- This topic has 18 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
http://www.fxguide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6621 could be added to this discussion i think.
It’s always a little funny feeling to come to the defense of Flame against Nuke or other desktop products, because as people have pointed out, the differences that made flame the super awesome amazing magic machine are either entirely gone or fading fast.
Raids are cheap, apps like FrameCycler can help with playback and Nuke and Batch aren’t all that different. As it stands today, the flame’s desktop environment keeps it ahead in the speed area even when all other things are equal.
While I can’t imagine currently switching over to Nuke for client based work, I also don’t consider it off the table down the road, should the client-side gap (instant playback, minor editorial) get filled in some manner. Quantel used to rule the roost and now the only time you hear about the Henry is when you look on the CV’s of flame artists who’ve been working for more than 10 years. I’d rather Flame not go that route.
i mean, really, whats the point of comparing systems anymore ? just use the one that works for you and your workflow. i know of places in se asia that are using souped up nuke boxes on commercials with directors present, and they do client presentations via FCP.. whatever works for em..i met one of these guys [owners] last year…he bitched about flame* non stop and finally divulged that its only cos he cant afford it.. so my response to him was, use whatever works for you.
This thread reminds of an older thread in Flame news forum around 10yrs ago when Shake was hitting the headlines and cost £10k…
I dont think Flame has slacked much since, … its all relative.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.