1. jordan

    Posted Jun 09, 2009

    more like goodbye shake… ilm’s been using shake for years now… recent people there said that they are given the option of comping in shake or nuke (or both maybe) which i think is really rad and progressive to fit a couple softwares (for compers) into one pipeline…

  2. Doug Hogan

    Posted Jun 09, 2009

    Very true. Just like pretty much every other studio out there, they have been using Shake for a long while now. Hell even Sabre, when you really get down to it, was pretty much just a re-engineered version of Shake anyways. But I am surprised that the studio that led the development of OpenEXR didn’t switched over to Nuke a long long time ago.

    That is really cool though that their Compositors have the choice to use either Shake or Nuke. But I’ve got a feeling that they’re probably leaning more towards the latter. I mean when you have to choose between 1024 channels in Nuke vs. 4 in Shake…the choice is pretty clear, ha. I know personally I could never go back. What do you think?

  3. jordan

    Posted Jun 09, 2009

    yea, i completely agree! it’s easy to point out the benefits of nuke, well to a compositor anyway. not always as easy to point out the cost-vs-productivity to the people in charge that foot the bill, though, until it’s actually in production and they realize “wow, nuke can do that, we’ll be so much faster now…” the channels, hell, the 3d pipeline alone would be enough to warrant a switch from outdated techniques…
    hopefully more companies will follow suit…

css_validhtml_valid

© 2007-2010 Doug Hogan. Theme by Doug Hogan. Legal Disclaimer / Terms of Use

wordpress ipowerweb analyticswebmailblog_admin