- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Hi all,
I know this question turn around the world a lot of time but i’m sorry to say that,
i never find the answer 😮
Maybe it was right in the past that Inferno worked with 3D tracker, multi CPU and real time
but it’s also the case now for Flame (even in 2K).
So please, someone will be helpful to give me (us) the real good differences.
Thank you in advance.
Cp@cpage 26275 wrote:
Hi all,
I know this question turn around the world a lot of time but i’m sorry to say that,
i never find the answer 😮
Maybe it was right in the past that Inferno worked with 3D tracker, multi CPU and real time
but it’s also the case now for Flame (even in 2K).
So please, someone will be helpful to give me (us) the real good differences.
Thank you in advance.
CpThe quick answer is flame2009=inferno2009 except the startup screen / message bar / cursor shape / executable name / user name… Did I forget something? 🙂
But! Or even a big BUT! Most of our clients still think that: inferno>flame. Especially in Europe, it is like that. Remember how fast an onyx2 renders compared to oct1mx? This is history now, but Autodesk couldn’t kill inferno licenses. Because we, the users who paid more for the software license, don’t want to downgrade their suite names to flame!
But from an engineering perspective, there is no use to have a product named “inferno” for today. From sales point of view, inferno is a big brand. I suspect that, AME might do something with the inferno name in the future. For example extra software features??! Who knows…
In the past, inferno has meant speed most of the time. Although the first versions of inferno had 12bit feature, which flame didn’t have. And that was the main difference, making inferno capable to do 10bit log film work. And it shared the same onyx1 platform with flame. But very very old versions… Now again inferno and flame run on the same HP box. Today it is a HPxw8600/8core/nvQ5600sdi, now inferno=flame. But today, inferno doesn’t have any feature difference!
Thank you very much Kuban for giving us you nice vision about the difference.
From now you are confirmed exactely my thoughts about ‘no differences’.
So we are ok to say that ‘maybe’ the real points between them were in the past.
It will be interesting now to read an oposite point of view…if it’s possible.
Thanks again for any interest.As far as I know the brand Inferno was kept for the japanese market, not the european. Historically japanese clients always wanted “the best” and bought nothing but infernos. So AME used the same software on a 4-way SMP system, called it inferno and sold it exclusivly in japan. There might have been a speed gain, but with the new HP workstations I doubt it makes a big difference. I don’t think the flame/inferno software scales that well.
Nobody cares much about inferno in europe anymore, there have always been more flames here.
Well, if it’s the case for Japan and Chinese people who need to get their soft named Inferno and not Flame, it’s easy to understand.Where it’s not easy is when ILM or Digital got Inferno and Flame !!! both are often in the same company…Hummm.I’m loosing my mind
It’s really not that complicated. When the sgi hardware had a wide price range it made sense to have a range of products – from Inferno on the Onyx to Flint on an O2. At that time they also introduced features first on Inferno and a few years later would roll them down to the Flame, then later to Flint. They also used to bit depth limit Flame and Flint and for a while I think even maximum image size was bigger on Inferno… but this was mostly due to hardware differences. As things evolved and then moved to Intel platform the Inferno product kind of lost it’s difference hardware wise and the software limitations made less and less sense.
I think the biggest remaining difference is that Flint does not have the modular keyer… which is a strictly marketing decision. While I love modular keyer and when I have worked on Flint I have missed it I am not sure if I was buying a box I could justify the cost difference between Flint and Flame for that. Flint may not have the 3D tracker either… you’d have to evaluate the cost difference and convenience versus the cost of PF Track for example.
Jeff
I think you’ll find that Inferno has burn bundled in with it too.
@paul_round 26284 wrote:
I think you’ll find that Inferno has burn bundled in with it too.
I don’t think so. At least we didn’t have that deal. We have 3 x inferno, and 2 x flame licenses. We also have 4 x burn nodes, that we paid for in the past. And Autodesk hasn’t given us burn licenses as a gift.
inferno on linux comes with burn nodes bundled as far as i remember..maybe it was not part of your upgrade deal
i really wish discreet would merge toxiks features into inferno…like soon. including the UI gate into batch.
i dont think so – as far as i know IFF and txk are incompatible. this is the reason why you cant exchange any settings. the algorithms are to differnt.
nanuk
@rohit 26321 wrote:
i really wish discreet would merge toxiks features into inferno…like soon. including the UI gate into batch.
@nanuk 26323 wrote:
i dont think so – as far as i know IFF and txk are incompatible. this is the reason why you cant exchange any settings. the algorithms are to differnt.
nanuk
i know…it involves writing fresh code 🙂 and theyre good features.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.