Sunday
Feb242008
Nuke 5.0 Released
Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 1:13PM Now featuring: Good taste.
What was once the fugliest compositing app on the planet is now a joy to behold.
There are other fancy new features too, and the same speed and power that set Nuke apart from the moment it was released. But the new UI should provide a nice, smooth on-ramp for Shake users interested in giving it a go.
EDIT: Heh, no wonder I like it so much, you can't tell where this screenshot stops and my blog layout starts!
Reader Comments (11)
Heh. You got that right, Stu. We've been ramping up on Nuke for our next project at CafeFX, and the timing of this new release couldn't be better. We're used to the "pretty" Fusion interface, so this will make the transition that much easier... Now if we could just find a faster way of doing lens distortion... :-)
I put a lot of weight on good UI design. If I have to stare at the damn program for 12hrs a day for pretty much years at a time, why shouldn't I demand that it be pleasing? OSX gets a lot of flack for being "pretty", but those who use it know that it is not just superficially pretty- it is well laid out and quickly navigable.
I think what most of the users of this type of software don't realize is how big a psychological impact bad UI design has, especially as reflected in working speed. It is not about being pretty, it is about putting the controls used most in the best place, and making them visually easy to find and use. How many times have you hunted through one of Maya's labyrinthine, poorly named menu hierarchies to find the tool you need, cursing under your breath the whole time?
So that is my long-winded way of saying "about time" to Nuke's visual overhaul. With Shake officially dead (where is Apple's iComposite!?!), Combustion never really making it out of the roto/paint department, Fusion and flame/flint/inferno foundering under the weight of their per-seat cost, Toxik hovering at the level of vaporware (I love it, I want it to be good, I want everyone to use it... I am willing to accept it won't be happening anytime soon if not ever)... it may just be time for Nuke to take over and become the new crowned king of comping. Might be time to get familiar with the little bugger.
"Fusion and flame/flint/inferno foundering under the weight of their per-seat cost"
Hmm...putting Fusion and FFI in the same category doesn't really do it justice does it now? I don't think anything FFI is available for under 10K(correct me if I'm wrong)
So as for Nuke vs Fusion:
Nuke is $3500+$1000 subscription =$4500 for the 1st year of ownership and $5500 after two years.
Fusion is $4995+$395 subscription=$5390 for the 1st year of ownership and $5785 after two years. In the span of three years Fusion is actually cheaper.
Oh I agree that fusion is WAAAAY cheaper that F/F/I, but its $5k price tag has kept it out of a lot of smaller houses, and the bigger houses tend to lean towards whatever the best artists use, which traditionally has been discreet software, but saw a definite run for its money from Shake at the end there (before Apple EOL'd it).
I would love to hear more from people with experience with both Nuke and Fusion.
It seems Nuke is the more popular one, but I haven't really figured out why. At first glance Fusion would come out favorably in my opinion, but I am too careful to spend my $5000 just on a good feel and a lot of features...
Can anyone elaborate on this?
It's the 1K USD per year that is going to keep me away.
I wonder if you can do group buys of Fusion to get the initial cost per seat down. Fusion also has a 64bit version for subscribers.
Joseph, there does appear to be a multi-seat discount in place.
This is from the Eyeon website:
Fusion 5 (Multi-Seat Discounts Apply) $4,995.00
2 to 4 Seats (each) $4,495.00
5 to 9 Seats (each) $3,995.00
10 to 19 Seats (each) + 10 Free Render Nodes $3,495.00
20 or more Seats (each) + 20 Free Render Nodes $2,995.00
Stu, I've heard you talk about Fusion and Nuke in an FXguide podcast in may 2007, stating that Fusion wasn't really what you hoped it would be, and Nuke is more promising.
Can you talk about that in more detail, what you think the pros and cons of both compositors are?
What stuff happens when you try to make a 100-nodes comp in Fusion?
Why is a scanline renderer better than a normal one?
Stuff like that...
Hi Sander,you almost sound as if you've got shares in Eyeon ;)
It is a nice comper to work with and from my pov deserves to be used at more facilities.
I think the x64 version is still in beta but i'm not sure about that one..
Although I never actually used it Nuke looks really good too nowadays.
Hi Bart,
Hehe...no, no shares in Fusion. It's just that I've been using it since 1998 now (check out my receding hairline :p)and I've always enjoyed working with it.
I admit that I like the way Nuke looks and for someone making up their minds what to use, I'd say try them both and see what suits your workflow best. That's the only real way to judge these packages.
For me personally the whole concept of channels is very unclear and counterintuitive. I've always enjoyed node based compositors, because I can 'read' a comp, without much hidden stuff like AE or Combustion have. And having 1023 images hidden inside a node doesn't help me keep an overview of what I'm doing. But like I said: that's a personal preference.
It's just that I like to keep discussions like these as objective as possible. So when Andy was saying Fusion was more expensive, all I wanted to do was to keep everything straight.
Of course I have a strong affinity for Fusion, but shares...nope.
There is no need to worry about channels in Nuke. You have them in Fusion too i think, R/G/B/A/Z and i think you have some motion vectors channels too. In Nuke you can have much more channels, but only if you wish, and only if it suits you (When comping 3D it might be useful). New UI of Nuke is very nice and pretty much configurable. I think its well balanced for both worlds - Nuke hardcore, and new exShake or Fusion customers.