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 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 sometime before
Avid,
yet despite different things that may have contibuted to it's demise near the
end (perhaps like what LucEric suggested mentionning futile attempts at making
it compatible with MC on Mac),
.. and that to be fair, although it's development was to a certain extent
'frozen', it was rather well supported over time, ....
it can still be said that 'absorption for the purpose of marginalizing
exceptional counterparts' could easily summarize the story of Softimage's life
(and death) in general.
@dwolfmeyer @robert_pitman @editblog @nathandowning @schnittman @patInhofer
Ahead of its time & treated like a bastard child by Avid.
— Tom Daigon (@lasvideo) August 6, 2013
From Wikipedia:
In later versions (v7.5 and beyond) DS was criticized for slow
development of compositing tools, mainly lack of a new 3D environment and
better tracking tools. Many DS users felt that Avid had not been giving DS the
attention that it deserved.
Although many parallels can be made, it was considered good that DS users had
somewhat comparable (though pricey) Autodesk (/DiscreetLogic) alternatives, or
more affordable and still excellent (despite less all-encompassing)
combinations, while despite some fine 3D packages out there in their own way,
not as much can easily be said for XSI and it's main strengths
( for the relatively more technically complicated craft of doing 3D and as a
much less 'niche' type of thing ).
Yet until such a time (some things seem to be 'getting there' faster than
others), it's also a good thing that it, to a certain extent seems to have
motivated other solutions to aim for similar if not better things (albeit each
one adopting different things while having a stretch to go before 'getting
there') that made XSI such an efficient and workable piece of software, very
much including different parts of Houdini and Maya.
And for those (places) that would rather wait, it's also good XSI remains a
prime development platform in itself **,
most of it's long standing advantages to this day remain comparative
advantages,
and conformance to various standards doesn't necessarily depend on internal
development.
(including but not limited to 3rd party renderer outputs )
** An easy to use visual development platform allowing for the sporatic but
continuous new things popping-up, or making-up new features as needed.
Funny thing by the way, the darker gray bar the left of the interface (there
from the beginning) is the same bar we see when starting-up XSI today lol!
Cheers!
Notable (post DS EOL) quotes :
The latest version of smoke gets close. and of course smokes keyers and
3d compositing absolutely kill DS's.
I'm a huge fan of both smoke and DS, so don't think i'm discounting
smokes great features at all here but -
But the thing about DS's trees that made it so powerful, was that in
the composite container you could have a timeline track directly feeding an
input node in your comp tree. Then you can edit, retime, adjust, effect, etc.
that track, just like any other in your timeline, while simultaneously looking
at your tree and seeing the results in context.
The way smoke gets edits in and out of batch/CFX works similarly, but
its not nearly as elegant and easy to change after the fact.
And as a comp evolves to need more and more media sources with precise
timing, it can get to be quite a hassle.
Also, while DS's DVE isnt nearly as powerful as action inside [smoke]
batch - it has one huge advantage. you can parent global and local transforms
(axes) to any DVE node in your tree. In smoke, you can build fantastically
flexible trees of axes, but they are confined to a single action node - unless
you get real creative with expressions. In DS, those axes can be patched into
any DVE in your tree.
Another thing - on a tree effect you can build custom parameters. This
is a HUGE timesaver. for example you can build a very complex tree effect, and
assign any parameter inside of it - to the property builder on the tree effect.
The result is, you open up the effect properties on that tree effect - and you
get sliders for the things you know you will need to adjust shot to shot,
without even having to expand the tree. And like anything else - they are fully
keyframeable.
____________
Nothing has better render management, and nothing has a better
timeline/tree integration.
Its type and paint tools are fantastic and its audio
editing/routing/etc absolutely blows every other NLE out of the water.
fantastic preset management, UI customizability, I could go on for days
about what is right with DS.
Really, all that was wrong was substandard grading/keying tools (but
still an order of magnitude better then symphony), and a substandard 3D DVE.
_____________
I haven't seen Dermot chime in yet anywhere, but in the past he has
mentioned MC/ Symphony + Fusion + Baselight which seems like a compelling
alternative for users who need a direct replacement for DS, but when I've tried
that combination myself, I find the labor of bouncing in and out of each plugin
a bit wearing.
So, that again makes me want to go find a good all-in-one where all of
those components are integrated, and saved together in one project, which leads
you to Smoke or maybe Pablo Rio, Flame Premium, and Scratch on the high-end.
______________
jamie dickinson said: ↑
I'm very impressed you manage long-form grading on DS actually
We get a ton of longform gradeing done on DS, mapping the surface to
your preferences, and using the tools to their strengths means one can match
Resolve and Luster suites for speed, and offer stuff in the grade sessions that
they cannot touch without a round trip to a comp station. End game is happy
DoP's as i can help sort problems they know exist, happy producers as i meet
the sched and the budget
It's the plug-in's, comp and paint tools on the second pass + the speed
with the surface for a first pass that has kept me on DS,
color and most of the rest of the tools were ported over to cuda cores
years ago.
____________________
Mac smoke's timeline also just isn't as good as DS's. Its slower to
navigate, and doesn't have nearly the flexibility of tools. All in all the UI
is just less instant then DS. In DS you can actually move and trim clips, and
scroll and zoom your timeline, while the system is playing back.
Plus, the interface between timelines and effects trees isn't as good -
and neither is the preset management. Those are the kind of things that make
doing quick tweaks while a client is waiting a lot easier.
On the other hand, smokes edit desk is a fantastic way to organize and
work, and action - of course - blows DS's pathetic useless attempt at a 3D DVE
out of the water. So theres definitely upsides to smoke.
____________________
Like Dermot, I've been almost exclusively doing longform in DS for a
long time. Actually, there are two films we've conformed, colored and done some
basic VFX in DS being released in October. I think DS handles longform very
well, and not only that, longform with a ton of paint and VFX right in the
timeline.
Yes, there are many non-existent features in the color corrector that
would have increased productivity, but we have learned ways to gain speed in
some areas (i.e. little need for roundtripping among several applications) and
apply those savings to the color side.
At the moment Flame Premium and Mistika seem to be two closest options
for the work that we do, but I have barely started assessing the replacement
options.
______________________
I have spent the last 14 years working on DS. And yes, it has been long
overdue for a re-write. No question it has suffered as file-based acquisition
has taken over. Once you have ingested everything in DS there are very few edit
systems with it's power.
Yes, the 3D sucks but we never relied on DS for 3D. At one point we had
7 systems cranking out over 7,000 commercials a year for GM. They were rock
solid and never failed us. We use Premiere, MC and FCP as well but nothing has
the all-in-one power of DS. Thanks to Sylvan for all his support through the
years.
On 08/28/15 16:40, pete...@skynet.be wrote:
ah
DS discontinued by Avid and XSI discontinued by AD.
and what’s there to fill that particular void?
they shared architecture and interface to a degree, and both had some very
interesting forward thinking (visionary?) concepts at their origin.
I remember opening a softimage 3D asset in the DS timeline, and changing
the texture placement on it, and having it re-render, right there in the
editing timeline, with mental ray - 15 years ago. It wasn’t all that useful,
but it hinted of some very exciting future links between 3D and editing/comp.
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.
Somehow, that child managed to survive Avid and even start to show promise,
then got sold off to AD, and even survived that and prospered. A while.
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.
From: Stephen Blair
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:58 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Friday Flashback #238
SOFTIMAGE|DS: Originality distinguishes art from craft
http://wp.me/powV4-3dT
