Jump to content
Rendercore Lab


Cafe Oldtimer
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cutman last won the day on November 20

Cutman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

158 Good

Profile Information

  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • C4D Ver
    18.057 Studio
  • Location
  • Interests
    Stamp collecting and train spotting. But not necessarily in that order.
  1. New macbook

    Apple's investment in their Core APIs which are highly multithreaded and utilise Metal for compute really make relatively modest hardware outperform much higher end kit. My 2015 iMac running FCPX would run rings around the much more powerful PC we have running Premiere Pro especially for realtime playback of media and export. But the really big advantage that FCPX gives the editor is the media management and the ability to deal with hours of rushes. On a 2-3 day shoot I may bring back 15-20 hours of footage for something as short as a 5 minute promo even more for a 10 minute brand film. Gone are the days where shooting ratios are in the single digits and I dread to think how I'd cope digesting all that footage and making sure I had got all the best most relevant clips into the production with Avid. With FCPX it's a breeze to find the proverbial needle in the haystack which frees you up to just concentrate on the creative side of editing. If you're interested here's one of the few film editors who uses FCPX talking about its strengths. It's an interesting talk about editing a film even if you aren't the slightest bit interested in FCPX.
  2. New macbook

    FCPX has over 2 million users and it's used in places that other NLEs have never been able to penetrate i.e in corporate communications where media creation has become a role performed by non techy people. FCPX is by far the most high performance and best editing experience of any NLE and the fact it is shunned by Film and TV is a reflection of those backward industries not FCPX. FCPX is a shining light at Apple, it's what the old Jobsian Apple was good at, thinking radically different and having the balls to buck the trend. I don't think FCPX would be released under this new management they're more like accountants than risk takers and original thinkers. FCPX is the only thing that will keep me buying at least one Apple computer....but not an iMac Pro!
  3. New macbook

    I/we use iMacs for editing with FCPX and they are fantastic, there's nothing that comes close to the performance that Apple gets out of their own APIs. I can edit UHD XAVC-I from our Sony cameras like it's HD. FCPX only starts dropping frames with the 5th stream of UHD which is more than I'd ever use in a normal production anyway 3 streams of UHD is typical from a crossfade and an overlay. So a 2015 iMac is already more powerful than I need for 4k editing so I don't see editors rushing to buy this iMac Pro. In fact, I struggle to find a user group that this iMac Pro is aimed at. I don't think 3D artists are going to be drawn towards this machine for the reasons stated in previous posts, photoshop and illustrator can easily be done on a standard iMac. Subsequent iMacs will soon match the iMac Pro in a year unless Apple decides to cripple them. So what is the target market for the iMac Pro? Apple are making a big deal about it having Xeon processors which is quite hilarious because it's the QuickSync features on i7 CPUs that accelerates h264 editing and provides such a performance boost which is lacking on Xeons. Most midrange Professional cameras record to a flavour of h264 so this could be fun to watch the rollout of the iMac Pro in NLE circles. So who's left? Anyone wanting a highly multicore CPU would surely prefer a workstation and the ability to upgrade the GPU over the life of the product. So I can't think of any group that would say, yep, that iMac Pro is exactly what I want.
  4. New macbook

    If you are using cracked software you should be ashamed of yourself. There's simply no excuse with amazing free software like Blender and cheap alternatives to AE and PS. Frankly, I hope you get some malware.
  5. New macbook

    That's a good point Windows is light years behind MacOS for audio you take for granted how well midi is covered in MacOS. --- On the Hackintosh front, I personally, would steer well clear for professional use. I know there are examples online where people have seemingly got a great deal on hardware, they have MacOS running and there appears to be a match made in heaven. However, if you search through the forums of OSX86 and Netkas etc you find that the overwhelming experience is of an extremely subpar MacOS experience fraught with audio issues and niggling incompatibilities. For a computer you're using for generating income it's surely better to have a reliable and supported Windows experience than a poor MacOS experience. There's always the worry Apple could clamp down on Hackintoshes and render a lot of your operating system useless with a silently pushed update. I cannot wait to see just how ridiculous the pricing of the iMac Pro is when it is released later this year (if it arrives that is...). $5k for the base model is already in stupid territory when you can build a Threadripper based system with dual 1080Tis for much less and be set for CPU and GPU rendering for the next couple of years. I know a few friends in the business have been holding on to their upgraded 2010 Mac Pros to see if Apple will come through for them but come mid December I expect a few calls asking for the details of the PC I have... I do understand why they held out for so long, so did I but the release of Ryzen and Threadripper completely changed the landscape and made the PC a no brainer. Noise is another consideration, our PC is all water cooled and sits there quietly and only gets slightly louder when on full load for an extended period, it is in fact much quieter than the iMac on my desk when it is on full load. I dread to think how loud that iMac Pro is going to be with a much higher TDW CPU and GPU it could be unusably noisy in a quiet office like mine.
  6. New macbook

    I have a studio full of Macs, from Mac Pros, iMacs and MBPs but I recently bought a PC solely for 3D work and wouldn't recommend anything else. Most of my Mac software is cross platform works exactly the same on the PC so it's a doddle get up and running. While I prefer MacOS to Windows 10 I absolutely prefer the PC hardware for 3D work over any Apple hardware, the bang for buck and shear choice of components heavily favour the PC and that make for sense to me from a business point of view. To Microsoft's credit Windows 10 is a pleasant experience now and it's just not the deal breaker it used to be. I thought I was going to hate it but I don't. There are plenty of Windows laptops with fantastic styling and specifications at price that will leave you extra cash for eGPUs that will be important when you discover Redshift. Once you discover Redshift you'll be kicking yourself you didn't get a PC laptop with a decent nVidia GPU in it and eGPU. You are wasting your time and money running Arnold on a laptop especially a Mac laptop. I wouldn't do rendering on a MacBook Pro or an iMac I just don't think the cooling is up to dealing with extended periods of full CPU load. I must admit I've become a bit disenchanted with Apple, the Pro level computers are a joke and now ridiculously priced and there's no Mac Pro worth buying. I'll certainly be replacing all our Macs with PCs when they come to their EOL and if someone had said that to me a couple of years ago I would've said they were mad. When I go to a coffee shop every Tom, Dick and twat has a MacBook so I think whipping out a decent PC laptop would be a statement of rebellion against the sheep mentality.
  7. Leaving C4D-Land.

    Here's one workflow tip that could be the gateway drug into Houdini for those who haven't yet dipped their toes in the Houdini water. If you've got a C4D scene that is making your viewport crawl and you want to check animation timings bake the scene out as an Alembic and use Houdini Apprentice as your 3D flip book. This is better than rendering preview animations as once the Alembic scene is imported into Houdini can be viewed in full 3d and view in RT at the project frame rate. If you qualify for Houdini Indie then you've got the added benefit of being able to export an Alembic back into C4D if you've altered it. Also Houdini has an excellent OpenGL renderer so while there you can spit out client test renders in OpenGL without all the scene object cluttering the render. Redshift users can make use of rsProxy files to send textured objects from one application to the other. Houdini Indie does not allow export of full scene Proxies but you can send a full scene proxy from C4D to Indie. Saving your XP Cache in Houdini bgeo format means you can access you XP particle simulation in Houdini and as an added bonus all data you've applied to particles such as age, colour and mass etc are available in Houdini. Houdini handles massive particle simulations with ease so if you've got an XP simulation chugging in C4D cache it out as bgeo and view it in real time in Houdini. Currently my XP knowledge vastly outweighs my Houdini particle knowledge so I'm trying to crack the problem of XP's lack of dynamic particle trails with a combination of exporting XP particles over to Houdini then seeing if I can attach dynamic trails to the particles that will interact with other scene geometry. I think this is a good example of using the strengths of each package to get a big win, now I just need to work out how to do it. You may not want to ditch C4D from your workflow like me but Houdini Indie for $200 is a Swiss Army knife for any workflow hobbyist or professional. Start small then move up to using Houdini for things that it's traditionally strong at as Dynamics, fluids and particles then send them back to C4D and have a symbiotic relationship between the applications. With both applications open on different desktops it's like having a 3D über application open. Houdini Indie for the price of a plugin you've got one heck of a workflow accelerator and god level dynamics system at your disposal. Even if you only use Houdini Apprentice as a 3d flip book it's worth it.
  8. Leaving C4D-Land.

    Bob, the only advice I'd give is to look into the production of digital assets. Once you've created a deformer or spline wrapper make it an asset for reuse down the line. This seems to be the big thing in Houdini not only to work procedurally but to build your own reusable tools. Right, that's it from me, I don't want to be THAT person who has moved to a different application and spends the next few years brow beating people who use the previous application. It gets old quickly. So cheers everyone and see you around maybe over on the sidefx forums if you happen to be in the area. Good luck with R20.
  9. Leaving C4D-Land.

    That's like saying you need to be a python or c++ programmer and create plugins for C4D to use all its power it's true but most users never go that far. Even being a beginner level in Houdini you can get by with the shelf tools, a handful of expressions and understanding VOPs which I like to think of as Houdini's Xpresso and a good idea of how all of the xOPs relate to each other. The Houdini learning curve is only formidable if you think you have to understand it all, I made real progress when I reconciled the fact I'll probably never understand more than 20% of Houdini but that 20% would give me the tools to do what I want without the limitations C4D imposes. I just concentrated on the areas that interested me such as the ability to generatively modify geometry and pass attributes around the system. I am by no means an expert or even an intermediate level Houdini user I'm just happy in my own little bubble and the more I learn the bigger the bubble gets. I'm sure if someone were to test me by asking me how to do something outside my bubble I'd come unstuck very quickly. If Houdini were a spoken language I'd be that British tourist you see with an English to French dictionary open spouting bad french grammar with the odd English word spoken loudly in French accent trying to hail a cab somewhere. After a bit of faffing around I get to where I need to be and when I get there it feels like an achievement.
  10. Leaving C4D-Land.

    I was wrong about the Indie licensing terms being too low to be useful as SideFX has clarified the terms and they are now extremely generous. As a freelancer you need to be earning < $100k and you can use Indie as long as you only deliver baked assets i.e. renders to your client. You're not allowed to supply digital assets as that makes you a partner. There used to be a clause that the company you're working for couldn't be earning more than $100k but they've clarified this point. https://www.sidefx.com/faq/houdini-indie-faq/ This means you'd have to be a fairly top end freelancer not to meet the Indie terms at least in the UK. I've never met any Mograph artist earning $100k in the UK even when the exchange rate was better! Maybe Houdini artists are paid even more as a rule? So I think Houdini Indie would be the C4D plugin to end all plugins as you can export a heck of a lot of assets from Houdini into C4D while gently breaking yourself into the workflow and overtime maybe doing more and more in Houdini but always having the fallback of C4D. I don't intent to upgrade C4D beyond R19 but it's always going to be there for some simple logo work or suchlike. $200/yr for Houdini Indie is staggeringly good value for freelancers given the usage clarification and I don't see the 1080p animation frame size as any sort of limitation at all. @ZmotiveHoudini Indie + Redshift is only $450/yr maintenance makes those Autodesk scamscriptions look utterly crazy and the MAXON MSA doesn't look too clever either!
  11. Leaving C4D-Land.

    I knew about Mesh Fusion but I did not know about the procedural modelling in Modo. Houdini like! Seriously though, this sort of thing feeds into procedural animation very easily. It beggars belief that MAXON hasn't responded with at least a Mesh Fusion clone by now as there's a huge craving for such a tool by C4D users. Someone released a 'new' boole tool plugin and twitter went crazy for a few moments until they realised it was just a repackaging of MAXON's boole. While MAXON seems intent on improving C4D at glacial speeds other packages are improving at a greater pace and making very strong arguments. You got tired of waiting @3DKiwi and I most certainly have and it remains to be seen how many others can be bothered to wait for progress and what that progress ends up being. Cheers
  12. Leaving C4D-Land.

    I was actually just about to buy XSI when Autodesk decided to kill it off. XSI had excellent object handling and decent caching tools and it's a great shame it's no longer around as I think it had the right balance for most mograph people, ICE was ridiculously well optimised and a benchmark. I bought modo 701, it's the biggest waste of £1000 it was so buggy it was unusable and it's object handling was even worse than C4D especially with deforming geometry. I don't know what it's like now. So, from C4D the only choice left was Houdini as I didn't really want to go the Maya route. I could learn Houdini for $200/yr well free if I wanted to but I wanted to render my tests without limitations so Indie made sense. Once Redshift works with Houdini 16.5 I'll be all set but there's currently a show stopping bug on the windows side. It'll be interesting to see how SideFX develop Houdini especially if more and more Mograph people start using it and who knows we may see a Mograph Shelf with some very familiar tools arrive in time.
  13. Leaving C4D-Land.

    If you're going to beat a dead horse I'm going to flog it. Nobody does a google search and decides which 3D DCC to invest in that way, they watch MAXON SIGGRAPH events with lightweight scenes and get sucked in with the wiz bang cloners and effectors or XParticles and then realise much later that oh boy does the object handling suck in C4D or what? I'm really struggling with an extremely simple setup and I'm running into everything that is bad about C4D bad object handling and no decent caching. Even keeping the meshes as low poly as possible and doing the final tessellation on the GPU to speed up the viewport, I've cached an xpSkinner, I nitrobaked another dense mesh and the viewport is like wading through treacle. When I pause the playhead all the clones I've got being skinned by a metaball miraculously change position but only when the playhead is paused!!! I've had to resort to exporting all the meshes out as Alembics just to get some viewport performance back to an amazing 2.1 fps, that's two point one fps! This is NOT 'ease of use' it's completely a waste of my time and effort because C4D simply cannot cope with a decent amount of moving geometry even if it is cached or saved out as an Alembic. There's no decent central caching system to enable the user to see the timeline played back at full speed to check timings so you're forced to render playblasts time after time. I have an 8 core with 2x1080TIs which should eat this scene for breakfast but if feels like this is the lowest spec PC on earth. MAXON should be ashamed of this performance and they should've fixed this years ago.
  14. Leaving C4D-Land.

    For the hobbyist or student Blender, Houdini Indie + Redshift and ZB or 3DC would be the absolute no brainer. C4D's ease of use is much over hyped, yes it's great when you first start using the package and it's easy to get started but once you become an advanced users holes appear. I'm working on what is likely my last C4D project and it's an absolute pain dealing with such a sluggish viewport. I have a metaball object that I'm retopologising with a shrink wrapped sphere and the performance is absolutely appalling. When I have more than one of these objects active in the scene the viewport freezes. Where's the 'Ease of Use' now, how far does that actually get you when the architecture can't cope with a very simple set of tasks? The days when running a plain effector through a few tens of clones or a few sweep nurbs forming round a 3d logo constitutes Mograph are over yet this is the era C4D mograph tools are rooted in. If you haven't noticed that Mograph is changing and getting far more sophisticated to meet the demands of a more sophisticated audience then you should spend more time on Vimeo. The hobbyists and students are going to be inspired by the very best of what they see on Vimeo and YT and that's not being made by C4D and those same people faced with a choice of spending $200 or $3600 plus XP+Realflow etc etc to learn where are they going to go? XParticles has flattered C4D for that past few years and has largely prevented a wholesale abandonment of the program but there's only so much Insydium can do on their own when the base of C4D is so atrophied. Can you even believe a plugin developer has had to write their own cloth dynamics system, but that's OK C4D is really easy to use right? Houdini is too far down the road but it would be nice if MAXON at least aspired to get C4D to where XSI was 3 years ago and it might be taken seriously again. Until then watch more and more users steadily leave or even worse not buy into C4D in the first place.
  15. Leaving C4D-Land.

    @luchifer Horses for courses, if you're happy to keep shovelling money in MAXON's direction for decade old C4D technology that's fine by me and absolutely none of my business anyway. You use what suits you and I'll use what suits me. I hope others take a good look at Houdini and get on the bandwagon because it offers unequalled flexibility and features that MAXON will never deliver. Don't worry I won't be posting much as I've just ordered HoudiniFX 16.5 and will be installing it in the morning and I'll be like a kid at Xmas. Wishing you well.