What can you say about 5DCyborg?

[Anonymous]

any comments on v2.0? saw it at Siggraph at the Boxx Booth and it flyes..!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

I was impressed with the UI, and features on the surface ( first glance) until I put the demo artist threw a series of real situations, keeping in mind various jobs I did on flame, I then pretended to look impressed, and thought it sucked big time, it just looks flash, but has no real solid content, there is always something missing from its great looking features, that would make flame users dream of using flame again, give it couple of more years maybe, but by then flame and maybe other fx boxes will stillbe ahead. It SUCKS!! [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_razz.gif[/img]

[Anonymous]

I would like to see what was that series of real situations that you found no solid on cyborg and what was missing from its great looking features.
I have been using flame for more than 5 years and I can tell that there is nothing you can do in flame that can not be done in cyborg, faster and with a lot of interactivity. it may be just a different way to do it but it is there.

I was in NY last week working in a project for theatrical release in HD 24p and it was just amazing the performance of cyborg. conform , animation and effects just right there in the same place, forget about going to the desktop to process sparks or using a batch process without seeing the whole picture in contest all the time.
just try to hit the playback button on action.

and that is just the begining!! new generation.

and for anyone just starting on this industry cyborg is without a doubt the way to go guys.

[ Edited by Anonymous On Date _MONTHDATETIME ]

[goran]

And of course, Cyborg have Flame BATCH functionalty, together with great schematics, parenting and axis noding? Not to mention expressions. Of course, Cyborg have it all, right ???
I even dont need to ask about need to go in desktop to make slo-mo or timewarp on Cyborg, only on Flame you have to bother with such thing, right ?

Goran

[Anonymous]

Goran, you seem to have a bit of a downer on Cyborg!

I have seen HD conforming with varispeed directly into the timeline – which is in Batch!

[Anonymous]

Cyborg probably doesn’t have everything that Flame has, but there is definitely stuff in there that Discreet is missing. Performance, bit-depth, multi-resolution are the obvious demo things, but it has some very cool workflow. Distort is way better that Flame’s morpher, as is TimeTracker better than Retimer in Flame.

I also put some tricky questions to the demo guy, and he answered them all easily. I guess it is the luck of the draw with who does the demo.

[Anonymous]

HD conforming is no big deal anymore there are several systems that can do that now, probably including Flame 8.

Next time your on a Cyborg try and simulate an extended bicubic, say 10 by 10, and then select some points and rotate them ( warp), just like you can do in Flame, very easily, in action. when asked the Cyborg demo guy to try this he couldnt do it. ( without going into a morpher). Things like that just put me off.

Maybe there is a way ?
I never got to see a paint module, is there one, is it as good as flames ?
[img]images/forum/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[goran]

Well, I am not downer on anything, especialy Cyborg. In metter of fact I like it. But I just read post on this forum about “perfect new toolsel”, because of which I should drop FLAME in trash (in light of knowing V8 have mixed-resolution, FBX, timeline in batch, background rendering on LINUX). So, I just needed to check.

Goran

P.S.
If I am downer, I would ask about beauty of 3D particles in Cyborg, and I didnt.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

On 2002-07-31 14:10, goran wrote:
Snip (in light of knowing V8 have mixed-resolution, FBX, timeline in batch, background rendering on LINUX).

Out of interest – have you seen Timeline in Batch? How does it work? Is it like Smoke’s – multi-layer?

BTW – I am at 5D having an evaluation – so I’ll do the Bicubic test and let you know …….

Ok, here’s the news. You are right about the rotate bit, although apparently this is being dealt with. What I really like was being able to define exactly where I split the surface – oh yes, and that it didn’t have to be a surface. Any layer can be deformed without having to pre-decide what type of a surface it is. Also, the split views make it very easy to control what you are doing. I’m very happy with what i have seen this week.
[img]images/forum/smilies/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[ Edited by Ironman On Date _MONTHDATETIME ]

[Anonymous]

Were’s V8 by the way.
They showed it at NAB 2002, Announced it at Siggraph 2002 and until today you can’t even get the datasheet on V8.

Are they having trouble??

Quote:

On 2002-08-01 03:02, Ironman wrote:

Quote:

On 2002-07-31 14:10, goran wrote: Snip (in light of knowing V8 have mixed-resolution, FBX, timeline in batch, background rendering on LINUX). Out of interest – have you seen Timeline in Batch? How does it work? Is it like Smoke’s – multi-layer? BTW – I am at 5D having an evaluation – so I’ll do the Bicubic test and let you know ……. Ok, here’s the news. You are right about the rotate bit, although apparently this is being dealt with. What I really like was being able to define exactly where I split the surface – oh yes, and that it didn’t have to be a surface. Any layer can be deformed without having to pre-decide what type of a surface it is. Also, the split views make it very easy to control what you are doing. I’m very happy with what i have seen this week. [ Edited by Ironman On Date _MONTHDATETIME ]

[Anonymous]

Cyborg is dead… 🙁

[Author]

Posts