Flame and Nuke workflow

[kepler]

Hi,

I would like to know how do you guys are actualy working in productions where Flame and Nuke are used in combination.

For example, a complex commercial with lots of greenscreens and CG backgrounds.

From my point of view Nuke is better at complex comps (and at a much lower cost of production) but Flame can be faster to make changes with the client.

The point here is that if you do complex comps in nuke and pass the comp (and mattes) to Flame to show to the client, you’re limited in the number of tweaks you can do, cause the comp isn’t done entirely in Flame.

Thanks.

[tscholton]

In my experience switching a comp from Nuke to Flame or vice versa would rarely be done if the comp is far along. In Flame I may ask the nuke artist for some mattes (or go in and get what I want myself in Nuke) to tweak areas of concern in the finish (eyes for example). I always use the words Iterations (Nuke) vs. Interactivity (Flame) but it also depends what you are trying to do.

Jeff

[Anonymous]

I have a lot of clients combining the 2, though in different ways: some use Nuke seats more like assistants and IO to do all the CG-precomp as the integration in CG pipeline is much flexible there (versioning management for example), then the “shiny” layer is added with Flame as it’s more interactive with the client and you can quickly propose the client 3 versions to choose from.
Some tend to split the shots depending on the complexity and what actually needs to be done, then they are sent to Flame for in context review and comments because that’s generally where you have the proper display.
I guess Flare (that’s less expensive than Nuke) is ADSK’s response to that but they need to be better on training and CG integration, though there are things possible (xml for version and blending in the WTG import node).

[Author]

Posts