- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Hi guys i’am a flame op and wander if IQ station is the equivalent of flame
or if there are a lot of differenceIf anybody knows
Cheers
I work on a EQ which is close enough. I can say that its a great at editorial and
multiformat versioning. but lacks in the compositing area. Rotoing with garbage mask are very awkward. Paint is better in FFI. Schematic view is better in FFI. mesh warper is better in FFi. There is no 3d importing of models .3d compositing is better in FFi. I do like the plugin support they have. Supports Boris,tinder,sapphire,trapcode,and others. I think the IQ and Eq will eventually fix
these issues mabey address some at NAB. I would say no other paltform comes
close to FFI for compositing. I would really compare IQ and Eq to Smoke,Fire and DS Nitris.eQ is at least five years behind Discreet and even After Effects in its ability to handle multiple time lines, any sort of roto work is VERY painful as there are no splines and the masks are slow and sluggish. It does however have a great color corrector BUT at $250K it does SO MUCH LESS than FCP with Shake at $2K or Combustion at $1K. Quantel showed nothing new at NAB and are really concentrating on DI not editing or effects composititing.
I have been using Fire/Smoke for 3 years, and was previously a Quantel user since the very first “Paintbox” was delivered in Hollywood. I used the iQ/eQ for about a year prior to becoming a Discreet Smoke artist.
My opinion? Quantel’s handling of mixed resolution is far more transparent and fluid than Discreet’s. I still (as well as many former Quantel artists) feel the Quantel airbrush is the benchmark for ANY software. As far as all other features, particularly compositing and such, I would never go back to Quantel.
I believe the purchase decision for either package is extremely dependent on the work you will be doing, and your current infrastructure. I have experienced excellent facility integration with both vendors products.
My 2 pesos.
Hey,
I think one of you guys said that it was more for DI. Well we are going to integrate eQ into our facility. However we will no be doing Comp within eQ. This is a finishing system and the compositing it has would be enough to allow it to deal with anything that comes up within a finishing job.
Someone also said that FCP and Shake for 2K can do more. Well I will say that it can do a lot. Shake is a desktop compositor that allows for, lets say, detailed work. It takes time, but the end result is fantastic. FCP on the other hand has some serious productivity issues. Where as the eQ/IQ is one of the best finishing systems out there, as far as getting the job done fast. With there new workflow they anounced at NAB, this has opened up the door to allow a facility to make huge productivity gains in the area of data management. All I am saying is don’t compare FCP with the likes of eQ or Smoke. You can’t, they are so different in there approaches, and for the type of end user/environment. You do get what you pay for. The cost of this equipment is not about the end result, but how you travel through it. IQ can deal with muli-streams of 4K uncompressed RGB data, if you need this, well this is the system, if not then get something else. It is that simple.
It is like trying to compare Shake/Nuke with Flame. At the end of the day they both allow the user to make fantastic work, but the purpose is very different and they are used very differently.
So I would be very carefull saying it sucks, or something like that 😆
That is my 2cents
I agree Mr. Rasmussen.
Most of the critics of Quantel typically know not of what they speak. Their comments are completely based on heresay, and not practical experience. As far as straight finishing, the iQ/eQ systems are fantastic.Most of the critics of Quantel typically know not of what they speak.
Not to get into tit for tat here but I DO know of what I speak. I have used both systems extensively and in my opinion Smoke and Flame KILL eQ on every level. Yes eQ handles multi format HD like no other- BUT- taking cost factors and, more importantly, ease of use into account, why would anyone spend $250K for a box that requires you to go into lesser programs to do more. Also I wasn’t trying to compare FCP to eQ as they are two different animals. The point I was trying to convey was that there are some basic editing and conforming functions that cheaper apps do better & faster, such as multi-layer timeline functions. Ultimately what ever works best for you is the best tool for the job.
“As far as straight finishing, the iQ/eQ systems are fantastic”
(the point)
Hey Ronsuss,
No worries on the tit for Tat. I like a good debate and I hope this is what we are doing.
I will be honest and say I am not a eQ expert.. Yet… 😀 But I think after my research for us this type of system will work best. I just get put off by people trying to compare system/software. I know you are not meaning to do this, but some times this is what happens. 🙄
As far as Smoke is concerned. Yeah it is a great system, especially the fact that it can do comp and effects to a degree like flame, but flame takes it to the nth degree. However eQ is a very good compositing system, and again we have to be carefull to understand that where and what we use these systems for plays a big role in how they are implimented.
Well that is about it for me. Final comment, the journey in post is more interesting that the nuts and bolts.
take care
Hi guys
don’t want to start any war in comparaison
just want to know from iq operator if yoou can do particles, expression schematic managment work with projectors or stuff like that.I know both of IQ and EQ station can play 2K with no proxy do tehy manage lut, i hope so
well that kind of things
Cheers
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.