Shake for less
I recently learned Final Cut Pro, Apple’s editing system, which is complicated but incredibly intuitive. That got me anxious to experiment with the other pro film tools. The full Final Cut Pro Studio package is fairly inexpensive, especially with an educational discount.
Unfortunately, Apple’s Shake 4 compositing software costs $2700 or more, which would tend to discourage anyone from picking up a copy just to learn about it.
However, the Apple Pro Training Series book
If you’re a tech-savvy screenwriter looking for a day job in Hollywood, I can’t imagine a much better choice than doing visual effects. Even at the low-end, such as wire removal, I suspect there’s always a need. One $34 course-book won’t teach you all that much, but would let you see if it’s something you enjoy.
And yes, for the record, I realize that I don’t have time to be learning Shake. I haven’t started my 30 days yet.
Articles
November 17th, 2005 at 11:05 am
A few points: Most VFX jobs require 50-60 hours a week. 90hrs isn’t unusual at the end of a production. Not much time for writing. VFX tends to go in cycles of feast or famine. (too much or too little work, even for those doing wire removal) Just like any other film job (writing, cinematograhy, editing, etc) VFX takes an amount of commitment, time and energy. Don’t plan to cover the the tutorials of a software package on a weekend and expect to start work on Monday. There are a number of other compositing software packages available. Shake isn’t the be all/end all of compositors. You can get software such as After Effects for $1000 that does the same thing. Differences are interface, speed and ability to scale to a large number of seats) Each effects house has a few packages, including their own software, to do compositing. It’s best to learn the underlying principals so you can move between packages rather than knowing button pushing on one package.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
John, even with your final comment, how on earth do you find time to even be interested in the huge breadth of things that you are?
For anyone looking into this kind of thing, another package to take a look at is Fusion (from Eyeon : http://www.eyeonline.com )… It’s Windows (and soon Linux) based, so is a viable alternative for those of us who don’t have a Mac. It’s also node-based (unlike After Effects and Combustion) so anything you learn can be easily transferred between any of the major packages.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Previous posters are right, plus, there is a surfeit of entry-level FX artists, so unemployment is high. Lots of students fresh out of film school with FX certificates working for $10/hr.
Combustion is also a popular compositor for desktop work, because it feeds directly into high-end compositors like Flame and Inferno. At some shops, they do the final comps in Flame and Inferno, but all the keying, roto and dusbusting is done for $10/hr on Combustion.
BTW, Shake is also popular in big shops like WETA because it’s scripted, so TDs can open the script of a complex composite and edit it in a text editor to make sweeping changes in the image. They often write programs or scripts to automate the process.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
For the starving artists out there, there is a 30-day Shake trial available without the book purchase:
http://www.apple.com/shake/trial/
November 17th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
The Shake interface is apparently problematic. Shake was bought by Apple in their (fairly succesful I’d say) bid to lock up a big chunk of high end creative work. The interface is unmacly because it was not an Apple app orignally. From what I understand, theres a bit of a dilemma - change the Shake interface so it more closely resembles Apple’s suite (FCP, Motion, Soundtrack etc) and risk pissing off the installed base of Shake users who know it the way it is now, or leave it that way, and piss off any potential new user. So far they’re sticking with the old Shake interface.
Also for compositing, there’s Maya on the mac. They will give you a fully-featured edition to learn on for free.
http://www.alias.com/glb/eng/products-services/product_details.jsp?productId=1900003
Like you, I am trying to use my copious free time to learn this stuff, for the fun of it. And we’ve a baby due in two weeks…ah dreams.
November 17th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
“[A] viable alternative for those of us who don’t have a Mac.”
Because, I mean, where would you possibly get a Mac if you didn’t happen to be born with one in your lap? It’s not like they sell them in computer stores or anything.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
To repeat myself: No trial version is going to be able to teach you enough to become a VFX person. But it will teach you enough to know if it’s something you could enjoy doing for 40-90 hours a week. And better to spend $34 on it than a few thousand.
For some jobs — like wire removal — it may always make monetary sense to ship stuff overseas, which would keep wages down. But I’d argue that a $10/hr VFX job would be more likely to introduce you to the people and skills needed in the film industry than many of the alternatives: temping, Starbucks, or plasma donation.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
And I agree: Shake is not the end-all, be-all by any means. For a lot of stuff, the other programs are better suited, even the (shudder) Windows ones. The more you know about the various options, the less likely you are to try to hammer in screws.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
John’s right. This is an amazing opportunity to check out a program that normally runs for nearly three grand. I purchased the Shake book and downloaded the 30-day trial version awhile back, and although I’m by no means a Shake master now, it was great fun to fool around with something so hands on, especially after a day of writing. Same with Final Cut Pro and its fantastic tutorial book, although you’ll have to spring for the cost of that program to learn it - the tutorial doesn’t include a free trial download.
November 17th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
No problem John, I know what you mean but I have seen people on writing boards post that they’ll just get a job as a DP or editor while they’re working on their script. This is the same as people saying they’ll write a script this weekend. The upside to VFX is it is in the industry and can be very enjoyable. The downside is less time for writing than a ‘regular’ 40 hr week job (true of most hands on film work) and it’ll probably take awhile before you move up to start rubbing elbows with directors/producers enough to make connections.
November 17th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Shake uses an entirely different paradigm than After Effects. In many ways, if you want to really grok compositing you’re better off using Shake and reading Brinkmann’s bible on the topic (Art and Science of Digital Compositing) because Shake’s whole MO is tied very closely to the actual theory of compositing. After Effects, OTH, abstracts the user from the image processing and compositing difficult shots in After Effects is a nightmare. That’s why Shake IS the feature VFX industry’s compositing standard.
… and yes, writing while working in VFX is hard. Why? Cause to survive in VFX you need to be good and you need to be committed to be good. You effectively work two jobs.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:39 am
I never really figured it out - just why do people like apple macs so much? Aside from the fact that they look like toys, have a name that suggests a fruit eating pervert, are expensive and difficult to upgrade, and try to be far too clever and do all the work for you even when you ask them not to…???
Anyway, for video editing I’d highly recommend Adobe Premier Pro - it’s easy to use, very powerful and has the advantage of interfacing very well with Photoshop, Afteraffects and Audition…
November 18th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
k, we rich, clever, fruit-eating pervs like when our toy machines do all our work for us. How else would we have time to learn Shake and post messages on this blog?
November 18th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
I never really figured out why people care what other people use for computing. If what you use suits your needs, who cares what someone else uses?
November 18th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
“[Macs] are expensive and difficult to upgrade…”
They were in 1988. Nowadays, most mid-to-higher end Macs are actually user servicable (like a car… so it’s really up to you if you want to put in your own HD or fan assembly, or have a pro do it). Easy to follow instructions, and as long as you didn’t pour Coke into your vents, fully covered under warranty.
Expensive? No. Not when you put them up against equivalent machines. Compare features, and you’re paying about the same. They’ll even be cheaper when the Intel change-over has gone by. Granted, Mac doesn’t have $200 desktops and laptops like Dell, but they also don’t have the hardware problems like those lower end machines.
I worked at a computer store that sold Macs and PCs (no Dells of course). Our service department was usually filled with PCs, and a small handful of Macs (and of the PCs, 80% at any time were Dells. Those things are garbage if you pay less thatn $1000 for a system).
November 19th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
John –
So the big question is: now that you are becoming the editing maestro, when will you be directing your first feature? And maybe to also answer a question - for a first-time director / A-list writer, do you think you’ll be able to tie your first directing gig into a “one for me, one for them” two-fer studio deal, or does your considerable writing success make you eliglble (for lack of a better word) to step in regarless, like a Kloves or Zaillian?
That is, of course, assuming you want to direct…
November 19th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Er. Um. “Eligible.” Glad that English degree is paying off.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:14 am
I think it’s the need to feel that you have made the right choice. If nobody else uses what you use, then maybe you made the wrong choice in the first place…
On a more practical level, the more people that use a piece of software, the more companies will use it, therefore the will be more jobs….
November 21st, 2005 at 3:52 am
Breaking into Hollywood screenwriting via the VFX door, doesn’t seem very likely. Maybe if you are an expert artist, with the additional talent of being an top-notch writer. But it still be wholly differing skillsets, each needs to be honed, not saying it can’t be done, though it’s certainly the non-Panama canal way round it all.
Final Cut ia quite nice, like Avid and Vegas too and Lightworks making a comeback. Shake seems totally daunting, but thanks for the tip. :)
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:53 am
Off-topic:
What happened to the archives?
November 22nd, 2005 at 7:03 pm
For the record, I “broke into screenwriting,” as Christopher Cutler put it, “through the VFX door.” So, Kudos to John for sharing yet another eminently valuable tip. He’s smart. You should listen.
November 24th, 2005 at 9:25 am
If you want to write for a living, then write. If you want to work on visuals, then do that. And if you’re the renaissance man, shucks, I guess you can do any old thing you fancy doing.
But I just have the overwhelming urge to repeat what others have already said: being good at VFX - or anything worthwile for that matter - takes years. I live in the arse-end of the world, industry-wise, so occasionally there are multi-untalented people making a decent living in the field that is the media-business here. You guys seem to be doing fine in that gravity sink for talent of yours, but do you honestly believe that the guy who’s really a scriptwriter will get picked over the starving graduate with the actual degree? Over there?
P.S. Combustion not node-based? Haven’t actually worked with the thing, but from what I understand, it being node-based is it’s biggest difference with AE.
P.P.S. If you live in the arse-end of the world, then knowing AE helps more than knowing a high-end package. AE is cheap and therefore very common, and if you know Photoshop, the learning curve for AE is probably as far from daunting as possible.
November 24th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Re: Combustion…..
Combustion pretends to be node-based. What it actually has is a nodal representation of the layers that it actually uses internally. The nodes were never designed to be worked with (I’ve tried… it was painful) and you can see the layer workspace getting very messed up when you start changing things in the node view (sorry.. schematic view…. it doesn’t even pretent to call it a node view…)
November 25th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Nice to know that. I’d been wondering whether I should’ve gotten Combustion instead of the AE I ended up shedding my funds for. And hey, AE’s got a node view! Though you can’t actually do anything with it.
November 25th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Correction: project flowchart view. And you can open compositions through it. Whee!
November 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
This may or may not be helpful, but Digital Film Tree in Los Angeles does a lot of good work with Final Cut Pro, and I think they offer classes/training with using it, if you need ‘em.