Universal Shake Shipping in May

[sartinsauce]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

 

[Rocketman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ).

Correct.

 

[Analog Kid]

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]

What's shake?
Nevermind, sorry.

 

[vfxer]

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]

What IS Universal

so what apple apps still aren't universal?

Here's Apple's page for what IS Universal.

 

[dirteemac2]

Shake is basically apple's version of after effects, except not as good, not the industry standard and costs 3x more.

 

[ANIM8R]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Shake is basically apple's version of after effects, except not as good, not the industry standard and costs 3x more.

clearly you know what you are talking about.

 

[maxxaddict]

Shake without an Intel Powermac...

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]

Core Duo 17" MBP Is Fast Enough For Universal Shake

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.