Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leaked Screenshots From Final Cut Pro X and Motion 5?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except Fusion only runs in Linux through Wine, which is crap and slow. So I highly doubt many people are doing that.
Look four lines down and you'll see:
Wine 1.1.43.1 for Linux.
Fusion's interface is programmed in MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes), it's old 1990s tech.
Nuke's is written in Qt, allowing true cross-platform ability.
Huh - interesting. Didn't know there were problems with it though. Still, I threw in Fusion as an alternative. Nuke is the new king.
First I think it is great that Apple continues working on Motion. No word until today. Now what s the price? Another $299?
And for Soundtrack and Color and Compressor ? I expect DVD SP to be gone
And for Soundtrack and Color and Compressor ? I expect DVD SP to be gone
There's nothing wrong with it per-se, it's just old Microsoft tech so they can't port it easily - it would pretty much be a re-write.
Nuke was written by DD with the FLTK GUI toolkit which was cross-platform, and then with Nuke 5 The Foundry moved it to Qt - Which was a fairly big (but not complete) re-write of the interface.
Fusion's technically capable of pretty much every basic thing Nuke 6.2 (Not NukeX) can do (although it hasn't got any decent retiming nodes), and Nuke 6.3 is going to close the gap on Fusion with particles and new Warpers.
Fusion's also not that flexible in VFX pipelines - Nuke's got amazing customisability through python scripting and callbacks - that's why all the big studios have gone for it - as well as the fact it's native to Linux.
Looking good, just upgraded my hackintosh for this. I hope motion comes out soon but I won't hold my breath for it being released alongside FCPX, hopefully not too far off though as I like my motion template integration(and expect this one to be much faster). If motion fast and powerful enough I could be using after effects less and less.
Nuke IS Shake. Short version: Apple bought Shake, lowered the price, made it Mac only and used it's optical flow technology for smoothcam. Then, they wanted to create a new app from it that would have been just as powerful but much more user-friendly.
However, the creator of shake, who still held most of the software patterns, didn't want the app to turn into a prosumer-friendly app. Apple became stuck with a software they could not upgrade and so they killed it. Said guy left with his patent and created... Nuke.
There is no such gamma bug. Adjust your Mac's gamma to 2.2, it must be around 1.8.
No.
Digital Domain created Nuke v1 back in 1994, but was basically just command line tools to run Flame scripts.
Nuke v2 was written in 1996 with a GUI, it was used for Titanic.
Digital Domain created the basis of what Nuke is today (a total re-write - V3) in 2000 and continually developed it until 2005 when they span off D2 software to market it. Then The Foundry took over in 2007.
Until 2005, it was in-house software for DD and hadn't been used anywhere else.
Shake was developed by Sony Imageworks in 1995, but it was completely un-related, completely separate. Nothing Real was founded in 1996 to sell the software.
Last edited:
So what about Soundtrack Pro, probably one of the biggest dogs Apple has ever released? Is it getting a serious update? And if so, will it be available to Logic users (who have it included in the package)? I hope it finally gets to a usable state, and I don't want to have to fork out just to find out if it's worth getting or not.
Hahahahahaha! Haaa-haaa-haaa-haa! Hahahahaha.. oh man! You people kill me!
Final Cut Pro X - $300
Adobe Premiere Pro (With After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash and Audition) w/ an Education Discount (who doesn't know somebody working in education?): $500
Nuke: $4900 for just the NLE software alone! Forget Nuke X which adds camera tracking and Furnace, which is $8000!!!
Are you people out of your mind?
The VAST majority of users out there are going to use Adobe, Apple, or Avid because of the cost, and most small shops do too. Only large Special FX places and production houses are going to use Nuke, and many still will not use Nuke. The rest of the planet that works in this huge indsutry is going to use the lower priced NLE's which interface fine with Maya, tracking software, and color correction tools, even if Nuke is more flexible on the extreme high end.Keep going though with that whole thing about the entire motion graphics, video, and film industry going to Nuke. I need to laugh in this business more.
If you're a business owner and using the edu versions, you might as well save yourself the $500 and pirate it since either way you're breaking the EULA.
I am in education, but you're right, it would be breaking the EULA otherwise.
However, even if I wasn't, it's $1500 for the Production Suite (Adobe Premiere® Pro CS5.5, After Effects® CS5.5, Photoshop® CS5 Extended, Adobe Audition® CS5.5, Flash® Catalyst® CS5.5, Flash Professional CS5.5, Illustrator® CS5, Adobe OnLocation CS5, Encore® CS5, Device Central CS5.5, Bridge CS5, Media Encoder CS5.5) which is a heck of a lot less than $4900 for just an NLE. Plus, you can then upgrade for around $500 whenever you need to after that. It's why the "industry" will likely only have Nuke in high end boutique shops for many years.
I am not in the "industry". Care to back this up with some stats and the "it's so much better too" statement sounds like a personal opinion rather then fact.
Comparing Nuke and Final Cut Pro?
Comparing Nuke and FCP is a little bit of a stretch. The price alone keeps this from being a real comparison. $299 against $4,900.
Comparing Nuke and FCP is a little bit of a stretch. The price alone keeps this from being a real comparison. $299 against $4,900.
This is actually what I meant: Fixing the QuickTime h.264 Gamma Bug
The solution seems to be switching from H.264 to x264. I'm going to try that, however I get the same problem with images when I save them to my Mac and then view them on a PC.
--------
Well I tried it... with all of the equivalent settings (without adjusting the deeper parameters that I don't understand) the results aren't as good using x264 as with H.264. It might solve the gamma issue, but there's no point if it lessens the quality.
Last edited: