flame vs shake

[Xavier]

Johnmont said:

---

I have to say, this is an excellent post. However, you talk about having used it in a real production yet strongly recommend it over the discreet solutions. How have you come to such a determination without actually using it on a real job? And if the benefits are so strong, why haven’t you used it on a real job?

Again — just want to be clear that you bring up very good points about the differences/strengths of each product…just curous how you gained your knowledge.

---

Note that I recommend Shake for Storaro and his full-3D show. I also recommend it with the caveat of using other software to fill in the gaps. I certainly do NOT recommend shake alone, or for all types of work.

Granted I haven’t used Shake in production myself, so for all I know, Shake might have horrible flaws that I haven’t uncovered with my casual use yet. I leave that part to seasoned shake users on this forum.

Being stuck with a complex full 3D shot right now, I admit I curse at most of the shortcomings of FFI I mentionned in my previous post.

The reason I haven’t used shake on a real production yet, is because I am fortunate enough to work for a company that has many FFI seats and swears by it. I love FFI too, but I am realistic and I understand that it is not the ideal tool for everything and everyone. I just hate the typical comment “FFI is so expensive, so it *must* be the best at everything”.

For the type of work I have to do, Inferno is still the best choice. Why? Because we have insane amounts of greenscreens to pull (and not “ultimatte demo clip” type shots, if you know what I mean). We could not deliver our shows without the modular keyer. We have lots of major “fix it in post” projects, so we need powerful paint, garbage mask, tracking, extended bicubics, etc… Plus, for doing multiple versions of a shot, the desktop with its reels and editing features are mandatory. All these advantages outweigh the shortcomings in the “comping 3D layers together” department at which Shake (and Nuke and Fusion) excel.

I don’t want to sound condescending, but Shake is not the most complex software in the world. Once you figure out the batch-like schematic, you just have to take a look at the nodes available and you can figure out quite quickly what it can and cannot do. Coming from Inferno, I fell in love with the macro capabilities, the command line interface and CGI/3D oritented features. Shake also felt a lot less bloated than FFI. However, I still think it is missing must have features for my type of work, so switching is not an option… yet.

Discreet has best of class *tools*. But the toolbox is getting rusty (FFI is 10 years old!!), and I sure hope Toxik will bring a brand new shiny toolbox in our Monster Post Houses… Hopefully, the trusty old hammer and good old wrench will be found in it.

— Xavier

[Anonymous]

Exavier,

Just to update you on a few items,

YS: Yes, FFI has real-time playback. But if you work at 12bits HD, then you have to load clips into RAM for real-time playback too in FFI, just like shake.

(I sure don’t, your inferno is probably older?, new flame tezro and infernos (setup right) play realtime 2K 12 bit straight off the drives.

YS:Wanna pre-process a nice Sapphire rack-defocus on one of your layers (before a 2D move for instance), you gotta render twice. One for the front, and one for the matte.

(use the new batch setup and now you don’t render twice)

YS: For SD client-driven advertising sessions, Flame is the clear winner. For film general kinds of effects (live action + 3D), the line gets blurred, depending of the type of shots you need to deliver. For a full 3D show, I would say that Shake is more suited to the task.

(I would add also that in HD television, it is best on FI sytems. Done quite a few full 3D shows and haveing Flame and inferno saved our ass by makeing the deadlines and we never would have on anything else).

All in, If lack of moneys the driving factor, then purchase a shake system and do small jobs , if moneys not an issue then purchase a FI system and and do big jobs.

Rebel
8)

[Xavier]

Rebel wrote:

Just to update you on a few items,

YS: Yes, FFI has real-time playback. But if you work at 12bits HD, then you have to load clips into RAM for real-time playback too in FFI, just like shake.

(I sure don’t, your inferno is probably older?, new flame tezro and infernos (setup right) play realtime 2K 12 bit straight off the drives.

I’ll check it out on our Tezros (I usually work on Onyx2 boxes). I know we’ve been able to play small [email protected] clips on the Tezro, but for longer clips, I think we started to drop frames. Possibly a configuration issue?

Rebel wrote:

YS:Wanna pre-process a nice Sapphire rack-defocus on one of your layers (before a 2D move for instance), you gotta render twice. One for the front, and one for the matte.

(use the new batch setup and now you don’t render twice)

Huh… I meant twice the render time, not actually hitting the “Process” button twice. To pre-process any kind of filtering on a RGBA clip (except for Action blurs), you need one node for the front, and the same node for the matte.

This means processing 6 channels of information where only 4 are required.

Even more annoying, you can’t link channels accross sparks in batch, so you have to manually update the matte node everytime you change the front node. I like having direct access to front or matte in batch (unlike Shake where every node expects to be RGBA), but I wish Sparks, RGB Blur, Filter, Optics, Resize (and probably a few others I forget) had a front+matte input/output.

Rebel wrote:

(I would add also that in HD television, it is best on FI sytems. Done quite a few full 3D shows and haveing Flame and inferno saved our ass by makeing the deadlines and we never would have on anything else).

I’m sure FFI saved your ass many times. I know it saved ours many many many times. But if you comped full 3D shows with it, didn’t the caveats I mentionned in my first post annoy you? I know they do.

Rebel wrote:

All in, If lack of moneys the driving factor, then purchase a shake system and do small jobs , if moneys not an issue then purchase a FI system and and do big jobs.

I disagree with that statement, but you’re entitled to your opinion. I still maintain that FFI is the best overall performer, but it can be brought down to its knees just like every other product.

And by the way, I wonder if ESC thought the Matrix sequels were “small jobs”… Or if Weta thought the LOTR trilogy were “small jobs”…
🙂

— Xavier

[patdawg]

It was my understanding that WETA did, in fact, use Inferno for some of the more complex shots.

[Anonymous]

NO other keyer can stand against Ultimattes Advantedge, I’ve seen Flames Modular keyer fall to it knees on a really nasty green screen shot, with a very experienced op, keylite and primatte failed too, Ultimattes Advantedge gave perfect results, and its a plugin that can work on any desktop compositing sw. Works well with Combustion.

[AdamG]

Well I must say,
You have all inspired me, (as a student and intern) to learn both platforms which is what seems to be the ideal. 😀

[aracid]

hey all

shake vs flame, a tough one.
being a little compositor my self,
Im not gonna quote half the world etc.
because most of what u guys say is valuable arguments, but for my 30cents

for the lord of the rings story. Rumour has it that weta had scripts linking shake to their render manager. so artists could press render when they leave their work station and their shots came out already comped.
i’ve personally done that, it its a lovely way to work.

Then as for nuke, also being an increadible app. With the bit ive played around with it, the 64 imbedded channels makes it quiet unusual but highly efficient. especially with the node layout that becomes far less complicated because of this feature. i’m keeping my eye out for that app in the future, its the only compositing tool that i’ve thought about leaving shake for.

shakes ability to network render across multiple macs is a stunning feature.

If i were to do commercials, with the producer,director ,creative director, the directors girlfriend, her brother, and the producers dad and dog behind you, i’d go flame.

however i find it invaluable that i have a copy of shake on my 3d work station. having said that, if i were doing long form animation with alot of 3d elements or visual effects, i’d definately go the shake(and maybe nuke) route.

anyways

all the best

aracid

[-k]

Quote:

for the lord of the rings story. Rumour has it that weta had scripts linking shake to their render manager. so artists could press render when they leave their work station and their shots came out already comped.
i’ve personally done that, it its a lovely way to work.

You can network render with flame too. Works very smoothly
Check out “burn”.
It’s just terribly expensive… 😉

-k

[Author]

Posts