Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related

Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(36 replies)
  Indespensible MaxScripts, Plugins and 3rd Party Tools
(37 replies)
  The allmighty FREE Resources Thread !
(17 replies)
  spam alert!!!
(4886 replies)
  Maxforums member photo gallery index
(114 replies)
  Maxforums Member Tutorials
(89 replies)
  three cheers to maxforums...
(240 replies)
  101 Things you didnt know in Max...
(198 replies)
  A Face tutorial from MDB101 :D
(95 replies) Members Gallery
(516 replies)
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

Is Nuke slow?
show user profile  Nanne
I've hear only good things about Nuke, what a awesome compositor it is, and I believe so. There are a lot of companies in my home city that starts to adopt it into their workflow. I hope I will have time to learn it soon.

But there is one complaint that I've heard multiple times now, from different studios. "Nuke is so slooow!"

I think they are referring to the scan line rendering of the final comp that is very slow. Do you agree that Nuke can be a bit sluggish?

Meanwhile I've been looking into Autodesk Flame, I've talked to a representative from Autodesk who gave me a live demo, and I've been looking at presentation material on YouTube. They are always, and constantly, pointing out how fast and smooth the real-time feedback of the comp was, with 3D objects, real time game engine shaders (taken from Stingray) and effects rendering on the fly! And it does look really cool and impressive. However the computer that the live demo I was watching had 128GB of RAM a LOT of processors (24 or 32 or something I think) and it used 2x NVIDIA Quadro K5000 cards for GPU accelerated rendering.

Does Nuke also support GPU acceleration? Is it just that the people I've been talking to who thinks Nuke is slow are using it on some sort of "average PC build for 3D artists" and all the Flame demos I've seen are running on "supercomputers"? :)

Kristoffer Helander
  :: Works ::   |  :: Resumé ::   |  :: Contact ::   |  :: CG Blog ::   |  :: Links ::     
read 591 times
6/7/2016 6:17:31 PM (last edit: 6/7/2016 6:17:31 PM)
show user profile  Error404
It really depends on what you're doing in Nuke. Some things can take a good while to calculate, either by the nature of what they are doing, or by how you have things setup, sometimes can make the render times explode.

Nuke can handle a very large a mount of data though, so it's easy to not keep track of how much is actually going on in a comp script. Before you know it you may end up with a ton of calculations.

In general though, I don't usually find Nuke to be slow. Make sure you have plenty of scratch/temp space, on a fast drive. Solid-state drive would probably be best for that. And also for the footage/renders you're pulling from.

I'll put a disclaimer here, that I've not used the latest few versions of Nuke nearly as much as I have in the past with older versions, so I don't know much about the current version. -

read 574 times
6/8/2016 12:26:05 AM (last edit: 6/8/2016 12:28:54 AM)
show user profile  donvella
Im not experienced enough with Nuke to answer your questions directly, Im sure there are others here who can use it reguarly enough to enlighten you on the pitfalls. Im quite interested in a comparison between flame and nuke myself.

From the short time I have been playing with it and reading through manuals etc I found that 'slowness' is usually down to user error, and I found a cheat sheet on some of the errors typically found:

It seems like quite a 'math' software, you need to be paying attention to what you are multiplying, adding, dividing, subtracting etc. Once you have 3 or 4 nodes multiplying each other things can get a bit confusing or Im sure 'slow' as you might be doing things in a strange order (compared to how the software would usually require) and you may end up with artifacts or compiled problems in your plates.

From what I can see of the Flame demo's (and this IS Autodesk we are talking about), I am baffled about how flame works, or to what extent the software handles incorrect user input (basically just overlaying things until they 'look good').

edit; One thing that interests me at the moment is using Nuke for its 'True 3D Environment' - giving me easier access to importing/exporting elements from 3D without a list of plugins etc. I would like to see also how Flame handles this kind of data.

read 570 times
6/8/2016 12:32:54 AM (last edit: 6/8/2016 12:35:08 AM)
show user profile  Nanne
Here is a rather interesting talk from a studio that used to be Flame based, that now are using Nuke (Studio) and Flame together. However it seams that they are in fact using Nuke primarily. But they finishing it of, doing the final online edit, in Flame. Also apparently they find Flame better and faster for (matte)painting and 2D composite, but Nuke better for the 3D composite.

Have a look, it's only 30min or less, well worth it.

Kristoffer Helander
  :: Works ::   |  :: Resumé ::   |  :: Contact ::   |  :: CG Blog ::   |  :: Links ::     
read 551 times
6/8/2016 9:28:05 AM (last edit: 6/8/2016 9:28:05 AM)
show user profile  khamski
Seems like Flame rocks.
And it's expensive.

read 507 times
6/10/2016 8:15:55 PM (last edit: 6/10/2016 8:16:18 PM)
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window