PDA

View Full Version : Universal Shake Shipping in May


MacRumors
Apr 25, 2006, 11:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Macworld.co.uk reports (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=14458) that the Universal version of Shake was discussed at the National Association of Broadcasters conference.

Kirk Paulsen, senior director of pro applications marketing, demonstrated Apple’s high-end digital compositing software running on an Intel Duo Core iMac. This, admitted Paulsen, is not something that could have been done with the PowerPC iMac.

According to Paulsen with these high end applications processors are no longer the bottleneck, but instead the hard drive. Shake 4.1 will natively support Intel Macs and will be shipping in May.

Chundles
Apr 25, 2006, 11:42 PM
Shake. On an iMac. Now that, is very, very cool.

phatpat88
Apr 25, 2006, 11:42 PM
According to Paulsen with these high end applications processors are no longer the bottleneck, but instead the hard drive. In other news, shares of western digital went up 2.22%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WDC

I wonder if there is a connection here?

Raptor 150's are going to become even more popular in a Striped RAID setup

amateurmacfreak
Apr 25, 2006, 11:43 PM
Cool... although I don't know too much about the software, nice to have another one going universal.
The possibilities of Intel.
And it looks like a cool software. :D

twoodcc
Apr 25, 2006, 11:47 PM
Cool... although I don't know too much about the software, nice to have another one going universal.
The possibilities of Intel.
And it looks like a cool software. :D

i agree. can only be good news

Qdub
Apr 25, 2006, 11:51 PM
The fact that the harddrive is the limiting factor could say some things about the speeds of the harddrives in the upcoming Intel Power Macs.

kskill
Apr 25, 2006, 11:54 PM
What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?

boncellis
Apr 25, 2006, 11:58 PM
The fact that the harddrive is the limiting factor could say some things about the speeds of the harddrives in the upcoming Intel Power Macs.

It could also shed some light on the future of Firewire 800 in Apple's new machines. Was it serendipity or did Apple know something about hard drive speeds being the source of potential bottlenecks that gave them the foresight to keep it in the 17" MBP when it was eliminated from the 15"?

Maybe it will stick around a while longer.

puckhead193
Apr 26, 2006, 12:08 AM
What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?
i'm still am confused between shake and motion? I think shake its more like computer graphics (CGI) :o :o :confused:

calli2
Apr 26, 2006, 12:09 AM
What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?

Hi Kskill,

This is my first post -- so please forgive me if it appears to be in the wrong format or something!

Kskill -- I just wondered if you ever got an answer to your question? I, too, am curious about what "Shake" is...?

Thanks,

calli2

vmardian
Apr 26, 2006, 12:11 AM
What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?

Why not look it up?

http://www.apple.com/shake/

vmardian
Apr 26, 2006, 12:13 AM
It could also shed some light on the future of Firewire 800 in Apple's new machines. Was it serendipity or did Apple know something about hard drive speeds being the source of potential bottlenecks that gave them the foresight to keep it in the 17" MBP when it was eliminated from the 15"?

As far as I know, FW800 requires an extra chip, and there was no room for this in the 15".

200paul
Apr 26, 2006, 12:13 AM
i'm still am confused between shake and motion? I think shake its more like computer graphics (CGI) :o :o :confused:

Shake does compositing = like you have live elements, effects, mattes etc and they all need to go together.

Motion does titles etc = Titles and 2D or 3D text elements that are a sometimes are a tenth of the entire program

vmardian
Apr 26, 2006, 12:18 AM
In other news, shares of western digital went up 2.22%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WDC

I wonder if there is a connection here?



Absolutely not.

Lollypop
Apr 26, 2006, 12:21 AM
Still not really sure what shake does, but eitherway, more universal is very good! Lot of the high end intel chipsets have raid built in, wonder if the new mac pros might not come with raid then?

bluebomberman
Apr 26, 2006, 12:31 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

...with these high end applications processors are no longer the bottleneck, but instead the hard drive.

Hate to be a grammar snob, but this sentence is confusing. It sounds like you're saying that processors are now hard drives, not bottlenecks.

Edit to: ...with these high end applications, processors are no longer the bottleneck; instead, hard drives are the bottleneck.

Or something like that.:o

firestarter
Apr 26, 2006, 12:37 AM
It could also shed some light on the future of Firewire 800 in Apple's new machines. Was it serendipity or did Apple know something about hard drive speeds being the source of potential bottlenecks that gave them the foresight to keep it in the 17" MBP when it was eliminated from the 15"?

Maybe it will stick around a while longer.

Who needs Firewire 800 when you have dual channel eSata? eSata is SO much faster!

How does a sustained write of 146MB/s on a MBP grab you?

http://www.barefeats.com/hard71.html

ifjake
Apr 26, 2006, 12:43 AM
is SCSI still the superior (if more expensive) hard drive interface? if hard drives are becoming more and more the bottleneck, i wonder if Apple will opt to use SCSI and the new faster perpendicular disks that can really take advantage of it in their intel power[but not]macs. i'm ready for Apple to release a workstation that really just owns. if not SCSI maybe something like SATA II. i'm not really sure how SCSI and SATA II compare or what the difference is.

i'm just conjecturing with little else than wikipedia as my resource. who out there actually knows about this stuff?

swingerofbirch
Apr 26, 2006, 01:00 AM
Do you all remember in mac os 9 in below you could turn part of the RAM into a hard disk? I must admit I don't know what the purpose of it was ---but makes me wonder if RAM used as a hard disk would be faster than a physical hard disk?

Kingsly
Apr 26, 2006, 01:00 AM
Hate to be a grammar snob, but this sentence is confusing. It sounds like you're saying that processors are now hard drives, not bottlenecks.

Edit to: ...with these high end applications, processors are no longer the bottleneck; instead, hard drives are the bottleneck.

Or something like that.:o
Yeah, I thought they were saying that the processor is the hard drive too.

I am looking forward to shake on something other than a quad. If only I could afford it!

bluebomberman
Apr 26, 2006, 01:04 AM
is SCSI still the superior (if more expensive) hard drive interface? if hard drives are becoming more and more the bottleneck, i wonder if Apple will opt to use SCSI and the new faster perpendicular disks that can really take advantage of it in their intel power[but not]macs. i'm ready for Apple to release a workstation that really just owns. if not SCSI maybe something like SATA II. i'm not really sure how SCSI and SATA II compare or what the difference is.

i'm just conjecturing with little else than wikipedia as my resource. who out there actually knows about this stuff?

Oh man, please, no more ultra-expensive, proprietary, poorly-supported interfaces! One thing that compelled me to switch to Mac was its adoption of quality standard interfaces like USB 2.0 and DVI. A return to emphasis on SCSI gives me flashbacks to the silly days of SCSI Zip drives.

bluebomberman
Apr 26, 2006, 01:11 AM
Do you all remember in mac os 9 in below you could turn part of the RAM into a hard disk? I must admit I don't know what the purpose of it was ---but makes me wonder if RAM used as a hard disk would be faster than a physical hard disk?

Yes, without question. But you'd need a TON of RAM to make it useful for video and graphics editing.

There's some talk of replacing hard drives (which tend to slow things down and waste more energy as mechanical devices) with varying forms of memory chips, such as flash memory or MRAM. Flash memory will probably see limited use in laptops, while MRAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAM) is years away from affordable commerical use.

danielwsmithee
Apr 26, 2006, 01:12 AM
Oh man, please, no more ultra-expensive, proprietary, poorly-supported interfaces! One thing that compelled me to switch to Mac was its adoption of quality standard interfaces like USB 2.0 and DVI. A return to emphasis on SCSI gives me flashbacks to the silly days of SCSI Zip drives.

I agree completely. From everything I have read SATA is still much faster then the actual drives using it. I think the best thing you could do now is a raid 0 striped array with WD raptor HDs. I may be wrong though.

Some day flash based storage, or MRAM could be used but that is a long ways off.

bluebomberman
Apr 26, 2006, 01:26 AM
I agree completely. From everything I have read SATA is still much faster then the actual drives using it. I think the best thing you could do now is a raid 0 striped array with WD raptor HDs. I may be wrong though.

Some day flash based storage, or MRAM could be used but that is a long ways off.

I did a bit of poking around the web. Alienware does have some insane 10,000 & 15,000 RPM SCSI drives for their servers (but NOT their desktops). Perhaps future Xserves will have SCSI options?

richinspace
Apr 26, 2006, 01:26 AM
Hate to be a grammar snob, but this sentence is confusing. It sounds like you're saying that processors are now hard drives, not bottlenecks.

Edit to: ...with these high end applications, processors are no longer the bottleneck; instead, hard drives are the bottleneck.

Or something like that.:o

Good point Bluebomberman. I had to read the sentence three times before I gave up.

phatpat88
Apr 26, 2006, 01:49 AM
Oh man, please, no more ultra-expensive, proprietary, poorly-supported interfaces! One thing that compelled me to switch to Mac was its adoption of quality standard interfaces like USB 2.0 and DVI. A return to emphasis on SCSI gives me flashbacks to the silly days of SCSI Zip drives.


15,000 RPM Server Hard Drvies use SCSI.

SCSI is a standard like SATA among servers, no doubt about that here.

avkills
Apr 26, 2006, 01:55 AM
I would not go on dissing SCSI. Ultra320 SCSI RAID arrays are still the fastest hard drive systems you can get today; and FibreChannel is much faster than SATA or SATA II. The eSATA options for the MBP are exciting and cool, but 140 MB/s is really not that impressive. Ultra160 SCSI systems were doing that 3 years ago.

Oh and the comment about Shake not being able to run on a PowerPC iMac is pure ******** in my opinion. It seems to run fine on G5 Towers. Not only that, but nobody is going to run that app on a iMac anyway. Although it is impressive that it runs "good" on the new iMac.

-mark

japasneezemonk
Apr 26, 2006, 02:05 AM
Hate to be a grammar snob, but this sentence is confusing. It sounds like you're saying that processors are now hard drives, not bottlenecks.

Edit to: ...with these high end applications, processors are no longer the bottleneck; instead, hard drives are the bottleneck.

Or something like that.:o


i agree.;)

JFreak
Apr 26, 2006, 02:26 AM
is SCSI still the superior (if more expensive) hard drive interface?

Yes, and the only interface that uses locking connectors -- sometimes that's everything you need (though speed does not hurt either).

Perhaps future Xserves will have SCSI options?

They currently have; install a card if you want to. SCSI vs. SATA does not mean much internally, but external SCSI is way better than external SATA.

i'm not really sure how SCSI and SATA II compare or what the difference is.

SATA I (150) compares to Ultra160 and SATA II (300) compares to Ultra320, but it's not about speed. It's about scalability, and offloading hard drive data processing from CPU to host card. You just still cannot beat SCSI, but I have to admit SATA is very impressive when you only need few internal devices.

Analog Kid
Apr 26, 2006, 02:33 AM
Still not really sure what shake does,
When they film a modern movie, they film it in parts. You have the live actors that were filmed on a set, you have computer generated elements (think Golum), you may have other things you want to add it (like the feather in Forrest Gump) or titles or whatever. Each element is created separately and then Shake combines them into a single video stream.

On top of that there are a lot of filters, effects and simulated lighting changes you can make to the final stream.

Think of it as Photoshop for motion video.

Who needs Firewire 800 when you have dual channel eSata? eSata is SO much faster!

How does a sustained write of 146MB/s on a MBP grab you?

http://www.barefeats.com/hard71.html (A broader comparison of FW vs SATA at Bare Feats)
The problems with SATA or eSATA are that it is a storage only interface, where Firewire is multipurpose, and it is point to point where Firewire is point to multipoint. That makes eSATA much less flexible and, if I were to have a dedicated connector on my laptop, for example, I'd want the more flexible option. Not going to hook up an iSight to an SATA port, for example...

The Barefeats benchmarks are a little misleading-- they're comparing FW400 rather than FW800 (at best a doubling of performance) because this is the hardware in the MBP. They mention that the Apple FW400 implementation has bugs in writing, which partially explain the poor performance on 2 of the 3 benchmarks. Other benchmarks on the site seem to indicate that the PowerMac FW400 implementation has a 50% improvement in write speed. On the read only benchmark, the difference is less than a factor of two making FW800 a reasonable competitor.

The long red bar that looks so impressive and grabs your attention is comparing a dual drive RAID with single drive accesses for the other bars-- so you have another doubling of performance just due to differences in the hardware setup. Two drives means twice the throughput and twice the cache. He doesn't give the cache size, but if it's 8MB or 16MB then doubling that has a pretty big impact on transferring files that are 50-100MB.

In the end, both eSATA and FW800 are limited by hard drive throughput. When there is a need for faster data rates, I think we can expect a FW1600, and then a FW3200. By the same token, SATA speeds will increase when they need to, but I don't think they'll need to any time soon.

Take a look at this:
http://www.barefeats.com/hard70.html (Broader FW vs SATA comparison at Bare Feats)

For storage only needs, eSATA may have a slight advantage, but FW is the better general interface. It's obviously better than USB2 (because FW has a smarter, more efficient protocol). These are the reasons I hope FW doesn't disappear any time soon...

vfxer
Apr 26, 2006, 03:45 AM
Cool... although I don't know too much about the software, nice to have another one going universal.
The possibilities of Intel.
And it looks like a cool software. :D

Shake is a highend Visual effects compositing application. If HD's are the bottle neck well then some is smoking crack. Shakes node trees can grow to anywhere from a few dozen to 1000's of effects all built together in a completly non destructive node tree. Think of it as photoshop on steriods but for moving pictures. CPU IS STILL THE BOTTLENECK. I don't care what that dude says. I use shake EVERY DAY and with I have 200 nodes in a tree it not the HDD's that are the issue.

psionic001
Apr 26, 2006, 04:37 AM
Think of it as Photoshop for motion video.

So if Shake is the PS of motion video, what is FCP analogous to. I thought you could do all of that compositing in FCP. Or is Shake just like FCP with far more controll?

sintaxi
Apr 26, 2006, 05:10 AM
Photoshop is like a stove, no matter what you cook whether it be fry an egg, bake a cake, warm-up soup, cook a turkey, you need the stove for all those things.

Photoshop is use for nearly everything relating to still rasterised graphics. but has no timeline,

Shake I suppose would be the Stove of Video. FCP is the oven. Perfect tool for cookies but not good at cooking spaghetti. After Effects would then have to be the frying pan or microwave. (you can pull nearly anything off with it). Maya must then be the...i dont know...giant pot that you pull out for those really big meals.

Ok Ill stop now. Im getting a bit carried away:p :p :p

Naturally that would make iMovie the toaster:D

Maxiseller
Apr 26, 2006, 05:41 AM
Photoshop is like a stove, no matter what you cook whether it be fry an egg, bake a cake, warm-up soup, cook a turkey, you need the stove for all those things.

Photoshop is use for nearly everything relating to still rasterised graphics. but has no timeline,

Shake I suppose would be the Stove of Video. FCP is the oven. Perfect tool for cookies but not good at cooking spaghetti. After Effects would then have to be the frying pan or microwave. (you can pull nearly anything off with it). Maya must then be the...i dont know...giant pot that you pull out for those really big meals.

Ok Ill stop now. Im getting a bit carried away:p :p :p

Naturally that would make iMovie the toaster:D

I have a headache...;)

Multimedia
Apr 26, 2006, 05:42 AM
The idea that HDs are the new bottleneck is very exciting. That new 150 GB Raptor from WD is looking all the more attractive. :)

bbyrdhouse
Apr 26, 2006, 05:45 AM
Photoshop is like a stove, no matter what you cook whether it be fry an egg, bake a cake, warm-up soup, cook a turkey, you need the stove for all those things.

...,

Shake I suppose would be the Stove of Video. FCP is the oven. Perfect tool for cookies but not good at cooking spaghetti. After Effects would then have to be the frying pan or microwave. (you can pull nearly anything off with it). Maya must then be the...i dont know...giant pot that you pull out for those really big meals.

Ok Ill stop now. Im getting a bit carried away:p :p :p

Naturally that would make iMovie the toaster:D

or the toaster oven rather???

zap2
Apr 26, 2006, 05:53 AM
I use shake EVERY DAY and with I have 200 nodes in a tree it not the HDD's that are the issue.


Are you using an intel Core Duo?

Lurch_Mojoff
Apr 26, 2006, 06:09 AM
What exactly is Shake? 3D graphics generators?
Shake is compositing software - simply put, it is used to combine different frames (be it footage or 3D computer generated stuff) into one (composite) frame (e.g. how special effects are done in movies). The result is the CG Jar Jar looking like he's really on the set with the actors (or something :p ).

Texas04
Apr 26, 2006, 06:10 AM
Okay, Shake Final Cut Studio... is there Final Cut Express anywhere in this loop???

ipacmm
Apr 26, 2006, 06:24 AM
Shake. On an iMac. Now that, is very, very cool.

I agree, I never would have thought I would see Shake running on any home computer.

m-dogg
Apr 26, 2006, 06:35 AM
As far as I know, FW800 requires an extra chip, and there was no room for this in the 15".

I think they just took it away with the first 15" MBP release because they knew they could without stopping them from flying off the shelves.

Now they have an easy little goodie to add back in on a later revision to provide an added benefit on one of those future releases...

Lurch_Mojoff
Apr 26, 2006, 06:42 AM
Oh man, please, no more ultra-expensive, proprietary, poorly-supported interfaces! One thing that compelled me to switch to Mac was its adoption of quality standard interfaces like USB 2.0 and DVI. A return to emphasis on SCSI gives me flashbacks to the silly days of SCSI Zip drives.
SCSI, muzzy, fuzzy, yada, yada, yada...

Although I'm not advocating bringing back SCSI controllers as standard in Apple computers, you have to consider that SCSI has evolved since the days of SCSI Zip drives. Particularly Serial Attached SCSI (SAS). SATA is (probably not literally, but definitely in practice) a "subset" of SAS. This means that you can have a SAS controller connected to SAS or SATA drives, or even to both. So, at least in theory, if there were a SAS controller in the next gen Intel Powermac (or whatever) you would still be able to buy ultra cheap, ginomous in capacity SATA drive and when you have the need or the money you could upgrade (or add) a lightning fast 15k RPM SAS disk. All upside, no downside (well, almost no - SAS controllers may be a bit pricey at the beginning, but it's up for debate how much really). I think doing something like that would be a better way for Apple to spend the money they save from using ultra cheap Intel CPUs and chipsets. Why so? Wouldn't there be third party PCIe SAS RAID controllers? Yeah, sure as hell. But if it is a standard feature of Apple computers, it most likely will work flawlessly and seamlessly in Mac OS X, which may not always be the case with third party hardware.

Having said that, do I think it will happen? No, not really. Not even in Xserve and Xserve RAID. But this doesn't mean it is not the better thing.

sintaxi
Apr 26, 2006, 06:52 AM
or the toaster oven rather???

exacly. :cool:

weitzner
Apr 26, 2006, 08:07 AM
so what apple apps still aren't universal?

Chundles
Apr 26, 2006, 08:19 AM
Um, just guessing so correct me if I'm wrong:

Logic
Logic Express
Final Cut Express
Xsan?
Filemaker?

Things that need to go UB pronto:

Creative Suite
Office:mac (although it runs very well)
Flip4mac
Real Player (or whatever else can play my downloaded Family Guy eps)

kingtj
Apr 26, 2006, 08:23 AM
Personally, all of the CGI and compositing done in today's movies usually just irritates me. I don't know if I'm just overly sensitive to it or what -- but most of the time, it just looks "not quite right" to me. The most recent example I can think of was watching "Chronicles of Narnia". Many, many times throughout the movie, it looked to me like the characters in the foreground were just superimposed on the scenery behind them, rather than it being really believable that they were there.

It's interesting you mention Forrest Gump, because that may be one of the few films that sticks out in my mind as having done all of the CGI "properly". Everything appeared seamless.

Even in the high-dollar Star Wars prequels, I thought the quality of the compositing and CGI was really a "mixed bag". For every amazingly well-done scene (like the CGI Yoda), there were painful-to-watch scenes that looked horribly artificial (like R2D2 and C3PO jumping/running across that moving conveyor belt in Episode 2).


When they film a modern movie, they film it in parts. You have the live actors that were filmed on a set, you have computer generated elements (think Golum), you may have other things you want to add it (like the feather in Forrest Gump) or titles or whatever. Each element is created separately and then Shake combines them into a single video stream.

On top of that there are a lot of filters, effects and simulated lighting changes you can make to the final stream.

Think of it as Photoshop for motion video.

alfismoney
Apr 26, 2006, 08:36 AM
scsi is way too elite for apple to bother integrating it. working professionally with video and shifting around 2 terabytes of data every day across firewire, 1000 base T, and eventually an xServe RAID with fibre, I can say that I really don't miss scsi too much. yes, it is faster that sata. yes, the drives are faster. yes, a properly built scsi system will sometimes run for a lot longer. do 99.999% of users need it? no.

apple did a lot of market research and scrapped firewire 800 from the 15" MacBook Pro because not too many folks really need the speed boost and, gasp, you will soon be able to add it on through the express card slot. i would be surprised to see comprable scsi and sata systems showing a nearly 2x speed boost like firewire 800 gives over firewire 400 (aka if a 7200rpm sata 150 drive is half the speed of a 7200rpm scsi 160 drive in normal daily use). users just don't need to pay more for stuff they won't use.

the very small number of users who need LVD-320 drives are just gonna shell out the bucks and buy pci express controllers and expensive drive bay modules. they need it and are willing to pay for it. the rest of us will keep living in ignorant bliss with sata and be happy that we can pick up 300 gig drives for $80. if it's good enough for the xServe RAID to run as fast as it does, it's good enough for me to use for the forseeable future.

and yay shake for running on intel imacs! can't wait to get me a new 'telbook of some sort, i'm gonna retire my G5 desktop like it's my job. is there anyone who wants a dual 2.3 with 2.5 gigs of ram and an internal soft raid out there?

jelloshotsrule
Apr 26, 2006, 08:38 AM
Personally, all of the CGI and compositing done in today's movies usually just irritates me...

yeah, it's hit and miss. i thought that narnia was pretty solid, though there were parts that stood out. star wars is tricky because it's almost fully cgi, with some live action over it... that said, if ILM can't do it right, then there's not much hope someone else could (maybe WETA?)... it's very hard to do, and it's certainly getting better. the problem is, as it gets better, people use it a lot more in the films and it may not be getting better fast enough to keep up with the increased usage. practical effects still go a very long way.

alfismoney
Apr 26, 2006, 08:44 AM
Even in the high-dollar Star Wars prequels, I thought the quality of the compositing and CGI was really a "mixed bag". For every amazingly well-done scene (like the CGI Yoda), there were painful-to-watch scenes that looked horribly artificial (like R2D2 and C3PO jumping/running across that moving conveyor belt in Episode 2).

technically these scenes weren't really composited in there in the traditional sense, only the actors actually existed. george lucas never built that set (or most of what you saw), the scene you mention was entirely digital. i find it amazing that sky captain managed smoother integration most of the time since it was done on macs with a minimal budget by someone with much less experience.

sartinsauce
Apr 26, 2006, 08:52 AM
Shake. On an iMac. Now that, is very, very cool.


I've been talking up those iMacs since january. I don't know why they aren't being recognized as the pwerful machines they are. Everyone wants to talk about and benchmark the MBP. Well the iMac 2.0Ghz Core Duo has the same the same specs as the MBP 2.0Ghz Core Duo except the iMac has better HDDs and a better video card.

I guess the sheep would be touting it praise if Steve-O had named it the iMac Pro.

Also, I agree with the cat who was talking about Shake node trees getting really large and processor intensive. I can't believe that a really complex composite would only be limited by the HDD. I suspect that in the Apple demo they had a basic roto-mask, Chroma-Keyed, CC, with a little camera data imported from Boujou or Maya. That kind of comp's render speed might be limited by HDD speed and/or throughput.

sartinsauce
Apr 26, 2006, 08:56 AM
... that said, if ILM can't do it right, then there's not much hope someone else could (maybe WETA?)... .


I think your frame of reference is off. That's a very 80s-90s statement. ILM still has a reputation, but they've been getting spanked for the last several years by WETA and DigitalDomain. When I was at DD they used to brag about how their Commercial Digital Effects department put ILM's equivalent department out of business.

milo
Apr 26, 2006, 09:01 AM
Um, just guessing so correct me if I'm wrong:

Logic
Logic Express

Logic Pro and Express were some of the FIRST apps to go universal.

JoshH
Apr 26, 2006, 09:09 AM
I think your frame of reference is off. That's a very 80s-90s statement. ILM still has a reputation, but they've been getting spanked for the last several years by WETA and DigitalDomain. When I was at DD they used to brag about how their Commercial Digital Effects department put ILM's equivalent department out of business.

Good point, and WETA's been of fire in the past few years. ILM still does really good stuff, but they're definitely not the only player anymore.

jholzner
Apr 26, 2006, 09:13 AM
Um, just guessing so correct me if I'm wrong:

Logic
Logic Express
Final Cut Express
Xsan?
Filemaker?

Things that need to go UB pronto:

Creative Suite
Office:mac (although it runs very well)
Flip4mac
Real Player (or whatever else can play my downloaded Family Guy eps)

Logic and Logic Express are already UB. Filemaker, Final Cut Express and Xsan are not as of yet but on Apple's site it says the next feature release of Final Cut Express will be UB.

Chundles
Apr 26, 2006, 09:28 AM
Logic Pro and Express were some of the FIRST apps to go universal.

Thanks milo, now I know. And knowing is half the battle...:D

So there's really not much left is there. Good to know.

Rocketman
Apr 26, 2006, 09:56 AM
I agree completely. From everything I have read SATA is still much faster then the actual drives using it. I think the best thing you could do now is a raid 0 striped array with WD raptor HDs. I may be wrong though.

Some day flash based storage, or MRAM could be used but that is a long ways off.


Here's a discussion of solid atate drives and it also suggests CPU limits are the main dividing line. If Apple is right the CPU and bus are now fast enough to outstrip magnetic platter drives, this may be a viable solution, particularly for applications and swap files.

http://www.dbazine.com/oracle/or-articles/ault6

Exerpt: "In fact, to run the entire series of 22 SQL statements on the ATA array took several days for each run. That is correct: one run of the test SQL on the ATA array took longer than all seven runs on the SSD array. "

I do state I used a Mac+ in ramdrive mode to extend its useful life by over 2 years. It works.

Rocketman

nuckinfutz
Apr 26, 2006, 11:52 AM
It cracks me up when people say that they don't like CGI or compositing.


The parts you notice are like maybe %20 of all the effects shots. The other %80 are done so well you don't notice. Like those clouds in the background or the hundreds of people that really are 20 in front of bluescreen.

Most CGI is undetectable it's the obvious stuff that stands out but CGI is very powerful and most of it is transparent.

milo
Apr 26, 2006, 12:06 PM
Most CGI is undetectable it's the obvious stuff that stands out but CGI is very powerful and most of it is transparent.

My favorite is when people complain that the bacground of a certain shot looks "too CGI"...and it turns out to be a model.

sartinsauce
Apr 26, 2006, 12:08 PM
My favorite is when people complain that the bacground of a certain shot looks "too CGI"...and it turns out to be a model.


Or when someone claims and exterior establishing is too digital, and it is in fact 2nd Unit Footage of a real place.

jelloshotsrule
Apr 26, 2006, 12:09 PM
I think your frame of reference is off. That's a very 80s-90s statement. ILM still has a reputation, but they've been getting spanked for the last several years by WETA and DigitalDomain. When I was at DD they used to brag about how their Commercial Digital Effects department put ILM's equivalent department out of business.

oh, no i totally agree. but ilm still has a lot of resources. clearly they haven't used them to get the most talent, but they're certainly still up there. i shouldn't have put a question mark about weta matching/surpassing ilm.. admittedly

gnasher729
Apr 26, 2006, 12:26 PM
It could also shed some light on the future of Firewire 800 in Apple's new machines. Was it serendipity or did Apple know something about hard drive speeds being the source of potential bottlenecks that gave them the foresight to keep it in the 17" MBP when it was eliminated from the 15"?

That was all a matter of space. Firewire 800 is not standard in Intel motherboards, so adding it costs a bit of space. Apparently the 17" MBP has just a little bit more space available to fit the additional hardware. It also has space for a slightly thicker DVD drive than the 15" MBP (because on the 15" the DVD drive is partially under the mousepad), which is probably cheaper.

boncellis
Apr 26, 2006, 12:35 PM
As far as I know, FW800 requires an extra chip, and there was no room for this in the 15".

That's what I have heard as well, but it might have been a strategic decision by Apple. I have read about a lot of video professionals using the 17" Powerbook and now the new MBP with them for editing on location. Maybe Apple figured the 17" was going to win out with that crowd over the 15", I don't know.

Obviously Firewire 800 doesn't compare with eSATA, but my reference was to mobile computing--not professional workstations at the office or studio.

freeny
Apr 26, 2006, 12:40 PM
Shake is compositing software - simply put, it is used to combine different frames (be it footage or 3D computer generated stuff) into one (composite) frame (e.g. how special effects are done in movies). The result is the CG Jar Jar looking like he's really on the set with the actors (or something :p ).
Correct.

Analog Kid
Apr 26, 2006, 01:42 PM
All upside, no downside (well, almost no - SAS controllers may be a bit pricey at the beginning, but it's up for debate how much really). I think doing something like that would be a better way for Apple to spend the money they save from using ultra cheap Intel CPUs and chipsets.
There is nothing cheap about Intel CPUs...

blueimac'00
Apr 26, 2006, 02:51 PM
What's shake?
Nevermind, sorry.

vfxer
Apr 26, 2006, 03:52 PM
Are you using an intel Core Duo?

Quad g5 with 4 gigs of ram and a Quad G5 with 8 gigs of ram and 10 gigs fibre storage on 2 stirped xraids wtih Quadro 4500 with JB cooper controlers running mainly as a final touch workstation. Shake is probably one of the few apps that truely handles the quad. The G5 is a much better horsepower CPU then the core's. You can see this by the test that have been done showing that the core duo is not even 2x the speed of a single g5 imac. Look up the benchmarks.

Multimedia
Apr 26, 2006, 06:16 PM
so what apple apps still aren't universal?Here's Apple's page for what IS Universal (http://www.apple.com/universal/applications/). :)

dirteemac2
Apr 26, 2006, 07:17 PM
Shake is basically apple's version of after effects, except not as good, not the industry standard and costs 3x more.

ANIM8R
Apr 26, 2006, 10:04 PM
Shake is basically apple's version of after effects, except not as good, not the industry standard and costs 3x more.

dirteemac2,

The only thing that Shake and AE share is the simple fact that they both are used for compositing in the VFX industry.

The differences between these two apps are enormous. Are you a user of these two applications? That is, enough of a user to support your opinions?

I don't mean to come off as brash, but it's just a fact that:

a) Shake is not Apple's version of AE as Nothing Real created Shake from the ground up as a node based compositing application, never intending to compete directly with Adobe. That is, the purpose of the application was not to be an "AE Killer". It was designed to be a remedy to progressively more complex compositing needs.

b) "not as good" is subjective and presented without any real support. For example, I can say: "Shake is not as good as AE at motion graphic creation because of AE's superiority in text creation and 3D layer manipulation, however AE is not as good as Shake at complex compositing because of Shake's easy node-based design and built in concatenating features for complex color corrections."

c) Shake is an industry standard for high end compositing. Much more the standard for film compositing, along with Nuke and Fusion. AE has been a staple of some film compositing at smaller houses but it, along with Combustion, are more likely to be used on compositing for television as opposed to feature films.

d) You are absolutely correct that AE Pro is $999 compared to Shake's $2,999.

What it all comes down to is that all software has it's strengths and weaknesses, and I couldn't live without either of these two apps in my day to day work. I'm a religious user of both apps. They're both strong in their own rights.

To keep on topic, I welcome the universal version of Shake. I can't wait to see complex Shake scripts running on Intel Mac hardware.

sentinal
Apr 26, 2006, 10:41 PM
blah, blah, blah.

blame the director, not the technology, or even the artists.


Personally, all of the CGI and compositing done in today's movies usually just irritates me. I don't know if I'm just overly sensitive to it or what -- but most of the time, it just looks "not quite right" to me. The most recent example I can think of was watching "Chronicles of Narnia". Many, many times throughout the movie, it looked to me like the characters in the foreground were just superimposed on the scenery behind them, rather than it being really believable that they were there.

It's interesting you mention Forrest Gump, because that may be one of the few films that sticks out in my mind as having done all of the CGI "properly". Everything appeared seamless.

Even in the high-dollar Star Wars prequels, I thought the quality of the compositing and CGI was really a "mixed bag". For every amazingly well-done scene (like the CGI Yoda), there were painful-to-watch scenes that looked horribly artificial (like R2D2 and C3PO jumping/running across that moving conveyor belt in Episode 2).

sentinal
Apr 26, 2006, 10:45 PM
All of those (star wars) shots had extensive compositing.

sky captain looked good because it had good art direction. too bad it was so weak otherwise.

technically these scenes weren't really composited in there in the traditional sense, only the actors actually existed. george lucas never built that set (or most of what you saw), the scene you mention was entirely digital. i find it amazing that sky captain managed smoother integration most of the time since it was done on macs with a minimal budget by someone with much less experience.

sartinsauce
Apr 27, 2006, 08:26 AM
dirteemac2,

The only thing that Shake and AE share is the simple fact that they both are used for compositing in the VFX industry.

The differences between these two apps are enormous. Are you a user of these two applications? That is, enough of a user to support your opinions?

I don't mean to come off as brash, but it's just a fact that:

a) Shake is not Apple's version of AE as Nothing Real created Shake from the ground up as a node based compositing application, never intending to compete directly with Adobe. That is, the purpose of the application was not to be an "AE Killer". It was designed to be a remedy to progressively more complex compositing needs.

b) "not as good" is subjective and presented without any real support. For example, I can say: "Shake is not as good as AE at motion graphic creation because of AE's superiority in text creation and 3D layer manipulation, however AE is not as good as Shake at complex compositing because of Shake's easy node-based design and built in concatenating features for complex color corrections."

c) Shake is an industry standard for high end compositing. Much more the standard for film compositing, along with Nuke and Fusion. AE has been a staple of some film compositing at smaller houses but it, along with Combustion, are more likely to be used on compositing for television as opposed to feature films.

d) You are absolutely correct that AE Pro is $999 compared to Shake's $2,999.

What it all comes down to is that all software has it's strengths and weaknesses, and I couldn't live without either of these two apps in my day to day work. I'm a religious user of both apps. They're both strong in their own rights.

To keep on topic, I welcome the universal version of Shake. I can't wait to see complex Shake scripts running on Intel Mac hardware.


Amen. Preach on brotherman.

What newb thing to say: "Shake is Apple's answer to AE."

Yeah, and the Prelude was Honda's answer to Ferarri's Testarossa.

Both fine machines, built for driving, but built for different markets and different drivers.

jelloshotsrule
Apr 27, 2006, 08:38 AM
Shake is basically apple's version of after effects, except not as good, not the industry standard and costs 3x more.

:rolleyes: clearly you know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

maxxaddict
Apr 27, 2006, 09:18 PM
wait a minute, hold up... apple releasing a high end app like shake without an Intel based Powermac... I know that it will still run on g5 based systems but still... apple rolling out software at the pro level with no intel hardware to back it up is a bit of an odd move in my opinion...

Multimedia
Apr 28, 2006, 04:01 AM
wait a minute, hold up... apple releasing a high end app like shake without an Intel based Powermac... I know that it will still run on g5 based systems but still... apple rolling out software at the pro level with no intel hardware to back it up is a bit of an odd move in my opinion...I think they are trying to make a case for the iMac 2GHz Core Duo and 17" MBP as fast enough for the Pros to run it on. But I'm no expert on Shake at all.

I think when the Quad Woody ships after WWDC that may be a new step up for single Mac Shake users. Irregardless, the new price opens up the market in a very big way. Even if this is the end of Shake, it will be something that Maya beginners-students will want to consider if they haven't bought Maya yet. Will be interesting to see how sales go once the Intel Mac Pros get to market.

maxxaddict
May 9, 2006, 02:21 AM
The pros aren't gonna be running iMacs... sure it shows that the iMac can run it, but that's not how the pros are going to run it. If you are a pro running shake you will have a G5 (or a cluster of G5s) Powermac(s) that you are running it on. Intel has also bumped the release date forward for it's next generation processors. I can see all of this stuff being released at WWDC and apple can watch it's competition "shake" in it's boots.

bogen
Jun 22, 2006, 05:52 PM
i'm still am confused between shake and motion? I think shake its more like computer graphics (CGI) :o :o :confused:


Shake Highend digital compositor for film and video. Mainly film.


http://www.apple.com/shake/


take the tour.

Hope this helps

bogen
Jun 22, 2006, 05:55 PM
Shake is a highend Visual effects compositing application. If HD's are the bottle neck well then some is smoking crack. Shakes node trees can grow to anywhere from a few dozen to 1000's of effects all built together in a completly non destructive node tree. Think of it as photoshop on steriods but for moving pictures. CPU IS STILL THE BOTTLENECK. I don't care what that dude says. I use shake EVERY DAY and with I have 200 nodes in a tree it not the HDD's that are the issue.


I agree but if Apple could get some motion stuff into the new Shake(whatever they call the next version) that would be great.

bogen
Jun 28, 2006, 11:53 AM
Shake is a highend Visual effects compositing application. If HD's are the bottle neck well then some is smoking crack. Shakes node trees can grow to anywhere from a few dozen to 1000's of effects all built together in a completly non destructive node tree. Think of it as photoshop on steriods but for moving pictures. CPU IS STILL THE BOTTLENECK. I don't care what that dude says. I use shake EVERY DAY and with I have 200 nodes in a tree it not the HDD's that are the issue.

Agreed, shake on a really fast raid is fast but not anywhere near realtime. A Defocus at 20 will give a dual G5 a run for is money even if thats the only node you have in the tree.Cacheing has gotten alot better but its still not perfect. I don't even want to talk about undo in shake Command "Z" and prey. All things that I hope apple will address in the next version or this new package that is rumored.

bogen
Jun 28, 2006, 12:28 PM
wait a minute, hold up... apple releasing a high end app like shake without an Intel based Powermac... I know that it will still run on g5 based systems but still... apple rolling out software at the pro level with no intel hardware to back it up is a bit of an odd move in my opinion...


Studios that have shake in there pipeline will not be rolling out shake on itel mac for a very long time. We were just upgraded to tiger 3 months ago. We even bought some quad G5s but have not yet been able to use them, intergrating all of that takes time, we can't just install stuff and go. We need to make sure it works well witht he render farm and every other aspect of the pipeline. We cannot have downtime. its kinda like Windows Vista, Microsoft is releaseing it to enterprise sector first so they can test test test. Same thing when Shake test, test, test.