FORUMS: list search recent posts

OT: Fusion Studio

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Mathis
OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 1:57:20 am

This is for the "or not" part of the forum. ;-)

Alright, so Mac OS X version is not ready as of yet but curious what part of the workflow Fusion will have in a FCP X, Resolve and Motion workflow. Especially curious what plans people have if there is any integration between Resolve and Fusion since there is no "Send to Motion" way of things.

Look forward to hearing from others.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 12:31:16 pm
Last Edited By Eric Santiago on Jan 20, 2015 at 12:33:00 pm

My workflow would be the same as it was back in my SGI days and when it was packaged with Maya.
No different really from AE as far as the use of the software.
Sure some form of Dynamic Linking would be nice but then Id welcome that with AE first.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 12:58:23 pm

Honestly, I think that Fusion's learning curve will be a turnoff for a lot of people accustomed to the intuitiveness of FCP X and the high-floor/low-ceiling of Motion.

One of the comments we see over and over here (which I will attempt to paraphrase here without comment) is that Apple tools are for artists, not technicians, and that they let the user focus on creating without worrying about what's happening under-the-hood, almost as if that part is immaterial.

In other words, Apple tools are high-level abstraction layers.

Nodal compositors are the exact opposite of this.

Nodal compositors are low level, direct expressions of image processing. They expect you to manipulate your imagery by combining highly specific tools, in a user-defined chain of virtually unlimited complexity, without the guidance of a fixed render pipeline, all in order to achieve your goal.

If you don't care to pop open the hood, you're not going to like nodal compositors. If you can't abide track tetris, you're probably not going to like premultiplication poker.

Of course, I believe the artist/technician dichotomy is false (I guess I didn't entirely let it go without comment), but the fact remains that the power of a tool like Fusion is expressed very differently than the power of a tool like FCP X.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index


Eric Santiago
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 1:14:38 pm

I think it depends on how you approach it.

To me, FCPX as the an editorial tool requires it to be simple.

But when it comes to intricate compositing and grading, then apps such as Fusion and Resolve are welcome in my workflow since Ive had the experience with both and all the other head hurting apps from my 3D days :)


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 1:31:35 pm

[Eric Santiago] "To me, FCPX as the an editorial tool requires it to be simple. But when it comes to intricate compositing and grading, then apps such as Fusion and Resolve are welcome in my workflow since Ive had the experience with both and all the other head hurting apps from my 3D days :)"

Eric, maybe I was unclear above. I absolutely agree with this. I think the approach that each of the tools we're discussing takes toward their intended use is not just valid, but very valuable to their users. There is a real need for a mix of high-abstraction and low-abstraction tools.

I am just saying that there's a quantum leap in complexity and prerequisite knowledge between effective use of Apple-style effects/compositing a la FCPX/M5 (or likewise Adobe-style effects/compositing a la Pr/Ae) and effective use of nodal compositing. Any user looking at Fusion will quickly discover that their layer-based compositing software has been making an awful lot of decisions on their behalf.

I don't say this to deter people from Fusion, but rather to prepare them for it. The first step is a doozy.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 2:29:12 pm

Considering that the vast majority of FCP editors never touched Color or even Motion and most still don't really understand Resolve, I just don't see much traction with Fusion and the average FCP X editor. Leitch ran into this problem in marketing DPS Velocity, which came bundled with a version of Fusion back then. To get around the issue, they created a number of easy editorial presets to get you started and to deal with simple tasks. Autodesk has done a bit of the same with nodes in Smoke 2015.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 2:52:22 pm

As powerful as it is, I really can't see significant numbers of AE or Motion users converting to Fusion, just as I can't see many Editors using Resolve as their main NLE, even if they do manage to add more features and tackle the speed issues. Especially if Adobe manage to make significant speed improvements with AE


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 7:20:48 pm

[Steve Connor] "As powerful as it is, I really can't see significant numbers of AE or Motion users converting to Fusion"


I don't know if I completely agree with this. I've seen (and know) a lot of folks who use Ae in conjunction with a variety of 3D packages. Many of them use a combination of their 3D package of choice, Ae and Nuke... so I imagine Fusion might just become the default node based compositor for folks who can't afford Nuke (like me). :-)

The story might be different for Motion users, I haven't really seen 3D artists (VFX or Mograph) use it... well, except for Simon maybe. :-)

Shawn



Return to posts index

Marcus Moore
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 21, 2015 at 4:55:08 am

After it's available for Mac (presumably sometime after an announcement at NAB) I'll be keen to try it. Motion has been able to fill my motion graphics needs for almost entirely for the last few years- but I'd like an alternative for more complex compositing. I'd love to see that stuff in Motion, but at this point I'm doubtful Apple are chasing that space.


Return to posts index


Helge Tjelta
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 3:09:30 pm

Well, I'm for one very keen on going down this route.

I miss Shake, loved the nodes. So I'm really looking forward for this. In fact I've setup an old PC (GTX580 gfx card), just to be able to learn it better.

It will fit perfectly into the workflow.

I use: FCPX for editing, Resolve for grading, Nuendo for audio, and motion/AE for animation work.
Fusion will be great for more advanced GFX work, as it has some really nice tools inside.

And I don't really like layers and preComp.... I love behaviors in motion.

But Fusion is of another leage. Difficult, yes, but it is fun.

Remember details take time.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 4:03:51 pm

See thats a good attitude Helge on learning.

I did the same thinking when I saw FCPX at NAB 2011 for the first time.

I knew it was going to be fun to learn something different.

Not all of us have that luxury but ever since my days from EIAS/formZ to Lightwave, Softimage etc...I always forced myself to learn new things so that I dont get so jaded with one app.

I hope to find time to get acquainted with Fusion, I kinda gave up on Smoke since it felt so slow for me compared to AE.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 4:26:49 pm

[Eric Santiago] "I hope to find time to get acquainted with Fusion, I kinda gave up on Smoke since it felt so slow for me compared to AE."

Fusion is pretty speedy and interactive. You'll like it!

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive [twitter]   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]


Return to posts index


Helge Tjelta
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 4:27:17 pm

Me to started with Smoke. But that route is dead. I bought a full lisence, and now I'm out of the loop because I don't rent it. So now I'm stuck with a support deal, which in essence gives me nothing for 1/2 a year.

And Smoke always had so many workarounds for problems, which flame had an easy tool for.... to bad.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 8:13:11 pm

So David, you keep coming back to Fusion as one of your greatest topics of interest. Have you downloaded it? If so, what do you think of the nodal approach? Especially for the kind of motion graphics that you do?

If not, why not? :-)


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 8:56:49 pm
Last Edited By David Mathis on Jan 20, 2015 at 9:42:13 pm

Tim,

Have not downloaded because my Windows laptop has Windows 7 but plan to upgrade.

Nodes are much more flexible, present more ideas but can present challenges. Just like setting up bins or events an your NLE of choice, the node tree must be organized, even more so. Should you or someone else need to go back to the project, a mangled up flowchart serves no useful purpose. It needs to be where anyone can at least understand what is going on under the hood, let alone allow for better troubleshooting.

Sometimes layers are a more appropriate choice. Why use a screwdriver to put a nail in the wall when a hammer is much better?

For processing stills or some basic animation nodes offer much flexibility, just on a single shot basis, like a scene. Great masking tools, color correction and such is why Fusion would be used for some work. For additional animation and timing, Motion is the tool of choice. Screwdriver or hammer?

At least that is the awnser I can think of at this moment.

Oh, looks like Fusion has an awesome particle system. Nearly forgot that one!


Return to posts index


David Mathis
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 20, 2015 at 9:06:55 pm

Not a fan of a pre-comp either but love working with groups. I like to think of them as both a pre-comp and an adjustment layer with more benefits minus some of the headaches. Image masks are better since stacking order is not as important. Not a fan of layers but sometimes they are a more an appropriate choice. Why use a screwdriver to put a nail in the wall when a hammer is much better?

Personally a node based approach is better for a single shot scenario or when working with stills, at least in my opinion. Timing and titles are best done in a layer based environment, hence the analogy above.

When life gives me lemons, there are two ways I look at it: As lemonade or a gas guzzling clunker that could fall apart on me at any moment. I prefer lemonade.


Return to posts index

Eric Santiago
Re: OT: Fusion Studio
on Jan 21, 2015 at 1:05:23 am

David Fusion works on Windows 7.

Does for me anyway but on a BOXX tower.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]