finishing system and Smoke on the Mac (and Flare for that matter)...

So far Flare is only available to Flame owners and judging from the past I kinda doubt Autodesk`s gonna sell it. Or are there any indications which revise my estimate?

 

[Emery Wells]

No indications that Flare will be sold without owning a Flame but Smoke on Mac will be standalone.

 

[Imran Farouk]

At the risk of sounding like an idiot...

Never heard of smoke...never touched or seen it...visited the site but it doesn't give a bare bones of what it is exactly for...but from what I get...is that its pretty much a Final Cut Studio but in terms of Autodesk and more powerful and at what seems to be a rather reasonable price for its feature set...

is that right?

 

[Danish P.V.]

No indications that Flare will be sold without owning a Flame but Smoke on Mac will be standalone.

Ok, thanks - I was hoping...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

At the risk of sounding like an idiot...

Never heard of smoke...never touched or seen it...visited the site but it doesn't give a bare bones of what it is exactly for...but from what I get...is that its pretty much a Final Cut Studio but in terms of Autodesk and more powerful and at what seems to be a rather reasonable price for its feature set...

is that right?

Think Flame. But more tailored to editorial and conforming.

 

[Harva Raj]

Think Flame. But more tailored to editorial and conforming.

like speedgrade xr?

 

[MichaelHalsell]

For those unfamiliar with Autodesk Smoke, below is a quick overview of the product on the OSX platform.

http://media.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-ep072.mov

 

[Greg M]

Smoke is a high end FINISHING system, whereas Final Cut is more a offline editorial system.

Flare will never sell w/o Flame ownership.

 

[Emery Wells]

Smoke is a high end FINISHING system, whereas Final Cut is more a offline editorial system.

Flare will never sell w/o Flame ownership.

I wouldn't be so sure. I don't foresee that in Autodesks near future but the fact that Flare exists (and now Smoke OSX) are signs that Autodesk is making changes. Changes take time, they don't happen overnight for a number of reasons but they will need to if they want to stay relevant in the evolving market. Think about the evolution starting with SGI, then transitioning to linux and 100% "off the shelf" hardware, then Flare with the "bring your own hardware" model, now Smoke on OSX. The signs are abundantly clear and I would bet almost anything that this evolutionary path will continue over the coming years.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

What about the quadro fx??? Weren't these not allowed by apple due to the warranty?? and wasn't this the problem we don't see Scratch on mac??

 

[Emery Wells]

What about the quadro fx??? Weren't these not allowed by apple due to the warranty?? and wasn't this the problem we don't see Scratch on mac??

Quadro FX are no problem on the Mac. It's the SDI daughter card for the Quadro FX series that is not available on the Mac

 

[MichaelHalsell]

This is really great news, Autodesk is probably 1 or 2 applications being short of being a considered a monopoly. Jokes aside, I like their product commitment and customer service model.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

I see no option handling stereoscopy???

Do someone else knows which products from autodesk support stereoscopy realtime by now?? (maby even in 4K)???

The R3d files still seem to be rendered aswell.

 

[Imran Farouk]

Bet if the whole auto desk suite moves towards offering Mac support Apple will start seeing Pro users in a new light and maybe bring back a lot of stuff that they ditched in order to push more towards the consumer. I.E the express card slot in the 15" (not that you'd use this in a 15" but potentially?)

 

[M Most]

Quadro FX are no problem on the Mac. It's the SDI daughter card for the Quadro FX series that is not available on the Mac

Which severely limits both the I/O and monitoring capabilities of the product.

Personally, I don't really get it. The Mac is a platform that is relatively closed and whose user base generally won't buy any software product that's priced higher than about $5K. The only exception I can think of off hand is the Pixel Farm products (PF Track, PF Clean) that appeal to a very select audience. I suppose Smoke fits into that category as well, but frankly, a fully equipped Mac based Smoke isn't going to cost a lot less than a turnkey Linux based Smoke. A bit less, but not a lot less if it's done right. While OS X may be a very stable and very nice development platform, Apple does not currently make a model that can sensibly be described as open enough for high end professional use, especially in terms of expandability (witness the hole cutting kludges people have had to go through here just to accommodate a RED Rocket™ card, and the near impossibility of having a Rocket card, a video I/O card, a fibre channel HBA, and, well, anything else in one box). When you compare that with "standard" PC boxes used for both Linux and Windows systems, it's clear to me that the primary reason to go with Smoke on a Mac rather than on Linux is because you like the Mac for reasons that have nothing to do with running Autodesk software (which is distinctly non-Mac-like anyway). So basically, I guess I'm asking: who is this really aimed at? And is anyone here going to put $20,000 software on a Mac?

Now, after considering that question, the intended audience, I would guess, is Mac based post boutiques that are relying on the Final Cut suite and finding it limited, particularly in terms of visual effects capabilities and the ability to work with clients in an environment that they would be used to, especially for short form work. And in many of those situations, the hardware needed to support Smoke is already in place, and the ability to use Mac only QT codecs is a nice plus. So in that case, they would likely look to bring in an experienced Smoke artist with a client following that they could not attract without such a tool. So while there's likely a market for Autodesk in those type of situations, it's certainly not going to be mass market, not that it has to be. I see this really as an attempt to attract the Linux-phobic facilities that might have existing Apple based infrastructures, not individual owners. And in that scenario, it does make sense.

 

[Emery Wells]

Which severely limits both the I/O and monitoring capabilities of the product.

Personally, I don't really get it. The Mac is a platform that is relatively closed and whose user base generally won't buy any software product that's priced higher than about $5K. The only exception I can think of off hand is the Pixel Farm products (PF Track, PF Clean) that appeal to a very select audience. I suppose Smoke fits into that category as well, but frankly, a fully equipped Mac based Smoke isn't going to cost a lot less than a turnkey Linux based Smoke. A bit less, but not a lot less if it's done right. While OS X may be a very stable and very nice development platform, Apple does not currently make a model that can sensibly be described as open enough for high end professional use, especially in terms of expandability (witness the hole cutting kludges people have had to go through here just to accommodate a RED Rocket™™ card, and the near impossibility of having a Rocket card, a video I/O card, a fibre channel HBA, and, well, anything else in one box). When you compare that with "standard" PC boxes used for both Linux and Windows systems, it's clear to me that the primary reason to go with Smoke on a Mac rather than on Linux is because you like the Mac for reasons that have nothing to do with running Autodesk software (which is distinctly non-Mac-like anyway). So basically, I guess I'm asking: who is this really aimed at? And is anyone here going to put $20,000 software on a Mac?

Your such a curmudgeon Mike

I'll gladly hand over my $15k (not $20k). Fact is there are LOTS of Macs out there in the creative community. People are familiar with them, people love them, and they love the apps and utilities that are available on them. There is a reason it is the platform of choice amongst creative professionals and thats all that can be said without getting into a platform war.

Course there are other benefits with Smoke being on OSX like being able to use a system you already have (Nuke, FCP, Avid) whatever. Being able to cut in Final Cut, export an XML, launch Smoke, and reassemble your project is what I like to call a "streamlined workflow." Lets not forget about all the DRIVES floating around the planet that are HFS formatted. About 95% of the media we get on a drive is Mac formatted. With Smoke OSX I'll be able to plug it right into the box, soft import, and get going straight away. What about Quicktime support (or lack thereof) on Linux? No ProRes or DNxHD. Yes it's an Apple/Avid problem but on OSX its not a problem at all.

Have you ever been a Smoke/Flame admin? They make it ridiculously over complicated. Sure me and you are comfortable at the command line, but you shouldn't need a dedicated admin to run a couple Smoke systems. Autodesk knew this wouldn't fly in the OSX community so they've worked on simplifying things like the installation and administration.

Id also like to note that you cant buy Smoke Linux without the hardware. Its a package deal. yes you can upgrade your hardware without upgrading your license or vise vera once you are an owner but for a new customer, you are looking at a $100k investment VS $15k software license. Im just not sure this announcement is anything but great news. The better news is you can stick to Linux if you so choose.

 

[M Most]

Your such a curmudgeon Mike

Well, those were my first reactions. I've thought it through a bit more.

Course there are other benefits with Smoke being on OSX like being able to use a system you already have (Nuke, FCP, Avid) whatever. Being able to cut in Final Cut, export an XML, launch Smoke, and reassemble your project is what I like to call a "streamlined workflow." Lets not forget about all the DRIVES floating around the planet that are HFS formatted. About 95% of the media we get on a drive is Mac formatted. With Smoke OSX I'll be able to plug it right into the box, soft import, and get going straight away.

I'm reserving judgement on that type of thing until it's a bit clearer as to what conflicts (if any) one is likely to encounter, and how long it will take Autodesk to certify its use on operating system updates (which Apple seems to push on a regular basis). Apple is pretty good about releasing Final Cut updates when needed to stay compatible with OS updates, but that's always been something of an issue with anyone else's software (Avid comes to mind). So having it co-exist on a box with a Final Cut installation sounds good, and may well prove to be good, but it's not necessarily what one might want to do in practice. Remains to be seen. Of course, even without having them on the same physical system, the compatibility with codecs and ability to share files (both ProRes and DNxHD) even over a network is definitely a plus.

What about Quicktime support (or lack thereof) on Linux? No ProRes or DNxHD. Yes it's an Apple/Avid problem but on OSX its not a problem at all.

I mentioned that in my first post, but I added it, probably after you posted your reply.

Have you ever been a Smoke/Flame admin? They make it ridiculously over complicated. Sure me and you are comfortable at the command line, but you shouldn't need a dedicated admin to run a couple Smoke systems. Autodesk knew this wouldn't fly in the OSX community so they've worked on simplifying things like the installation and administration.

I have had to do some of that, yes. And I agree with you.

Id also like to note that you cant buy Smoke Linux without the hardware. Its a package deal. yes you can upgrade your hardware without upgrading your license or vise vera once you are an owner but for a new customer, you are looking at a $100k investment VS $15k software license. Im just not sure this announcement is anything but great news. The better news is you can stick to Linux if you so choose.

It's a $15K software license the same way a Red is a $17.5K camera. You still need a qualified Mac system (and the specifications are likely to be pretty steep, not your average go-to-the-Apple-store-and-buy-an-iMac type of thing), very fast storage (they're recommending an array with at least 500MB/sec performance), and a yearly support fee (rather low for Autodesk, but likely still about $2500-3000 per year) in order to keep it licensed. So while it's not $100K (neither is the Linux version of the non-advanced Smoke, without Batch, just like the Mac version), it's not $15K, either.

That said, I agree that it's good news that they're looking to broaden the base of the product and make it more easily compatible with products like Final Cut and Avid that are not available on Linux boxes and use now common codecs and media formats. I still see the target audience being facilities and small businesses rather than individuals, but there's nothing wrong with that, and the ability to add Smoke to a small Final Cut based editing house in a financially viable way is a very nice addition. It also opens up the possibilities somewhat for talented Smoke artists who could not previously justify a purchase.

 

[Paulo Emílio]

I'm very happy!