Tutorials or Training for Shake...
by djelder
on
Oct 6, 2006 at 5:58:40 pm
Hi,
I was wondering if there are any good tutorials, training DVD's or Online training for Shake, or is it one of the softwares
where you should just take the time and jump into the book and learn it from scratch?
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by The Lobby on Oct 6, 2006 at 6:11:32 pm
Check out the search feature. There are (from what I can tell) two main tutorial DVDs, CMI and Gnomon Workshop.
Some people have said that CMI's can tend to be slightly unprofessional (in both content and production quality). I haven't heard much about Gnomon. Anybody care to chime in on the latter?
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by djelder on Oct 6, 2006 at 7:17:09 pm
Looking at gnomen workshop, it looks like a solid training system and way to start, is this a good way to go, or is it smart to get the apple training certification, or is it necessary?? Or could I learn enough through these training DVD's to get the certification through just taking the test?
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by tsimoneau on Oct 6, 2006 at 10:30:23 pm
I have seen the first Gnomon video on Shake, as well as the CMI studios videos, and can honestly say that you will learn SO much more if you just go out and buy a book. Although I think there is only one major book on Shake out at the moment. I learned a ton from the "Apple Pro Training Series" Book "Shake 4" by Marco Paolini. ISB:0321256093
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by Andrew Shanks on Oct 7, 2006 at 10:35:02 pm
I agree with some of what has been said above. The gnomon dvds are good, Steve and Ron's compositing books are essential background reading if you wish to take compositing seriously (as they describe the technical details of why you do things and how to work round problems, ...with-out being application specific, ...Steves new revision of his book totally kicks arse, I highly recommend it) and Marco's book is probably the best resource for learning Shake specifically.
But probably the best thing you could do is to go through the tutorials that come with Shake!!! ...I am often staggered that people seem to over-look the simply brilliant training materials that come with the software. The tutorials are written in a very laid back, humorous, easy manner, and even if you only pick and choose the areas that interest you, you will soon have a thorough grounding in the basics of shake. That would be my first recommendation. I also suggest getting the "shake4 quick reference guide" (by Damian Allen) as that is very handy to have on your desk when still learning. The best way to finesse your skills after that is through practice and working with experienced senior shake operators (who will show you some of the tricks of the trade, ...like never using a color correct node to color correct).
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by John Lafauce jr. on Oct 9, 2006 at 2:10:10 pm
I agree with you, Alex and Andrew. I used to teach Shake at Gnomon and the one thing we emphasized there was train your eye first, learn the software second. If you can't afford Gnomon, take a photography, color theory, drawing and composition, and painting class at any local college. Then
definately try out the tutorials that come with Shake. If you are convinced compositing is your bag and you want to learn more, then try the books written by Steven Wright and Marco Paolini. While you are learning or working on a gig, it is handy to have the "Shake4 Quick Reference Guide" (by Damian Allen) nearby.
If you are new to compositing, please read my article on "How to Become a Feature Film Compositor", as it mentions a lot of what's been said in this thread:
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by djelder on Oct 9, 2006 at 10:05:32 pm
I Want to thank all of you for the information that has been given to me, I have been using After Effects for a few years now, and have been moving along steadily. Even though this is an outstanding software, I feel it has a few flaws that have caused me to be annoyed with it. So that is why I want to learn Shake, to see if it is better at handling what After Effects can't handle, which I imagine it can easily. Also we are working more in Maya, and I want to be able to work with the 3-D images in a 3-D manner, not a 2-D manner as After Effects does with it. So, I will take all the information and see what I can do with Shake.
Has anyone gotten Apple Certified with Shake, and is it worth it to do that????
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by John Lafauce jr. on Oct 9, 2006 at 11:34:50 pm
I got Apple certified for Shake but it really is only useful if you intend to teach it. Before I got certified, I had no problems getting hired for Shake jobs, so it doesn't really apply much there. But, the certification class was fun and it does force you to buckle down and learn some aspects of it you may not have known.
Re: Tutorials or Training for Shake... by Andrew Shanks on Oct 10, 2006 at 8:59:03 pm
Hey Dan,
in regards to 3d models from Maya with Shake, you may be disappointed, ...shake handles render passes (i.e. 2d) totally fine, but yeah, 3d is not a strong point, ...Nothing Real (before Apple bought Shake) were starting to impliment features that would work hand in hand with maya workflow (Apple have continued down this line), ...unfortunately the 3d compositing aspects of Shake have never really been that stable. Weta digital managed to do something in that regard with their Shake workflow for King Kong (but I think that relied on in house developed add-ons, ....and even then they ended up getting some seats of Nuke for 3d comping). Indeed After Effects (for all its quirks) is actually better at 3d comping (2d planes in 3d space) than Shake tends to be (I often use Syntheyes to matchmove a scene then export the Maya camera data from it into After Effects, laying 2d elements up on 2d cards in 3d space, ....it works quite well, ...ILM used this technique (well, with a different matchmover, but still AE) to do the opening windmill Frankenstein scene in Van Helsing (there used to be a video online about it, if you can find it, watch it, its inspiring) . Fusion and Nuke are the two compositing packages that seem to be taking 3d compositing to new levels, ...having said that, some of the 3d applications are now getting into the act, with the likes of Softimage XSI having its Illusion-like FX-Tree nodal compositing system which can tap into 2d and 3d elements. For me, I'd rather let the 3d guys lay up elements for me (provided in separate passes, so I can colour correct eash, fudge depth of field, or add fog/smoke layers between for depth, etc), and use the 2d card system in 3d space (using the camera data from the 3d package). In a couple of years I see that the lines will blur a bit between 3d and compositing, where suddenly compositing packages will take the materials, camera movement and render end of 3d apps, and bundle them into their workflow (so you can bring in laid up scenes and set to work tweaking things), ...but at the moment true 3d compositing is pretty crude (and even if it was implimented well, 3d using HDRI, volumetrics or large particle/physics simulations takes an absolute age to render, youch, ...I think my lack of patience is why I'm a compositor rather than a 3d guy ;-).
Just my rather long-winded 2 cents :-)
