Thank You for your time...! You should use a compressor on vocals, and a multi band compressor around 170Hz. I was listening through my monitors and voice jumped forward and backward alot, so i thought I should address this. Love your videos.
Would have been nice to show the Nuke Indie license as most of the people getting started (most likely) do not need the full seat for N/NX. It is 500$ / year, something like 45$ a month. Pretty comparable with an AE license. Full seat licenses are more for really big studios, who are likely getting a discount for having so many licenses anyhow.
@pavelvicik5122 Well you would know then that Fusion is used at big studios to some extent. Weta digital used fusion and nuke as a combination on lots of films. Framestore uses Fusion, Muse FX, Atlanta VFX. Alot of bigger VFX studios that outsource to smaller studios they use Fusion to compete the shots and they get sent back to the top end studios lol. Fusion has been used in over 1,000 films in the past 30 years at many different studios and for good reason.
@@ThEOuTdOoRGuRu-JW dude weta didn't use fusion since first avatar. That's almost 15 years ago lol. They used it just for roto/stereo prep. All shots were heavily reliable on nuke. And the stereo conversion was made with ocula in nuke. Never heard that framestore uses fusion.
@bossmediapicture my point is it's used in the VFX industry a lot more than folks think!! It's a juggernaut 😊. When's the last time you used fusion I'm just curious, it's come a long way! Everything i can do in nuke I can do in fusion it's the artist not the software.
@@cazmatismblender is weak in compositing and video editing and Motion graphic even if you can make it happen it take time... since Davinci can do all that in One program... I better learn than than Nuke... unless I want to be really pro compositing but I can get most of the result via Davinci
Can you make a video for Natron. It is an open source alternative for nuke. I would love to have them compared and how much different or lacking Natron is compared to Nuke. Thanks👋
Alfie Vaughan just made this exact video comparing the two a few days ago. What you made feels like an empty attempt to do the same thing just to get clicks.
@@dannybcreative Just seen this reply! Very fair. I did say in mine that I'm a little bias. BUT I've been using Fusion a bit more recently with the intention of making a follow up video with a slightly better informed approach (installing reactor, setting up aces properly... There's a lot of stuff that has been a big improvement!) I'm editing it as we speak. Should be out this week :) Would love to hear your thoughts on it
redo this review after you dabble in fusion 18 for awhile (: fusion 18 is ahead of nuke at this current time and is more powerful then nuke. I find fusions deep pixel composting to be far better then nukes as well as the motion tracking and vector painting rotoscoping. Nuke Studio is $12,000 dollars for a perpetual license and the very base Nuke is 5,000. Fusion 18 studio does 100 percent of what nuke studio can do and its far cheaper $295 to own your own software. Even if you decide to work in VFX fusion is used in tons of studios where learning either one is fine now.
@@EightNineOne Yes it's layer based and they have a roadmap of introducing node based too. It's like 2 in 1 and user can choose their preferred working method. It's definitely not comparable to AE with respect to motion design. But they're primarily focussed on VFX for now. hope they develop them faster in near future! Also AE is not that great for high end vfx.
@@jkartz92 oh cool! I didn’t know they were looking at adding a node graph, might be pretty interesting when that comes around. I had a brief play with it for a couple of days and the rendering/playback was really fast, so could be very compelling later down the line
Comparing it to After Effects in the couple months i've been testing it, Autograph's generator and modifier system allows user to achieve complex animations without the need to dive into code writing expressions. Advanced AE users would eventually find themselves learning to code if they want to achieve more complex motion. The option to code is there in Autograph but not needed, the performance is incredibly fast almost real time, has proper 3D engine and native USD support.
@InspirationTuts Dude, you are not comparing Nuke to Fusion. You are comparing it to the Fusion tab of Resolve. Someone else just did the exact same video last week, and he also compared Nuke to the Fusion tab. Just WTF is going on here? Fusion is a standalone program, and has little to do with the Fusion tab in resolve. This is a very important distinction and you should make it clear in your video. I won't assume for a moment that you are unaware of the fact that there's a program called Fusion, which is also an industry standard VFX package btw. You should urgently release an update to put this right.
I mean, they work the exact same way, just a difference in features. They’re fundamentally the same. I do agree however, fusion standalone is the actual tool to use and way more capable. I don’t think he even mentioned the standalone edition when taking about the versions?
@@EightNineOne They are not fundamentally the same, not even remotely similar. The Fusion tab is an extremely lightweight version of the standalone Fusion. You mostly do titles and simple effects in it. They work the same way all right, but the set of features is night and day. This is a very serious misconception that is apparently shared by a lot of people not just by this channel. There's a detailed comparison on the blackmagic site, please read it before making such a bold statement.
Nuclear physics is known as hard for beginners, but this is not the case if you spend the proper amount of time learning it. That is literally the same for everything, what a nonsensical statement.
I used NUKE for post production for years. NUKE is the most powerful compositing tool. With python, NUKE can be any characters to insert any kind of pipeline. In 2D animation, you can make it like a storyboard tool, a 2D effect generator, or an ink modifier. In motion gaphics, you can create any kind of nodes for motion graphics. In Post Production, NUKE has profectional tools. NUKE is good for users who are good at logic. The most artists can't handle NUKE. AE becomes the first choise. Fusion is the last option to replace NUKE.
Standard in industry does not tell you much about users or capabilities of software. Ultimately Nuke found its place in VFX houses, dedicated to big budget movies and TV shows, similar how Avid , especially with pro tools managed to find its place in the industry. But Avid has become lazy company, failing behind in features in both DAW and NLE space. Yet its still industry standard. lol But that is how it goes in Hollywood. As for Nuke, or rather Foundry, they are still doing a great job of innovating, but its far from some kind of magic bullet for everyone. Certainly it far more expensive than Fusion and less integrated into other software other than for VFX work, making it basically more a matter of which audiance is intended for than feature themselves or capability. You can do 90% of work in Fusion that you would do in Nuke, and some stuff Fusion does better or exclusively. Especially when integrated with Resolve. But industry standards exist for many reasons, some are contracts, some are old habits, some are marketing reasons etc. People would still use Resolve for editing and color grading, but instead of Fusion they might use Nuke, not because they couldn't do it in Fusion, but because of VFX pipelines and training of people on Nuke. Although many who worked with Nuke can easily adopt to Fusion and the other way around, since they are quite similar node based VFX apps. But that is how things work. Why do we have two standards: Imperial vs metric system. Which one is better? Well metric system is better, but Imperial system is still standard in former colonies. Does it make sense? No, but historic reasons and culture etc made is such. So I would not use concept of industry standard as a measure of the app itself. Because its not based on capabilities of the app, but rather various other reasons. And while demand for cutting edge VFX has put more pressure on Nuke than Fusion, I doubt one could not do something in Fusion that one can do in Nuke, although it would require different workflow. And when you are large VFX house used to Nuke, switching to Fusion by itself would cost too much time, resources and workflow chances to be worth it, so Nuke remains indeed, industry standard for the time being.
@@KrunoslavStifter Nah, your argument makes some sense, but its also wrong on other levels. Industry standards become standards because they are economically better in the long run, more practical, or have any other significant advantage over the competition. Nuke is way more performant/faster and it can do a lot of stuff Fusion simply can't do. This is an objective truth, then there are layers of subjective truths beneath it. But the main arguments for Nuke do not only make a big difference for big VFX houses but also for freelancers and even hobbyists. "I doubt one could not do something in Fusion that one can do in Nuke". Deep compositing, a whole 3D environment with implementation of industry renderers, extreme customization via python or whatever else. The list goes on. This argument of switching the tool would cost too much time, resources and workflow is an argument, but it's often used as a distraction from the fact that one tool is actually objectively AND subjectively better. I hear that all the time from Blender users who insist that Blender is as good as other tools, in reality it often simply isn't.
@@SkintSNIPER262 And what does that imply? That they have a practical and tangible advantage over others. These programs don't exist in a vacuum, they are used in an economic environment. Survival of the fittest does apply.
@@RyoMassaki It means that they aren't always picked because they're the best thing ever and triumph over all other software tools. For example, look at post production sound in film. Protools is the industry standard tool. Did it become industry standard because it's the best? Nope. It's because it was at the right place at the right time. You can still use any other DAW software program to sound edit your films.
yes. yes. node bas is all beautufil but what about manipulation... you need the layer modes.... I had to learn fusion in a couple of weeks and I love it.. but I will go back to layer nodes becasue I can manipulate them ..
Not sure what you mean by "manipulate them"? There's not really much you can do with layers you can't do with nodes, it just takes a bit of getting used to :)
@@EightNineOne by manipulate I mean grab your wacom pen and draw on it. use the blur tool and with your pen blur the edges of your objects. details like that.. emember. Fusion is not Photosop competiton. phosotshop is another workflow.. fusion /nuke competes with after effect... people tent to not understand the differences... cheers
@@mae2309 You can do this with masks, you can use shapes, bsplines, beziers and there's a vector paint node too that you can use for masking. It's just a different workflow but very powerful :)
@@EightNineOne I did NOT KNOW THAT.. thank you!. I will play withit.. yes. vectors I use al lthe time inside fusion. did not know aobut the vector pain. thank s
Thank You for your time...!
You should use a compressor on vocals, and a multi band compressor around 170Hz. I was listening through my monitors and voice jumped forward and backward alot, so i thought I should address this.
Love your videos.
Both are better than AE.
Pretty much anything is better than AE
Adobe is suck
Title and thumbnail had me thinking this was a diff subject till I saw the channel name in my sub box
Would have been nice to show the Nuke Indie license as most of the people getting started (most likely) do not need the full seat for N/NX. It is 500$ / year, something like 45$ a month. Pretty comparable with an AE license. Full seat licenses are more for really big studios, who are likely getting a discount for having so many licenses anyhow.
It's simple:
Large scale studios/industry standart - Nuke
Small/indie studios - Fusion
wrong lmao!! Fusion is used at top end VFX studios with large numbers of employees, do you work in the industry?
@@ThEOuTdOoRGuRu-JW Yes, for over 10 years. How about you? Please tell me top vfx studios which using primarily Fusion instead of Nuke.
@pavelvicik5122 Well you would know then that Fusion is used at big studios to some extent. Weta digital used fusion and nuke as a combination on lots of films. Framestore uses Fusion, Muse FX, Atlanta VFX. Alot of bigger VFX studios that outsource to smaller studios they use Fusion to compete the shots and they get sent back to the top end studios lol. Fusion has been used in over 1,000 films in the past 30 years at many different studios and for good reason.
@@ThEOuTdOoRGuRu-JW dude weta didn't use fusion since first avatar. That's almost 15 years ago lol. They used it just for roto/stereo prep. All shots were heavily reliable on nuke. And the stereo conversion was made with ocula in nuke. Never heard that framestore uses fusion.
@bossmediapicture my point is it's used in the VFX industry a lot more than folks think!! It's a juggernaut 😊. When's the last time you used fusion I'm just curious, it's come a long way! Everything i can do in nuke I can do in fusion it's the artist not the software.
Nuke objectively but Fusion is better for me, specifically because of price.
I feel if i want to do some Motion graphic and be able to composite... since blender lack those 2 skills.. It is a good complementary.
Blender can do both, although c4d and nuke do em better
@@cazmatismblender is weak in compositing and video editing and Motion graphic even if you can make it happen it take time... since Davinci can do all that in One program... I better learn than than Nuke... unless I want to be really pro compositing but I can get most of the result via Davinci
@@samduss4193 motion graphics is very debatable (especially with geonodes tools) but you can definitely begin the learning process on blender now
@@samduss4193 What a bs! You have to learn geo- and/or animation nodes! Blender is perfect for motion graphics!
Can you make a video for Natron. It is an open source alternative for nuke. I would love to have them compared and how much different or lacking Natron is compared to Nuke. Thanks👋
Natron is basically dead sadly :(
The biggest difference is Natron doesn't have 3D features. It can handle baisc 2D compositing nicely.
The dev's stopped developing it a while back. It's sad because I genuinely saw some good stuff coming from it
Nuke released an INDIE version for around 450,00 a year...
Alfie Vaughan just made this exact video comparing the two a few days ago. What you made feels like an empty attempt to do the same thing just to get clicks.
I was looking for this comment 😅
@@dannybcreative Just seen this reply! Very fair. I did say in mine that I'm a little bias. BUT I've been using Fusion a bit more recently with the intention of making a follow up video with a slightly better informed approach (installing reactor, setting up aces properly... There's a lot of stuff that has been a big improvement!) I'm editing it as we speak. Should be out this week :) Would love to hear your thoughts on it
all of his "what is better" videos are kind of empty
redo this review after you dabble in fusion 18 for awhile (: fusion 18 is ahead of nuke at this current time and is more powerful then nuke. I find fusions deep pixel composting to be far better then nukes as well as the motion tracking and vector painting rotoscoping. Nuke Studio is $12,000 dollars for a perpetual license and the very base Nuke is 5,000. Fusion 18 studio does 100 percent of what nuke studio can do and its far cheaper $295 to own your own software. Even if you decide to work in VFX fusion is used in tons of studios where learning either one is fine now.
what about the new compositing tool from left angle?
Autograph? It’s layer based and still pretty immature right now, it’s not comparable to after effects.
@@EightNineOne Yes it's layer based and they have a roadmap of introducing node based too. It's like 2 in 1 and user can choose their preferred working method. It's definitely not comparable to AE with respect to motion design. But they're primarily focussed on VFX for now. hope they develop them faster in near future! Also AE is not that great for high end vfx.
@@jkartz92 oh cool! I didn’t know they were looking at adding a node graph, might be pretty interesting when that comes around. I had a brief play with it for a couple of days and the rendering/playback was really fast, so could be very compelling later down the line
Comparing it to After Effects in the couple months i've been testing it, Autograph's generator and modifier system allows user to achieve complex animations without the need to dive into code writing expressions. Advanced AE users would eventually find themselves learning to code if they want to achieve more complex motion. The option to code is there in Autograph but not needed, the performance is incredibly fast almost real time, has proper 3D engine and native USD support.
@@DonTNguyen then VERY compelling for After Effects users, might need to try it again, though I doubt I’d use it for much until it had a node graph
Make a video how on some selected "nuke courses u should watch"
he better should delete his channel lol
Fusion, anything more accessible is fundamentally better
@InspirationTuts Dude, you are not comparing Nuke to Fusion. You are comparing it to the Fusion tab of Resolve. Someone else just did the exact same video last week, and he also compared Nuke to the Fusion tab. Just WTF is going on here? Fusion is a standalone program, and has little to do with the Fusion tab in resolve. This is a very important distinction and you should make it clear in your video. I won't assume for a moment that you are unaware of the fact that there's a program called Fusion, which is also an industry standard VFX package btw. You should urgently release an update to put this right.
Agreed
That's true
I mean, they work the exact same way, just a difference in features. They’re fundamentally the same. I do agree however, fusion standalone is the actual tool to use and way more capable. I don’t think he even mentioned the standalone edition when taking about the versions?
@@EightNineOne They are not fundamentally the same, not even remotely similar. The Fusion tab is an extremely lightweight version of the standalone Fusion. You mostly do titles and simple effects in it. They work the same way all right, but the set of features is night and day. This is a very serious misconception that is apparently shared by a lot of people not just by this channel. There's a detailed comparison on the blackmagic site, please read it before making such a bold statement.
@@metternich05nah - you’re wrong
As the AI progress, there will be a completely different workflow of compositing using controlnet. Even some AI are also utilizing 3d Models.
i think controlNET integration in Nuke and Fusion needs 3-4 years...
8:53 which movie?
Nuclear physics is known as hard for beginners, but this is not the case if you spend the proper amount of time learning it.
That is literally the same for everything, what a nonsensical statement.
You must be joking, right?!
I used NUKE for post production for years. NUKE is the most powerful compositing tool. With python, NUKE can be any characters to insert any kind of pipeline. In 2D animation, you can make it like a storyboard tool, a 2D effect generator, or an ink modifier. In motion gaphics, you can create any kind of nodes for motion graphics. In Post Production, NUKE has profectional tools. NUKE is good for users who are good at logic. The most artists can't handle NUKE. AE becomes the first choise. Fusion is the last option to replace NUKE.
Fusion actually supports both Python and Lua for scripting.
true
Fusion is very powerful moving from nuke to fusion . Fusion does it faster in workflow
bro is in bubble
Nuke is more like an Industry Standard software 🤷♂
Standard in industry does not tell you much about users or capabilities of software. Ultimately Nuke found its place in VFX houses, dedicated to big budget movies and TV shows, similar how Avid , especially with pro tools managed to find its place in the industry. But Avid has become lazy company, failing behind in features in both DAW and NLE space. Yet its still industry standard. lol But that is how it goes in Hollywood. As for Nuke, or rather Foundry, they are still doing a great job of innovating, but its far from some kind of magic bullet for everyone. Certainly it far more expensive than Fusion and less integrated into other software other than for VFX work, making it basically more a matter of which audiance is intended for than feature themselves or capability. You can do 90% of work in Fusion that you would do in Nuke, and some stuff Fusion does better or exclusively. Especially when integrated with Resolve. But industry standards exist for many reasons, some are contracts, some are old habits, some are marketing reasons etc. People would still use Resolve for editing and color grading, but instead of Fusion they might use Nuke, not because they couldn't do it in Fusion, but because of VFX pipelines and training of people on Nuke. Although many who worked with Nuke can easily adopt to Fusion and the other way around, since they are quite similar node based VFX apps. But that is how things work. Why do we have two standards: Imperial vs metric system. Which one is better? Well metric system is better, but Imperial system is still standard in former colonies. Does it make sense? No, but historic reasons and culture etc made is such. So I would not use concept of industry standard as a measure of the app itself. Because its not based on capabilities of the app, but rather various other reasons. And while demand for cutting edge VFX has put more pressure on Nuke than Fusion, I doubt one could not do something in Fusion that one can do in Nuke, although it would require different workflow. And when you are large VFX house used to Nuke, switching to Fusion by itself would cost too much time, resources and workflow chances to be worth it, so Nuke remains indeed, industry standard for the time being.
@@KrunoslavStifter Nah, your argument makes some sense, but its also wrong on other levels. Industry standards become standards because they are economically better in the long run, more practical, or have any other significant advantage over the competition.
Nuke is way more performant/faster and it can do a lot of stuff Fusion simply can't do.
This is an objective truth, then there are layers of subjective truths beneath it.
But the main arguments for Nuke do not only make a big difference for big VFX houses but also for freelancers and even hobbyists.
"I doubt one could not do something in Fusion that one can do in Nuke".
Deep compositing, a whole 3D environment with implementation of industry renderers, extreme customization via python or whatever else. The list goes on.
This argument of switching the tool would cost too much time, resources and workflow is an argument, but it's often used as a distraction from the fact that one tool is actually objectively AND subjectively better.
I hear that all the time from Blender users who insist that Blender is as good as other tools, in reality it often simply isn't.
@@RyoMassaki Not true in the slightest. Most programs become industry standard because they were at the right place at the right time.
@@SkintSNIPER262 And what does that imply?
That they have a practical and tangible advantage over others.
These programs don't exist in a vacuum, they are used in an economic environment.
Survival of the fittest does apply.
@@RyoMassaki It means that they aren't always picked because they're the best thing ever and triumph over all other software tools. For example, look at post production sound in film. Protools is the industry standard tool. Did it become industry standard because it's the best? Nope. It's because it was at the right place at the right time. You can still use any other DAW software program to sound edit your films.
Nuke is definitely better.
nuke user here
Emperor of China here...
I do my color correction in fusion using ACES the color ocio is so nice as well as workign with 32bit exr's ....
yes. yes. node bas is all beautufil but what about manipulation... you need the layer modes.... I had to learn fusion in a couple of weeks and I love it.. but I will go back to layer nodes becasue I can manipulate them ..
Not sure what you mean by "manipulate them"? There's not really much you can do with layers you can't do with nodes, it just takes a bit of getting used to :)
@@EightNineOne by manipulate I mean grab your wacom pen and draw on it. use the blur tool and with your pen blur the edges of your objects. details like that..
emember. Fusion is not Photosop competiton. phosotshop is another workflow.. fusion /nuke competes with after effect... people tent to not understand the differences...
cheers
@@mae2309 You can do this with masks, you can use shapes, bsplines, beziers and there's a vector paint node too that you can use for masking. It's just a different workflow but very powerful :)
@@EightNineOne I did NOT KNOW THAT.. thank you!. I will play withit.. yes. vectors I use al lthe time inside fusion. did not know aobut the vector pain. thank s
Take note that in Fusion, you can also 'manipulate' your node like layers when you click on the 'keyframes' tab.