Nuke vs. Shake & Fusion

#1 24th January 2004, 13:25

How does Nuke compare with Shake and Fusion?

Please list pros and cons if anyone has hands on knowledge with any of these tools. Thanks.

HoP · #2 26th January 2004, 14:30

From my very short look at Nuke & Shake:
Very similar concept, but
-> Nuke has a true 3D space - very useful, even if you aren't Flameholic
-> Nuke has a freedom workspace - Shake's "everytime" viewer + big toolset sometimes sucks.
-> I don't like Shake's interface for particular tools.
-> I like Nuke's animation curves.
-> Shake can read more formats (DPX etc.), Nuke sometimes has a problem with basic formats (i.e. Tiff)
-> Nuke is less stable - I get some "segmentation fault" errors.

We have also some old version of Fusion. But I hate it for its "limitfull" interface. We caled them "pipemania" :lol:

Note: everything in this post is my personal opinion only, take it easy! :wink:

netviper · #3 26th January 2004, 18:51

I have been playing around with NUKE quite a bit for training...

Shake lacks 3d
That is a bummer

Nuke's layout is growing on me, but i dont like the expressions setup or pallette customization. (things probably will change)

Its nice and zippy which is a plus, BUT I NEED the crappy file formats that shake has.

NUKE wasnt designed for what it will evenutally be used for. I think once the app is more polished for "average users" its gonna be a hot item.

Both of the apps need afterFX plugin support. It wont happen, but they need it.

I wish the sliders on both apps mimiced the "houdini" middle mouse button style number system... virtual sliders. they rock.

Shake does have easy intergration for network rendering, and cool expression linking.

both apps are in development for new versions, as any other software, so time shall tell.

jasp · #4 26th January 2004, 20:12

I would also add to HoP's quite thorough assessment, that NUKE has a unique 32 (soon to be unlimited) channel workflow. Basically, this lets you feed many channels thourgh a single pipe (for example, all your CG render passes).

The 3D workspace is well received by customers and evaluees and it's getting more robust by the day. This has been a big selling point for us because Shake, as you know, has no 3D.

Regarding NUKE Readers, we have had some issues where NUKE couldn't recognize a client's particular flavor of a given format. The policy is to rewrite the readers to recognize the flavors ASAP.

Regarding 3rd-party plugin support, we are investigating, and even experimenting with, supporting the Foundry's Open Effects Standard (OFX). This would make NUKE compatible with plug ins from all vendor's who sign onto this standard.

wonko · #5 26th January 2004, 21:24

1: Which file formats are you missing?

2: AfterEffects plugins are limited to 8bit, Nuke works at 32bit float. You would take quite a hit in image quality.

3: I don't know Houdini, but inf Nuke, if you hold down the Alt key while clicking in a numeric text field, you can change the value by dragging the mouse. Position the cursor on a digit to determine how fast the value changes. You can also use the up/down keys to change values.

4: Expressions can be enetered pretty easily in any numeric field by selecting all text, then typing '=', followed by the expression. Nuke 4.2 will also feature a drag'n'drop interface for expression and function curves.

[quote="netviper"]
Its nice and zippy which is a plus, BUT I NEED the crappy file formats that shake has.

Both of the apps need afterFX plugin support. It wont happen, but they need it.

I wish the sliders on both apps mimiced the "houdini" middle mouse button style number system... virtual sliders. they rock.

Shake does have easy intergration for network rendering, and cool expression linking.

HoP · #6 26th January 2004, 22:55

1. I like the YUV model in color pal's, but HLS is nice too :wink:

2. We are missing DPX support. This format could hold Timecode in it, plus is 10bit-log capable.
Direct support of native XSI and Maya formats would be fine, too.

3. About plug-ins: I very like Sapphire, from GenArts, for its versatility and quality. Good value/price too!

wonko · #7 26th January 2004, 23:08

We hear you loud and clear ;-) and I am sure you'll like the next release. As for Spphire, this is of course up to GenArts. And the more requests they get, the more likely they will port their plugins to Nuke or OFX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoP

2. We are missing DPX support. This format could hold Timecode in it, plus is 10bit-log capable.
Direct support of native XSI and Maya formats would be fine, too.

3. About plug-ins: I very like Sapphire, from GenArts, for its versatility and quality. Good value/price too!

HoP · #8 27th January 2004, 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonko

... to Nuke or OFX.

What is OFX?

wonko · #9 27th January 2004, 19:33

OFX is a new plugin standard that will allow plugin developers to write their plugin once, and it will plug into every compositing application that supports OFX. The Foundry, beeing one of the main developers of OFX, is in the process of porting (some? all?) their plugins to OFX.

see: thefoundry.co.uk/OFX

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoP

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonko

... to Nuke or OFX.

What is OFX?

throb · #10 3rd February 2004, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by kinokid

How does Nuke compare with Shake and Fusion?

Please list pros and cons if anyone has hands on knowledge with any of these tools. Thanks.

I put together a quick list and it's located here :
http://nuke.throb.net