Re: Last Friday's Flashback #238
call me old-fashioned, but ‘more 3D in the comp’ was not really what I was after. what good is a 3D environment without proper modelling, animation, simulation tools? Adding a decent renderer to the comp raises more problems than it solves IMO. quick placement of some imageplanes or 3D objects in 3D sure, but ‘integrating’ those properly into backplate or 3D elements can become so involved (sometimes unexpectedly) that the broad toolset of a full 3D software becomes a necessity. Also, the time needed to do the job becomes incompatible with the fast workflow in an editing environment (and compositing to some degree). however, timing footage is usually a weak point, both in 3D and comp software – and there DS really shined - it’s ‘timeline with effects’ – and in good Softimage tradition, nonlinear & non destructive. I found DS and XSI so complimentary – without too much overlap. If you will, the overlap was compositing, which to both was a natural companion. But in it’s respective core disciplines editing and 3D, there was little confusion – and that was perfect IMO. It just needed more links/bridges/interop between the two. Anyways – what good ruminating on how the synergy between these two unique and sadly discontinued softwares could have been? And how precisely that synergy does not exist elsewhere atm – whatever nice things Foundry and others may be doing. Perhaps it’s just my pipe dreams, with XSI and DS independently becoming my preferred softwares (not for lack of exposure to others, some of which I also had a soft spot for), and naturally whishing for them to play together ever more. From: Jason S Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2015 2:25 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Last Friday's Flashback #238 Erratum : didn't differentiate things that were later developped & introduced, to things that were wished-for. Actually, good 3D in DS was among the few things that users were wishing for DS to make it current again (had it been more seriously developped passed V4 (2002) apart for things *introduced in later versions* like new hardware support, still quite decent GPU Acelleration, MotionFlow Time Stretching & lots of compatibity and interop endeavors with MC) cheers, On 09/04/15 19:53, Jason S wrote: About last Friday's Flashback, On 08/28/15 16:40, pete...@skynet.be wrote: [...] I guess the industry as a whole didn’t need that integrated Digital Studio, and few really used DS and XSI in tandem - but I feel we are all the poorer without it. Sure, there’s some interesting convergence happening between 3D and comp these days – but how I miss that particular Softimage spin on it. Actually, good 3D in DS was among the few things that users were wishing for DS to make it current again (had it been more seriously developped passed V4 (2002) apart for things like new hardware support, still quite decent GPU Acelleration, MotionFlow Time Stretching & lots of compatibity and interop endeavors with MC) few wished-for things which included: * introduction of new file based camera formats, or bringing-in arbitrary common media types without transcoding or conforming to DS's native format ( That single and relatively simple point would have addressed the bulk of what users might have been pressing most upon, despite introduction of -some- new formats.) * keying tools coming closer Smoke/Flame counterparts *** and ironically, given where it's coming from and what were the original plans-- a more complete 3D environment compared to these same packages. But it's 3D was at least more than good enough for mapping (rez independant) cutout/blended clips on cards in a 3D environment with artifact free results, and creating or animating hierarchies of elements with relative and manipulable axies. @schnittman @editblog @patInhofer Favorite edit system I ever worked on. The death nail was it's inability to work w/ file based cameras — Nathan Downing (@nathandowning) August 6, 2013 In the very niche market of high-end finishing workstations (much more niche than it's original sister 3D flagship), DS was considered as the very top of the line of Avid's offerings (despite relatively little significant changes over time, it's near abscence in marketing campaings, and noticably living in the shadow of MediaComposer itself very much coming-up with support for things like file based formats) While as Avid's only truly resolution independent high-end solution (only one that could do 4k (+) or even slightly over HD 2k film), that also had node based processing trees on timeline clips or entire timelines, and other things, it was typically compared to Smoke/Flame stations rather than other Avid products, but despite increasing comparative drawbacks compared to something like Flame as DS was in a 'left behind' state, it was
Last Friday's Flashback #238
About last Friday's Flashback, On 08/28/15 16:40, pete...@skynet.be wrote: [...] I guess the industry as a whole didn’t need that integrated Digital Studio, and few really used DS and XSI in tandem - but I feel we are all the poorer without it. Sure, there’s some interesting convergence happening between 3D and comp these days – but how I miss that particular Softimage spin on it. Actually, good 3D in DS was among the few things that users were wishing for DS to make it current again (had it been more seriously developped passed V4 (2002) apart for things like new hardware support, still quite decent GPU Acelleration, MotionFlow Time Stretching & lots of compatibity and interop endeavors with MC) few wished-for things which included: * introduction of new file based camera formats, or bringing-in arbitrary common media types without transcoding or conforming to DS's native format ( That single and relatively simple point would have addressed the bulk of what users might have been pressing most upon, despite introduction of -some- new formats.) * keying tools coming closer Smoke/Flame counterparts *** and ironically, given where it's coming from and what were the original plans-- a more complete 3D environment compared to these same packages. But it's 3D was at least more than good enough for mapping (rez independant) cutout/blended clips on cards in a 3D environment with artifact free results, and creating or animating hierarchies of elements with relative and manipulable axies. @schnittman @editblog @patInhofer Favorite edit system I ever worked on. The death nail was it's inability to work w/ file based cameras — Nathan Downing (@nathandowning) August 6, 2013 In the very niche market of high-end finishing workstations (much more niche than it's original sister 3D flagship), DS was considered as the very top of the line of Avid's offerings (despite relatively little significant changes over time, it's near abscence in marketing campaings, and noticably living in the shadow of MediaComposer itself very much coming-up with support for things like file based formats) While as Avid's only truly resolution independent high-end solution (only one that could do 4k (+) or even slightly over HD 2k film), that also had node based processing trees on timeline clips or entire timelines, and other things, it was typically compared to Smoke/Flame stations rather than other Avid products, but despite increasing comparative drawbacks compared to something like Flame as DS was in a 'left behind' state, it was also considered more intuitive, stirdy, and accommodating for *many* types of tasks, and perhaps more editing-centered with equally powerful node based FX on timeline clips, particularly smart cache management, along with an unparalleled vector paint (would have been great if the FXTree had it), 'Subpar' (relative to Flame) yet complete and workable hardware drivable color grading, exceptional audio toolsets... and horrible compatibility with standard or emerging formats. It came about as Mac was still working on OS10, and windows was still on NT (or 98) and most of any other solution seemed archaic as compared, and it's forward out-of-the-box thinking got it straight to the point almost from the beginning, with it's main advantages remaining advantages throughout years ahead. (survived all this time almost exlusively on these groundbreaking initial characteristics, and would have went-on yet further) On 08/28/15 16:40, pete...@skynet.be wrote: [...] But then Avid drove a wedge between DS and XSI, pushing DS into a very awkward position in the Avid portfolio, and XSI into a kind of no mans land – like an unwanted child they ended up with, not knowing what to do with. As others mentionned, the wedge between DS and XSI happenned
Re: Last Friday's Flashback #238
Erratum : didn't differentiate things that were later developped & introduced, to things that were wished-for. Actually, good 3D in DS was among the few things that users were wishing for DS to make it current again (had it been more seriously developped passed V4 (2002) apart for things *introduced in later versions* like new hardware support, still quite decent GPU Acelleration, MotionFlow Time Stretching & lots of compatibity and interop endeavors with MC) cheers, On 09/04/15 19:53, Jason S wrote: About last Friday's Flashback, On 08/28/15 16:40, pete...@skynet.be wrote: [...] I guess the industry as a whole didn’t need that integrated Digital Studio, and few really used DS and XSI in tandem - but I feel we are all the poorer without it. Sure, there’s some interesting convergence happening between 3D and comp these days – but how I miss that particular Softimage spin on it. Actually, good 3D in DS was among the few things that users were wishing for DS to make it current again (had it been more seriously developped passed V4 (2002) apart for things like new hardware support, still quite decent GPU Acelleration, MotionFlow Time Stretching & lots of compatibity and interop endeavors with MC) few wished-for things which included: * introduction of new file based camera formats, or bringing-in arbitrary common media types without transcoding or conforming to DS's native format ( That single and relatively simple point would have addressed the bulk of what users might have been pressing most upon, despite introduction of -some- new formats.) * keying tools coming closer Smoke/Flame counterparts *** and ironically, given where it's coming from and what were the original plans-- a more complete 3D environment compared to these same packages. But it's 3D was at least more than good enough for mapping (rez independant) cutout/blended clips on cards in a 3D environment with artifact free results, and creating or animating hierarchies of elements with relative and manipulable axies. @schnittman @editblog @patInhofer Favorite edit system I ever worked on. The death nail was it's inability to work w/ file based cameras — Nathan Downing (@nathandowning) August 6, 2013 In the very niche market of high-end finishing workstations (much more niche than it's original sister 3D flagship), DS was considered as the very top of the line of Avid's offerings (despite relatively little significant changes over time, it's near abscence in marketing campaings, and noticably living in the shadow of MediaComposer itself very much coming-up with support for things like file based formats) While as Avid's only truly resolution independent high-end solution (only one that could do 4k (+) or even slightly over HD 2k film), that also had node based processing trees on timeline clips or entire timelines, and other things, it was typically compared to Smoke/Flame stations rather than other Avid products, but despite increasing comparative drawbacks compared to something like Flame as DS was in a 'left behind' state, it was also considered more intuitive, stirdy, and accommodating for *many* types of tasks, and perhaps more editing-centered with equally powerful node based FX on timeline clips, particularly smart cache management, along with an unparalleled vector paint (would have been great if the FXTree had it), 'Subpar' (relative to Flame) yet complete and workable hardware drivable color grading, exceptional audio toolsets... and horrible compatibility with standard or emerging formats. It came about as Mac was still working on OS10, and windows was still on NT (or 98) and most of any other solution seemed archaic as compared, and it's forward out-of-the-box thinking got it straight to the point almost from the beginning, with it's main advantages remaining advantages throughout years
