|
|
Posted by Jim on 01/19/08 18:46
Boy we've (I've) destroyed this poor guys OT. :)
Sorry bout that.
"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:13p39vka9k7hp7c@corp.supernews.com...
> 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]
|