Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Toby Angwin]

I feel your pain info mail bag. It sometimes feels like the peripheral hassles 
of licensing  etc are outweighing the benefits of using Nuke.

The licensing model is so antiquated that it’s an impediment to using it if you 
are a small shop or freelancer and it’s going to start hurting them more and 
more. I’m a freelancer and I have a desktop and a laptop. I’ve spent my $10k on 
the production collective. I had to pick which machine to be my license server 
and when I say ‘pick’ I mean I was told by TF that mac laptops are really not 
recommended as license servers so it was TOTALLY my choice to use my desktop. 
Both machines are seen by the license server as 2 machines each and often nuke 
or Hiero take 2 or 3 goes to open because the license server panics and tells 
me my one license is already in use. This is their apparently whizz bang new 
RLM server that is meant to be so much better than the FlexLM one. This doesn’t 
happen with any other piece of software.

I can use every single piece of software I own on my laptop if I’m at home or 
on set without needing to bring my desktop or pay for a static IP or set up a 
VPN etc. Except Nuke. I can easily take all of the software I own with me when 
I freelance at other places without needing to bring my desktop with me/set up 
a VPN etc . Except Nuke. Oh and if I want to have an assistant do some roto for 
me but use a blur node instead of individually feathering roto shapes I can get 
them to do that in anything except Nuke Assist. Hell, I just transferred my 
license to Nuke Studio but I can’t play with it because I’m home with the kids. 
I’m beginning to think there’s some sort of pattern here.

Really hoping that TF addresses some of these shortcomings soon. The industry’s 
changed too much to solely rely on the big facilities any more.

Cheers,

Toby

Toby Angwin
http://www.soupkitchenfilms.net
http://vimeo.com/channels/soupkitchenfilms
T: +61 (0)411830554
Skype: soupkitchen

___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Elias Ericsson Rydberg]

As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play the
devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and  shouldn't
be treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when you bring the
software on set or out of the house, you'll have to work around that
limitation. This shouldn't be a surprise, the requirements says it needs a
server for licensing to work.

On the other hand, TF could be more accommodating in this regard. It's 2014
now. Maybe offer a license server in the cloud so it's reachable through
the internet. Let's say you register the MAC-adresses of your computers and
the server could only serve licenses to those machines. And if you are a
studio and need to have a license server on site for speed and redundancy.
TF could potentially offer you to set up your own cloud host that could
serve licenses on site and to on set operations. Or a hybrid. So if your
Internet connection goes down, the studio can still be served licenses from
the local server. The few studios that have multiple locations could
potentially have one license cloud spread over multiple servers for
redundancy and speed.

I can also envision that these license servers could be able to lease
licenses to the seats and have TF bill you per hour/days/months instead of
having a fixed number of floating licenses in your pool. This would offer
studios to quickly scale up from 20 to 100 seats when they land big jobs.
And then scale back down again when they wrap. If would also be very
interesting  if the licenses could be leased from your server to external
cloud rendering services as well. Or lease licenses to freelancers or
sub-contractors?

Ultimately it comes down to money of course. But TFs poor treatment of its
existing customers, in this aspect, isn't defendable. I'd say these
licensing problems could be solved by technology instead of harrasing phone
calls. Adobe have rather successfully deployed their cloud licensing model
and I'd be flattered if The Foundry did the same and built upon some of my
ideas above.

TL;DR: Make licensing easy, customizable and reasonably priced and studios
and freelancers will stay with until death. Piracy is best fougth by
providing better solutions. eg. Netflix.

Cheers and excuse my ramblings,
Elias Ericsson Rydberg
Answering social issues with technical solutions since 1990
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

[Nuke-users] using thumbnails in nukescripts.PythonPanel

[robo robo robocop]

Hello.
Is there a way to inserting an image thumbnails in custom panels in Nuke ?
We trying to make a little shot-browser inside nuke and want to add ability
to see the random images from the image-sequence of selected shot.

I tried to find examples... no luck :(

is it possible?

thanx.

-robo.
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Arno Beekman]

I think with the arrival of Nuke Studio, The Foundry is making a
big effort to enter the advertisement market, in which there are
quite a lot of freelancers.

The sharing/cloud option has been possible for years already with
both FLEXlm and RLM.
If you get a floating license and you can access the license server from
outside your LAN, you can use that license anywhere.
You can also restrict the use of licenses to MAC addresses, release
them after a set time, etc etc.

There's a lot of info on this on the flexlm and rlm site that's not in
the Foundry's manuals. They refer to it at the end though, i think.


gr
arno


On 18-12-14 18:15, Elias Ericsson Rydberg wrote:


As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play 
the devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and  
shouldn't be treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when 
you bring the software on set or out of the house, you'll have to work 
around that limitation. This shouldn't be a surprise, the requirements 
says it needs a server for licensing to work.


On the other hand, TF could be more accommodating in this regard. It's 
2014 now. Maybe offer a license server in the cloud so it's reachable 
through the internet. Let's say you register the MAC-adresses of your 
computers and the server could only serve licenses to those machines. 
And if you are a studio and need to have a license server on site for 
speed and redundancy. TF could potentially offer you to set up your 
own cloud host that could serve licenses on site and to on set 
operations. Or a hybrid. So if your Internet connection goes down, the 
studio can still be served licenses from the local server. The few 
studios that have multiple locations could potentially have one 
license cloud spread over multiple servers for redundancy and speed.


I can also envision that these license servers could be able to lease 
licenses to the seats and have TF bill you per hour/days/months 
instead of having a fixed number of floating licenses in your pool. 
This would offer studios to quickly scale up from 20 to 100 seats when 
they land big jobs. And then scale back down again when they wrap. If 
would also be very interesting  if the licenses could be leased from 
your server to external cloud rendering services as well. Or lease 
licenses to freelancers or sub-contractors?


Ultimately it comes down to money of course. But TFs poor treatment of 
its existing customers, in this aspect, isn't defendable. I'd say 
these licensing problems could be solved by technology instead of 
harrasing phone calls. Adobe have rather successfully deployed their 
cloud licensing model and I'd be flattered if The Foundry did the same 
and built upon some of my ideas above.


TL;DR: Make licensing easy, customizable and reasonably priced and 
studios and freelancers will stay with until death. Piracy is best 
fougth by providing better solutions. eg. Netflix.


Cheers and excuse my ramblings,
Elias Ericsson Rydberg
Answering social issues with technical solutions since 1990



___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users


___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

[Nuke-users] Vectorfield flickering?

[Jordan O]

We have an issue here with a vector field and a 3dl file applied. It's
flickering, every second frame has an incorrect luminance. If you copy the
node, it initially works but after playing with it, it will start
flickering again.

Anyone else with this issue?
cheers, Jordan
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Jose Fernandez de Castro]

I think that the future of software piracy protection is going to be
precisely the Netflix model, which is to stream the software and run the
services off the cloud, with local storage and some processing, of course.
This is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and even Adobe has
started testing this with Photoshop for chromebooks. Some services, like
Nvidia's Grid are already doing it for games. Of course software such as
Nuke, which is disk space heavy and computationally intensive will be a
challenge to implement under this model, but they might figure it out. Not
saying that I love the idea, but it might be an alternative to all this
licensing issues and might also make software such as Nuke more affordable.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg <
elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play the
> devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and  shouldn't
> be treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when you bring the
> software on set or out of the house, you'll have to work around that
> limitation. This shouldn't be a surprise, the requirements says it needs a
> server for licensing to work.
>
> On the other hand, TF could be more accommodating in this regard. It's
> 2014 now. Maybe offer a license server in the cloud so it's reachable
> through the internet. Let's say you register the MAC-adresses of your
> computers and the server could only serve licenses to those machines. And
> if you are a studio and need to have a license server on site for speed and
> redundancy. TF could potentially offer you to set up your own cloud host
> that could serve licenses on site and to on set operations. Or a hybrid. So
> if your Internet connection goes down, the studio can still be served
> licenses from the local server. The few studios that have multiple
> locations could potentially have one license cloud spread over multiple
> servers for redundancy and speed.
>
> I can also envision that these license servers could be able to lease
> licenses to the seats and have TF bill you per hour/days/months instead of
> having a fixed number of floating licenses in your pool. This would offer
> studios to quickly scale up from 20 to 100 seats when they land big jobs.
> And then scale back down again when they wrap. If would also be very
> interesting  if the licenses could be leased from your server to external
> cloud rendering services as well. Or lease licenses to freelancers or
> sub-contractors?
>
> Ultimately it comes down to money of course. But TFs poor treatment of its
> existing customers, in this aspect, isn't defendable. I'd say these
> licensing problems could be solved by technology instead of harrasing phone
> calls. Adobe have rather successfully deployed their cloud licensing model
> and I'd be flattered if The Foundry did the same and built upon some of my
> ideas above.
>
> TL;DR: Make licensing easy, customizable and reasonably priced and studios
> and freelancers will stay with until death. Piracy is best fougth by
> providing better solutions. eg. Netflix.
>
> Cheers and excuse my ramblings,
> Elias Ericsson Rydberg
> Answering social issues with technical solutions since 1990
>
> ___
> Nuke-users mailing list
> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>


-- 
Jose Fernandez de Castro
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Nathan Rusch]

Cloud-based licensing and/or software distribution is a complete no-go for any 
studio working on a lot of major features. The new security requirements that 
have been imposed on vendors by some of the major studios are extremely 
unforgiving. I really hope we don't see VFX software heading exclusively in 
that direction or they will be "innovating" themselves away from most of their 
customers. At the very least, both licensing models must be allowed to coexist.

The only way Adobe software can be used is if you buy enough licenses for them 
to grant you use of a local license server (I think the minimum requirement is 
15 CC licenses).

-Nathan



From: Jose Fernandez de Castro 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:11 AM
To: Nuke user discussion 
Subject: Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

I think that the future of software piracy protection is going to be precisely 
the Netflix model, which is to stream the software and run the services off the 
cloud, with local storage and some processing, of course. This is going to 
happen, whether we like it or not, and even Adobe has started testing this with 
Photoshop for chromebooks. Some services, like Nvidia's Grid are already doing 
it for games. Of course software such as Nuke, which is disk space heavy and 
computationally intensive will be a challenge to implement under this model, 
but they might figure it out. Not saying that I love the idea, but it might be 
an alternative to all this licensing issues and might also make software such 
as Nuke more affordable.


On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg 
 wrote: 
  As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play the 
devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and  shouldn't be 
treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when you bring the 
software on set or out of the house, you'll have to work around that 
limitation. This shouldn't be a surprise, the requirements says it needs a 
server for licensing to work.

  On the other hand, TF could be more accommodating in this regard. It's 2014 
now. Maybe offer a license server in the cloud so it's reachable through the 
internet. Let's say you register the MAC-adresses of your computers and the 
server could only serve licenses to those machines. And if you are a studio and 
need to have a license server on site for speed and redundancy. TF could 
potentially offer you to set up your own cloud host that could serve licenses 
on site and to on set operations. Or a hybrid. So if your Internet connection 
goes down, the studio can still be served licenses from the local server. The 
few studios that have multiple locations could potentially have one license 
cloud spread over multiple servers for redundancy and speed.

  I can also envision that these license servers could be able to lease 
licenses to the seats and have TF bill you per hour/days/months instead of 
having a fixed number of floating licenses in your pool. This would offer 
studios to quickly scale up from 20 to 100 seats when they land big jobs. And 
then scale back down again when they wrap. If would also be very interesting  
if the licenses could be leased from your server to external cloud rendering 
services as well. Or lease licenses to freelancers or sub-contractors?

  Ultimately it comes down to money of course. But TFs poor treatment of its 
existing customers, in this aspect, isn't defendable. I'd say these licensing 
problems could be solved by technology instead of harrasing phone calls. Adobe 
have rather successfully deployed their cloud licensing model and I'd be 
flattered if The Foundry did the same and built upon some of my ideas above.

  TL;DR: Make licensing easy, customizable and reasonably priced and studios 
and freelancers will stay with until death. Piracy is best fougth by providing 
better solutions. eg. Netflix. 

  Cheers and excuse my ramblings,
  Elias Ericsson Rydberg
  Answering social issues with technical solutions since 1990
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] using thumbnails in nukescripts.PythonPanel

[Nathan Rusch]

You can use a lot of HTML tags (including ) in Text knobs.

-Nathan



From: robo robo robocop 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:47 AM
To: Nuke user discussion 
Subject: [Nuke-users] using thumbnails in nukescripts.PythonPanel

Hello.

Is there a way to inserting an image thumbnails in custom panels in Nuke ?

We trying to make a little shot-browser inside nuke and want to add ability to 
see the random images from the image-sequence of selected shot.


I tried to find examples... no luck :(


is it possible?


thanx.


-robo.




___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[itai bachar]

Freelancers need a 'lite' version, say limited to 2k, and in line with Ae
prices.
If TF care for the freelance market, which is, as said, mainly the
commercials market.
Perhaps they're happy enough with just big studio's.
Flame is also not freelance friendly.
But from 0 $ pro software (Resolve+Fusion) to 10K $ (NukeStudio) there's a
big gap, that can be filled
by TF, and make a lot of compositors happy, and keep using Nuke.
If BM will integrate Resolve with Fusion for round tripping, there will be
a small migration in that way.


On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Nathan Rusch 
wrote:
>
>   Cloud-based licensing and/or software distribution is a complete no-go
> for any studio working on a lot of major features. The new security
> requirements that have been imposed on vendors by some of the major studios
> are extremely unforgiving. I really hope we don't see VFX software heading
> exclusively in that direction or they will be "innovating" themselves away
> from most of their customers. At the very least, both licensing models must
> be allowed to coexist.
>
> The only way Adobe software can be used is if you buy enough licenses for
> them to grant you use of a local license server (I think the minimum
> requirement is 15 CC licenses).
>
> -Nathan
>
>
>  *From:* Jose Fernandez de Castro 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:11 AM
> *To:* Nuke user discussion 
> *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on
>
>  I think that the future of software piracy protection is going to be
> precisely the Netflix model, which is to stream the software and run the
> services off the cloud, with local storage and some processing, of course.
> This is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and even Adobe has
> started testing this with Photoshop for chromebooks. Some services, like
> Nvidia's Grid are already doing it for games. Of course software such as
> Nuke, which is disk space heavy and computationally intensive will be a
> challenge to implement under this model, but they might figure it out. Not
> saying that I love the idea, but it might be an alternative to all this
> licensing issues and might also make software such as Nuke more affordable.
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg <
> elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play the
>> devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and  shouldn't
>> be treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when you bring the
>> software on set or out of the house, you'll have to work around that
>> limitation. This shouldn't be a surprise, the requirements says it needs a
>> server for licensing to work.
>>
>> On the other hand, TF could be more accommodating in this regard. It's
>> 2014 now. Maybe offer a license server in the cloud so it's reachable
>> through the internet. Let's say you register the MAC-adresses of your
>> computers and the server could only serve licenses to those machines. And
>> if you are a studio and need to have a license server on site for speed and
>> redundancy. TF could potentially offer you to set up your own cloud host
>> that could serve licenses on site and to on set operations. Or a hybrid. So
>> if your Internet connection goes down, the studio can still be served
>> licenses from the local server. The few studios that have multiple
>> locations could potentially have one license cloud spread over multiple
>> servers for redundancy and speed.
>>
>> I can also envision that these license servers could be able to lease
>> licenses to the seats and have TF bill you per hour/days/months instead of
>> having a fixed number of floating licenses in your pool. This would offer
>> studios to quickly scale up from 20 to 100 seats when they land big jobs.
>> And then scale back down again when they wrap. If would also be very
>> interesting  if the licenses could be leased from your server to external
>> cloud rendering services as well. Or lease licenses to freelancers or
>> sub-contractors?
>>
>> Ultimately it comes down to money of course. But TFs poor treatment of
>> its existing customers, in this aspect, isn't defendable. I'd say these
>> licensing problems could be solved by technology instead of harrasing phone
>> calls. Adobe have rather successfully deployed their cloud licensing model
>> and I'd be flattered if The Foundry did the same and built upon some of my
>> ideas above.
>>
>> TL;DR: Make licensing easy, customizable and reasonably priced and
>> studios and freelancers will stay with until death. Piracy is best fougth
>> by providing better solutions. eg. Netflix.
>>
>> Cheers and excuse my ramblings,
>> Elias Ericsson Rydberg
>> Answering social issues with technical solutions since 1990
>>
>
> ___
> Nuke-users mailing list
> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-u

[Nuke-users] Re: using thumbnails in nukescripts.PythonPanel

[robo robo robocop]

Hmm! That's sound interesting!
Thanx for pointing this out! We will try it.

четверг, 18 декабря 2014 г. пользователь Nathan Rusch написал:

>   You can use a lot of HTML tags (including ) in Text knobs.
>
> -Nathan
>
>
>  *From:* robo robo robocop
> 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:47 AM
> *To:* Nuke user discussion
> 
> *Subject:* [Nuke-users] using thumbnails in nukescripts.PythonPanel
>
>Hello.
> Is there a way to inserting an image thumbnails in custom panels in Nuke ?
> We trying to make a little shot-browser inside nuke and want to add
> ability to see the random images from the image-sequence of selected shot.
>
> I tried to find examples... no luck :(
>
> is it possible?
>
> thanx.
>
> -robo.
>
> --
> ___
> Nuke-users mailing list
> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk
> ,
> http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>
>
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] Vectorfield flickering?

[Deke Kincaid]

What version of Nuke are you using?

On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Jordan O  wrote:

> We have an issue here with a vector field and a 3dl file applied. It's
> flickering, every second frame has an incorrect luminance. If you copy the
> node, it initially works but after playing with it, it will start
> flickering again.
>
> Anyone else with this issue?
> cheers, Jordan
>


-- 
-
Deke Kincaid
M&E OEM Development Manager
The Foundry
Mobile: (310) 883 4313
Tel: (310) 399 4555 - Fax: (310) 450 4516
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] Vectorfield flickering?

[Ron Ganbar]

I had a similar thing on Nuke 8.0v4 a while back.



Ron Ganbar
email: ron...@gmail.com
tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK]
 +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel]
url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Deke Kincaid 
wrote:
>
> What version of Nuke are you using?
>
>
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Jordan O  wrote:
>
>> We have an issue here with a vector field and a 3dl file applied. It's
>> flickering, every second frame has an incorrect luminance. If you copy the
>> node, it initially works but after playing with it, it will start
>> flickering again.
>>
>> Anyone else with this issue?
>> cheers, Jordan
>>
>
>
> --
> -
> Deke Kincaid
> M&E OEM Development Manager
> The Foundry
> Mobile: (310) 883 4313
> Tel: (310) 399 4555 - Fax: (310) 450 4516
>
> ___
> Nuke-users mailing list
> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

[Nuke-users] Re: using thumbnails in nukescripts.PythonPanel

[robo robo robocop]

Nathan You are awesome! Its WORKING!!! 


четверг, 18 декабря 2014 г. пользователь robo robo robocop написал:

> Hmm! That's sound interesting!
> Thanx for pointing this out! We will try it.
>
> четверг, 18 декабря 2014 г. пользователь Nathan Rusch написал:
>
>>   You can use a lot of HTML tags (including ) in Text knobs.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>>
>>  *From:* robo robo robocop
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:47 AM
>> *To:* Nuke user discussion
>> *Subject:* [Nuke-users] using thumbnails in nukescripts.PythonPanel
>>
>>Hello.
>> Is there a way to inserting an image thumbnails in custom panels in Nuke ?
>> We trying to make a little shot-browser inside nuke and want to add
>> ability to see the random images from the image-sequence of selected shot.
>>
>> I tried to find examples... no luck :(
>>
>> is it possible?
>>
>> thanx.
>>
>> -robo.
>>
>> --
>> ___
>> Nuke-users mailing list
>> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>>
>>
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Elias Ericsson Rydberg]

Cloud licensing shouldn't really be an issue legally speaking. None of the
footage or assets would leave the LAN? If footage can be streamed for
review sessions I don't see the licenses cloud not. I wasn't aware of the
current cloud capabilities of flexlm or RLM. No point in reinventing the
wheel, but if any freelancer could set it up within minutes we would not
see the issues posted earlier in this thread.

As far as streamed applications goes, these still some performance issues
that would have to be looked over. Let's begin with Microsofts office 365
streamed off their azure platform, which I'm told they've invested
massively in. Let's see how simple text editing works first, and let it
mature into Photoshop stills and eventually into editing and composting.

I've seen that Citrix have a demo with Maya on their site and that vmware
is also in the same market. Not exclusively for these kinds of applications
of course. But from what I can  gather, the issue seems to be with
licensing Citrix hosts. Cost wise we'll eventually get there if that's
where people see great performance.

The studios will eventually have to get on board, but I get their fear of
involving more servers and systems. With the recent Sony hack in mind.

Cheers,
Elias
Den 18 dec 2014 19:45 skrev "itai bachar" :

> Freelancers need a 'lite' version, say limited to 2k, and in line with Ae
> prices.
> If TF care for the freelance market, which is, as said, mainly the
> commercials market.
> Perhaps they're happy enough with just big studio's.
> Flame is also not freelance friendly.
> But from 0 $ pro software (Resolve+Fusion) to 10K $ (NukeStudio) there's a
> big gap, that can be filled
> by TF, and make a lot of compositors happy, and keep using Nuke.
> If BM will integrate Resolve with Fusion for round tripping, there will be
> a small migration in that way.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Nathan Rusch 
> wrote:
>>
>>   Cloud-based licensing and/or software distribution is a complete no-go
>> for any studio working on a lot of major features. The new security
>> requirements that have been imposed on vendors by some of the major studios
>> are extremely unforgiving. I really hope we don't see VFX software heading
>> exclusively in that direction or they will be "innovating" themselves away
>> from most of their customers. At the very least, both licensing models must
>> be allowed to coexist.
>>
>> The only way Adobe software can be used is if you buy enough licenses for
>> them to grant you use of a local license server (I think the minimum
>> requirement is 15 CC licenses).
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>>
>>  *From:* Jose Fernandez de Castro 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:11 AM
>> *To:* Nuke user discussion 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on
>>
>>  I think that the future of software piracy protection is going to be
>> precisely the Netflix model, which is to stream the software and run the
>> services off the cloud, with local storage and some processing, of course.
>> This is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and even Adobe has
>> started testing this with Photoshop for chromebooks. Some services, like
>> Nvidia's Grid are already doing it for games. Of course software such as
>> Nuke, which is disk space heavy and computationally intensive will be a
>> challenge to implement under this model, but they might figure it out. Not
>> saying that I love the idea, but it might be an alternative to all this
>> licensing issues and might also make software such as Nuke more affordable.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg <
>> elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play
>>> the devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and
>>> shouldn't be treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when you
>>> bring the software on set or out of the house, you'll have to work around
>>> that limitation. This shouldn't be a surprise, the requirements says it
>>> needs a server for licensing to work.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, TF could be more accommodating in this regard. It's
>>> 2014 now. Maybe offer a license server in the cloud so it's reachable
>>> through the internet. Let's say you register the MAC-adresses of your
>>> computers and the server could only serve licenses to those machines. And
>>> if you are a studio and need to have a license server on site for speed and
>>> redundancy. TF could potentially offer you to set up your own cloud host
>>> that could serve licenses on site and to on set operations. Or a hybrid. So
>>> if your Internet connection goes down, the studio can still be served
>>> licenses from the local server. The few studios that have multiple
>>> locations could potentially have one license cloud spread over multiple
>>> servers for redundancy and speed.
>>>
>>> I can also envision that these license servers could be able to lease
>>> licenses to the seats and hav

Re: [Nuke-users] Vectorfield flickering?

[Brent Veal]

I've had this issue with 3dls before but was never able to find a solution.
Had to just work around it.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Ron Ganbar  wrote:
>
> I had a similar thing on Nuke 8.0v4 a while back.
>
>
>
> Ron Ganbar
> email: ron...@gmail.com
> tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK]
>  +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel]
> url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Deke Kincaid 
> wrote:
>
>> What version of Nuke are you using?
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, December 18, 2014, Jordan O  wrote:
>>
>>> We have an issue here with a vector field and a 3dl file applied. It's
>>> flickering, every second frame has an incorrect luminance. If you copy the
>>> node, it initially works but after playing with it, it will start
>>> flickering again.
>>>
>>> Anyone else with this issue?
>>> cheers, Jordan
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Deke Kincaid
>> M&E OEM Development Manager
>> The Foundry
>> Mobile: (310) 883 4313
>> Tel: (310) 399 4555 - Fax: (310) 450 4516
>>
>> ___
>> Nuke-users mailing list
>> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>>
>
> ___
> Nuke-users mailing list
> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Ron Ganbar]

Hi Elias,
I don't think anybody was talking about streaming Nuke, or at least, that
wasn't my understanding.
The discussion was about simpler license models, like Adobe's, for example.
You can install their software on as many computers as you want, and have
the license work on no more than two at a time. No matter where you are.
Simply enter your account details and that's it. Simple and straight
forward.
The amount of time I waste on getting RLM to work on my machine
(freelancer, own a production bundle) is crazy. Plus, whenever I buy a new
machine (which happens often) I have to get The Foundry to change the
license. It's a little crazy and dated, this license model. And it's not
like it's better protected than adobe's one.

R





Ron Ganbar
email: ron...@gmail.com
tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK]
 +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel]
url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg <
elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Cloud licensing shouldn't really be an issue legally speaking. None of the
> footage or assets would leave the LAN? If footage can be streamed for
> review sessions I don't see the licenses cloud not. I wasn't aware of the
> current cloud capabilities of flexlm or RLM. No point in reinventing the
> wheel, but if any freelancer could set it up within minutes we would not
> see the issues posted earlier in this thread.
>
> As far as streamed applications goes, these still some performance issues
> that would have to be looked over. Let's begin with Microsofts office 365
> streamed off their azure platform, which I'm told they've invested
> massively in. Let's see how simple text editing works first, and let it
> mature into Photoshop stills and eventually into editing and composting.
>
> I've seen that Citrix have a demo with Maya on their site and that vmware
> is also in the same market. Not exclusively for these kinds of applications
> of course. But from what I can  gather, the issue seems to be with
> licensing Citrix hosts. Cost wise we'll eventually get there if that's
> where people see great performance.
>
> The studios will eventually have to get on board, but I get their fear of
> involving more servers and systems. With the recent Sony hack in mind.
>
> Cheers,
> Elias
> Den 18 dec 2014 19:45 skrev "itai bachar" :
>
> Freelancers need a 'lite' version, say limited to 2k, and in line with Ae
>> prices.
>> If TF care for the freelance market, which is, as said, mainly the
>> commercials market.
>> Perhaps they're happy enough with just big studio's.
>> Flame is also not freelance friendly.
>> But from 0 $ pro software (Resolve+Fusion) to 10K $ (NukeStudio) there's
>> a big gap, that can be filled
>> by TF, and make a lot of compositors happy, and keep using Nuke.
>> If BM will integrate Resolve with Fusion for round tripping, there will
>> be a small migration in that way.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Nathan Rusch 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Cloud-based licensing and/or software distribution is a complete
>>> no-go for any studio working on a lot of major features. The new security
>>> requirements that have been imposed on vendors by some of the major studios
>>> are extremely unforgiving. I really hope we don't see VFX software heading
>>> exclusively in that direction or they will be "innovating" themselves away
>>> from most of their customers. At the very least, both licensing models must
>>> be allowed to coexist.
>>>
>>> The only way Adobe software can be used is if you buy enough licenses
>>> for them to grant you use of a local license server (I think the minimum
>>> requirement is 15 CC licenses).
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>>
>>>  *From:* Jose Fernandez de Castro 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:11 AM
>>> *To:* Nuke user discussion 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on
>>>
>>>  I think that the future of software piracy protection is going to be
>>> precisely the Netflix model, which is to stream the software and run the
>>> services off the cloud, with local storage and some processing, of course.
>>> This is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and even Adobe has
>>> started testing this with Photoshop for chromebooks. Some services, like
>>> Nvidia's Grid are already doing it for games. Of course software such as
>>> Nuke, which is disk space heavy and computationally intensive will be a
>>> challenge to implement under this model, but they might figure it out. Not
>>> saying that I love the idea, but it might be an alternative to all this
>>> licensing issues and might also make software such as Nuke more affordable.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg <
>>> elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com> wrote:

 As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play
 the devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and
 shouldn't be treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when you
 bring the software o

AW: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Thorsten Kaufmann]

We are working with automotive OEMs mostly. Security and audit requirements are 
getting crazy harder every year, not more forgiving.
Also as for “Thinclient” and virtualization á la citrix: While this is all nice 
and cool, but it is not as if this would be issue free. I was told on IBC
that running a Grid VCA with Citrix requires about 2Mbit per 1080 stream. 
That’s 4Mbit per artist in most cases. Add things like latency,
and color (we’re talking about dynamically adjusting lossy video compression, I 
doubt that is calibratable anytime soon). Also you still need
something around i3 or rather i5 as decoding 2 FullHD streams is getting a 
bottleneck otherwise. Now add having to pay for all of the server-side
infrastructure that seems kinda out of reach currently.

There are a lot of problems to be sold until this is production ready. The 
amount of money we spend on licensing issue of all kinds (ranging
from forced audits that we have to waste time on, to dealing with freelancers 
using cracked software while in our public wifi to all the insane
maintenance involved with moving Adobe Licenses recently and dealing with the 
insanity that CC is) is disturbing. And this is on top of pretty
damn high cost and especially maintenance fees.

I am pretty sure we are moving towards that. But I still hate it with a passion.

Cheers,
Thorsten


---
Thorsten Kaufmann
Production Pipeline Architect

Mackevision Medien Design GmbH
Forststraße 7
70174 Stuttgart

T +49 711 93 30 48 606
F +49 711 93 30 48 90
M +49 151 19 55 55 02

thorsten.kaufm...@mackevision.com
www.mackevision.com

Geschäftsführer: Armin Pohl, Joachim Lincke, Karin Suttheimer
HRB 243735 Amtsgericht Stuttgart

---
MACKEVISION SHOWREEL: Out now!
VFX: Game of Thrones, Season 4 – VFX making of reel.
REFERENZEN: Mackevision inszeniert den Porsche 
Macan.
Von: nuke-users-boun...@support.thefoundry.co.uk 
[mailto:nuke-users-boun...@support.thefoundry.co.uk] Im Auftrag von Elias 
Ericsson Rydberg
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2014 21:40
An: Nuke user discussion
Betreff: Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on


Cloud licensing shouldn't really be an issue legally speaking. None of the 
footage or assets would leave the LAN? If footage can be streamed for review 
sessions I don't see the licenses cloud not. I wasn't aware of the current 
cloud capabilities of flexlm or RLM. No point in reinventing the wheel, but if 
any freelancer could set it up within minutes we would not see the issues 
posted earlier in this thread.

As far as streamed applications goes, these still some performance issues that 
would have to be looked over. Let's begin with Microsofts office 365 streamed 
off their azure platform, which I'm told they've invested massively in. Let's 
see how simple text editing works first, and let it mature into Photoshop 
stills and eventually into editing and composting.

I've seen that Citrix have a demo with Maya on their site and that vmware is 
also in the same market. Not exclusively for these kinds of applications of 
course. But from what I can  gather, the issue seems to be with licensing 
Citrix hosts. Cost wise we'll eventually get there if that's where people see 
great performance.

The studios will eventually have to get on board, but I get their fear of 
involving more servers and systems. With the recent Sony hack in mind.

Cheers,
Elias
Den 18 dec 2014 19:45 skrev "itai bachar" 
mailto:itaibac...@gmail.com>>:
Freelancers need a 'lite' version, say limited to 2k, and in line with Ae 
prices.
If TF care for the freelance market, which is, as said, mainly the commercials 
market.
Perhaps they're happy enough with just big studio's.
Flame is also not freelance friendly.
But from 0 $ pro software (Resolve+Fusion) to 10K $ (NukeStudio) there's a big 
gap, that can be filled
by TF, and make a lot of compositors happy, and keep using Nuke.
If BM will integrate Resolve with Fusion for round tripping, there will be a 
small migration in that way.


On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Nathan Rusch 
mailto:nathan_ru...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Cloud-based licensing and/or software distribution is a complete no-go for any 
studio working on a lot of major features. The new security requirements that 
have been imposed on vendors by some of the major studios are extremely 
unforgiving. I really hope we don't see VFX software heading exclusively in 
that direction or they will be "innovating" themselves away from most of their 
customers. At the very least, both licensing models must be allowed to coexist.

The only way Adobe software can be used is if you buy enough licenses for them 
to grant you use of a local license server (I think the minimum requirement is 
15 CC licenses).

-Nathan

From: Jose Fernandez de Castro
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:11 AM
To: Nuke user discussion

AW: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Thorsten Kaufmann]

I strongly disagree. While this may be true for a personal/freelance or small 
studio environment the Adobe model is crazy in a bigger studio environment.
The hassle and maintenance needed to move around licenses, dealing with the 
personalized accounts (we are a studio, not 50 persons) is ridiculous.

Not offering a real floating license server by default is not a step forward in 
my book. Let alone controlling and distributing licenses in a controlled
way between business lines, departments and across locations is just not 
existing with Adobe.

Cheers,
Thorsten


---
Thorsten Kaufmann
Production Pipeline Architect

Mackevision Medien Design GmbH
Forststraße 7
70174 Stuttgart

T +49 711 93 30 48 606
F +49 711 93 30 48 90
M +49 151 19 55 55 02

thorsten.kaufm...@mackevision.com
www.mackevision.com

Geschäftsführer: Armin Pohl, Joachim Lincke, Karin Suttheimer
HRB 243735 Amtsgericht Stuttgart

---
MACKEVISION SHOWREEL: Out now!
VFX: Game of Thrones, Season 4 – VFX making of reel.
REFERENZEN: Mackevision inszeniert den Porsche 
Macan.
Von: nuke-users-boun...@support.thefoundry.co.uk 
[mailto:nuke-users-boun...@support.thefoundry.co.uk] Im Auftrag von Ron Ganbar
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2014 21:49
An: Nuke user discussion
Betreff: Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

Hi Elias,
I don't think anybody was talking about streaming Nuke, or at least, that 
wasn't my understanding.
The discussion was about simpler license models, like Adobe's, for example. You 
can install their software on as many computers as you want, and have the 
license work on no more than two at a time. No matter where you are. Simply 
enter your account details and that's it. Simple and straight forward.
The amount of time I waste on getting RLM to work on my machine (freelancer, 
own a production bundle) is crazy. Plus, whenever I buy a new machine (which 
happens often) I have to get The Foundry to change the license. It's a little 
crazy and dated, this license model. And it's not like it's better protected 
than adobe's one.

R




Ron Ganbar
email: ron...@gmail.com
tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK]
 +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel]
url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg 
mailto:elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

Cloud licensing shouldn't really be an issue legally speaking. None of the 
footage or assets would leave the LAN? If footage can be streamed for review 
sessions I don't see the licenses cloud not. I wasn't aware of the current 
cloud capabilities of flexlm or RLM. No point in reinventing the wheel, but if 
any freelancer could set it up within minutes we would not see the issues 
posted earlier in this thread.

As far as streamed applications goes, these still some performance issues that 
would have to be looked over. Let's begin with Microsofts office 365 streamed 
off their azure platform, which I'm told they've invested massively in. Let's 
see how simple text editing works first, and let it mature into Photoshop 
stills and eventually into editing and composting.

I've seen that Citrix have a demo with Maya on their site and that vmware is 
also in the same market. Not exclusively for these kinds of applications of 
course. But from what I can  gather, the issue seems to be with licensing 
Citrix hosts. Cost wise we'll eventually get there if that's where people see 
great performance.

The studios will eventually have to get on board, but I get their fear of 
involving more servers and systems. With the recent Sony hack in mind.

Cheers,
Elias
Den 18 dec 2014 19:45 skrev "itai bachar" 
mailto:itaibac...@gmail.com>>:

Freelancers need a 'lite' version, say limited to 2k, and in line with Ae 
prices.
If TF care for the freelance market, which is, as said, mainly the commercials 
market.
Perhaps they're happy enough with just big studio's.
Flame is also not freelance friendly.
But from 0 $ pro software (Resolve+Fusion) to 10K $ (NukeStudio) there's a big 
gap, that can be filled
by TF, and make a lot of compositors happy, and keep using Nuke.
If BM will integrate Resolve with Fusion for round tripping, there will be a 
small migration in that way.


On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Nathan Rusch 
mailto:nathan_ru...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Cloud-based licensing and/or software distribution is a complete no-go for any 
studio working on a lot of major features. The new security requirements that 
have been imposed on vendors by some of the major studios are extremely 
unforgiving. I really hope we don't see VFX software heading exclusively in 
that direction or they will be "innovating" themselves away from most of their 
customers. At the very least, both licensing models must be allowed to coexist.

The only way Adobe software can be used is if you buy enough licenses for them 
to grant you use of a local license

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Randy Little]

Elias, if the server can access external servers it is a no go with the
Rules.  If the server can get out. People can get in.

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/



On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg <
elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Cloud licensing shouldn't really be an issue legally speaking. None of the
> footage or assets would leave the LAN? If footage can be streamed for
> review sessions I don't see the licenses cloud not. I wasn't aware of the
> current cloud capabilities of flexlm or RLM. No point in reinventing the
> wheel, but if any freelancer could set it up within minutes we would not
> see the issues posted earlier in this thread.
>
> As far as streamed applications goes, these still some performance issues
> that would have to be looked over. Let's begin with Microsofts office 365
> streamed off their azure platform, which I'm told they've invested
> massively in. Let's see how simple text editing works first, and let it
> mature into Photoshop stills and eventually into editing and composting.
>
> I've seen that Citrix have a demo with Maya on their site and that vmware
> is also in the same market. Not exclusively for these kinds of applications
> of course. But from what I can  gather, the issue seems to be with
> licensing Citrix hosts. Cost wise we'll eventually get there if that's
> where people see great performance.
>
> The studios will eventually have to get on board, but I get their fear of
> involving more servers and systems. With the recent Sony hack in mind.
>
> Cheers,
> Elias
> Den 18 dec 2014 19:45 skrev "itai bachar" :
>
> Freelancers need a 'lite' version, say limited to 2k, and in line with Ae
>> prices.
>> If TF care for the freelance market, which is, as said, mainly the
>> commercials market.
>> Perhaps they're happy enough with just big studio's.
>> Flame is also not freelance friendly.
>> But from 0 $ pro software (Resolve+Fusion) to 10K $ (NukeStudio) there's
>> a big gap, that can be filled
>> by TF, and make a lot of compositors happy, and keep using Nuke.
>> If BM will integrate Resolve with Fusion for round tripping, there will
>> be a small migration in that way.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Nathan Rusch 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Cloud-based licensing and/or software distribution is a complete
>>> no-go for any studio working on a lot of major features. The new security
>>> requirements that have been imposed on vendors by some of the major studios
>>> are extremely unforgiving. I really hope we don't see VFX software heading
>>> exclusively in that direction or they will be "innovating" themselves away
>>> from most of their customers. At the very least, both licensing models must
>>> be allowed to coexist.
>>>
>>> The only way Adobe software can be used is if you buy enough licenses
>>> for them to grant you use of a local license server (I think the minimum
>>> requirement is 15 CC licenses).
>>>
>>> -Nathan
>>>
>>>
>>>  *From:* Jose Fernandez de Castro 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:11 AM
>>> *To:* Nuke user discussion 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on
>>>
>>>  I think that the future of software piracy protection is going to be
>>> precisely the Netflix model, which is to stream the software and run the
>>> services off the cloud, with local storage and some processing, of course.
>>> This is going to happen, whether we like it or not, and even Adobe has
>>> started testing this with Photoshop for chromebooks. Some services, like
>>> Nvidia's Grid are already doing it for games. Of course software such as
>>> Nuke, which is disk space heavy and computationally intensive will be a
>>> challenge to implement under this model, but they might figure it out. Not
>>> saying that I love the idea, but it might be an alternative to all this
>>> licensing issues and might also make software such as Nuke more affordable.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Elias Ericsson Rydberg <
>>> elias.ericsson.rydb...@gmail.com> wrote:

 As much as all these annoyances are valid, I do feel the need to play
 the devils advocate here. Nuke wasn't designed for freelancers and
 shouldn't be treated as such. It was made for use in a studio. So when you
 bring the software on set or out of the house, you'll have to work around
 that limitation. This shouldn't be a surprise, the requirements says it
 needs a server for licensing to work.

 On the other hand, TF could be more accommodating in this regard. It's
 2014 now. Maybe offer a license server in the cloud so it's reachable
 through the internet. Let's say you register the MAC-adresses of your
 computers and the server could only serve licenses to those machines. And
 if you are a studio and need to have a license server on site for speed and
 redundancy. TF could potentially offer you to set up your own cloud host
 that could serve licenses on

Re: [Nuke-users] Vectorfield flickering?

[nuke_user]

I switched to using OCIOFileTransform and haven’t had this problem since.

Alex

On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Jordan O  wrote:

> We have an issue here with a vector field and a 3dl file applied. It's 
> flickering, every second frame has an incorrect luminance. If you copy the 
> node, it initially works but after playing with it, it will start flickering 
> again.
> 
> Anyone else with this issue?
> cheers, Jordan
> 
> ___
> Nuke-users mailing list
> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

-
alex lemke • east side effects
374 bedford ave #2B
brooklyn, ny 11249
phone 917-488-6514
email a...@east-side-effects.com














___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Nathan Rusch]

Cloud licensing shouldn't really be an issue legally speaking. None
of the footage or assets would leave the LAN? If footage can be
streamed for review sessions I don't see the licenses cloud not.


Randy basically addressed this, but none of this flies under the 
restrictions we're talking about.


- No machine that can access content can be connected to a network where any 
machine on said network has an external-facing connection.

- Remote review sessions do not happen with these studios.



The studios will eventually have to get on board


No, they won't. There is no reason for them to.


-Nathan

___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] unimpressed and moving on

[Elias Ericsson Rydberg]

Well, maybe they won't have to get on board. And if these restrictions are
getting too tough,  we might find ourselves being forced to work in the
same office as our current client. :-)

As far as streaming applications goes, I do agree with Thorsten. There are
issues with bandwidth, color and security/audit. And yes, Photoshop might
work for freelancers now, but now offering floating licenses is just
illogical from a vfx-house perspective.

The restrictions are increasing, and the technology will have to adapt to
it somehow. Or not, and skip these "expensive" clients.

I think this discussion has become a little side tracked though. The issue
was TF being hostile towards its paying and loyal customers.

The future issues with licensing merits its own thread!

Cheers and good night,
Elias Ericsson Rydberg
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

[Nuke-users] rec709 clamping

[Todd Caporn]

Hi everybody!

Please stop me if this question has been asked previously. I work in a
Flame heavy facility so we receive our shots from their export as rec709
but looking at the footage as rec709 in Nuke seems to clamp the image. Our
work around using the colourspace node solves this problem but I was just
wondering if anyone knows why rec709 clamps your image?


Thanks

Regards
Todd
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users

Re: [Nuke-users] rec709 clamping

[michael vorberg]

The color space conversion in the read node does clamp values when you use
rec709 or srgb
Don't know why,  but I guess nobody expected to receive floating point data
with a non-linear gamut
 Am 19.12.2014 06:13 schrieb "Todd Caporn" :

> Hi everybody!
>
> Please stop me if this question has been asked previously. I work in a
> Flame heavy facility so we receive our shots from their export as rec709
> but looking at the footage as rec709 in Nuke seems to clamp the image. Our
> work around using the colourspace node solves this problem but I was just
> wondering if anyone knows why rec709 clamps your image?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards
> Todd
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Nuke-users mailing list
> Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
>
___
Nuke-users mailing list
Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users