|
|
Posted by Spex on 01/19/08 07:34
nappy wrote:
> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
> news:13p2bj8d298d74f@corp.supernews.com...
>> nappy wrote:
>>> "Jim" <jimmy AT hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4790f3df$0$31790$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13p1n1fotv00qf2@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> nappy wrote:
>>>>>> "Ma3rk" <m3dwhitney@att.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:15Rjj.143573$MJ6.58803@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>>> I'm very impressed with all
>>>>>>> the new hardware, but to be honest, the more I use the Mac OS, the
>>>>>>> more I like XP.
>>>>>> Agreed. I have dual boot Intel Mac Pro 8 core machien swith Premiere
>>>>>> CS3 and FCP on the same machine. I regret the rare occasions I have to
>>>>>> use FCP and OSX. Slower than XP by a wide margin. Finally we CAN
>>>>>> compare the two OS's on the same machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> That would seem rather a strange choice to purchase a Mac Pro then use
>>>>> XP. Surely you could have build a system more powerful for a lot less
>>>>> if you are PC orientated?
>>>>>
>>>>> I know of your pathological hate for FCP so am a bit surprised you
>>>>> purchased it. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you use Vista BTW out of interest?
>>>> IMO, now with Dual Boot and Parallels, if you are in a media creation
>>>> business, an Intel Mac is a no brainer as a new machine purchase (unless
>>>> you still need legacy pci slots or have a Windows box only piece of
>>>> hardware). There are fantastic tools for us to use on both sides of the
>>>> operating system camp.
>>>> Even if Tiger etc isn't your main boot up of choice, it is awesome
>>>> having the full aresnal available.
>>>> Having a preference on which OS we prefer to work in is one thing, but
>>>> denying ourselves fantastic software that is available because of this
>>>> preference is plain wrong. For me just having Live Type on a machine is
>>>> reason enough to get a Mactel. Even if that was the only Mac program I
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually there is nothing you can do on a mac that can not be done faster
>>> on a PC. I don't own mine for the 'tools' Because they are largely in
>>> pretty poor shape. Examples:
>>>
>>> Shake.. is a mess. Old interface, poor support and a tiny user basse put
>>> it in the twilight zone at Apple..
>> Dude, Shake is used everywhere. It is _the_ film level compositor and
>> woven into most film comping pipelines worldwide. That's a fact. Shake's
>> interface is absolutely not a mess in fact it is extremely intuitive. In
>> fact Nuke 5 is almost a carbon copy and that's still in beta. It doesn't
>> matter at all that Shake is EOLed as it will live on for years in the film
>> compositing field.
>
> Yes.. I worded that incorrectly. The implemenation of Shake on OSX is funky.
> I have a lot of problems with stability.
> I agree that it is a widely used app.. Or was. but the fact that it is dead
> in the water makes it less attractive as something to excel at.
> I do find the interface odd as hell though!
>
>>> Motion.. What a TERD. it is slow and very very painful and crashes like a
>>> dog driving a taxi. It is a DOG. NO rla or rpf or Camera import..
>
>
>> Crashes? I've had about 1 in 18 months. As for speed I completely
>> disagree. If you are having speed issues your workflow might need
>> adjusting. It is not exactly surprising that it doesn't have rla and rpf
>> support as...er nobody uses them anyway. Motion is not a compositor it is
>> a motion graphics app for FCS.
>
>
> Spex.. When we use motion for even the simplest things we found that in
> short order it grinds to a turtle slow halt.. And routinely crashes. It is
> pretty bad. I am surprised that you haven't had the same experience. All we
> were doing was trying to work with particles.. Pretty simple stuff. No.. I
> find Motion to be rather poor.
>
> It may be a motion graphics app for FCP but it would benefit from being able
> to import cameras etc.. It is , after all, a compositor when it all comes
> down to it. In short it is pretty useless here.
You should consider baking groups. If you have groups that are causing
a tremendous slow down like particles or blurs and blooms then select
the group, hit Export and in the export dialog set the After Export
option to Import into project. Turn off the original group and carry on
working in realtime. Come final render time delete all the baked groups
and turn on all the original layers.
This is such a "well known" workflow so I'd expect in future versions of
Motion that this becomes more automatic i.e selecting a group then
hitting "Bake."
Which GPU do you have?
You can import cameras into Motion BTW. I'm told Motion can also deal
with 3D objects but as of now requires an importer to be written. There
is certainly a lot of potential in this app.
>
> I wish you lived closer. I could use your help on this TV series.
>
> Nobody uses rich pixel formats? I find them very useful for carrying
> velocity, Z and material / object data form 3D apps.. Waddya mean nobody
> uses them? Am I alone here? :)
>
>
Of course you are not the only one who uses z, id and vector passes etc
but I've yet to see rpf files used. They were never taken up because
Autodesk were never that forthcoming about them so wide support by other
apps was patchy at best. It is usual for a compositor to receive the
buffer passes as .iffs or pngs etc.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|