Hi Lucas. I didn't mean for my comments to come across as offensive! My apologies if that was the case. I've never played with a scratch system before so I really don't know. It was merely my impression of the system. What I like about the Nucoda system (and I don't know for sure if scratch can handle the same?) is it's ability to work with blending modes etc. It's always struck me as being more similar to Photoshop in the way it operates. This is, of course, very powerful stuff that I was _under the impression_ that no other DI tool provided. Granted I haven't kept up with Scratch lately!
Now what I DO find to be ridiculous is Nucoda's use of 8 processors in it's station.... why not just use the bloody GPU (or two...)?
Anyway, the feature set always seemed to be a bit more flexible to me despite its problems. I may be wrong.
This is, in fact, one issue I take with all current grading solutions. They're just not as flexible as I would like. You're given a set of very powerful tools but that's it. At that point your limited to how you can approach the image by the way the software was designed. What if I want to do some complex channel blending and overlay modes? I've always thought a colorist should, at some level, be given complete control over the small mathematical processes much like compositors are in Shake. This need not be the primary interface (it would be slow) but access to all the little things and being able to combine them in creative ways is sooo flexible. Build your own tools using nodes and then assign them to your control panel etc.
Maybe I'm just delusional but I've never been truly impressed by the creative flexibility provided by current DI solutions. They're flexible in so many ways but yet they insist you approach the image from a single point of view with tools designed to work with one methodology alone. Too bad really as there is so much potential for pure power!
Now what I DO find to be ridiculous is Nucoda's use of 8 processors in it's station.... why not just use the bloody GPU (or two...)?
Anyway, the feature set always seemed to be a bit more flexible to me despite its problems. I may be wrong.
This is, in fact, one issue I take with all current grading solutions. They're just not as flexible as I would like. You're given a set of very powerful tools but that's it. At that point your limited to how you can approach the image by the way the software was designed. What if I want to do some complex channel blending and overlay modes? I've always thought a colorist should, at some level, be given complete control over the small mathematical processes much like compositors are in Shake. This need not be the primary interface (it would be slow) but access to all the little things and being able to combine them in creative ways is sooo flexible. Build your own tools using nodes and then assign them to your control panel etc.
Maybe I'm just delusional but I've never been truly impressed by the creative flexibility provided by current DI solutions. They're flexible in so many ways but yet they insist you approach the image from a single point of view with tools designed to work with one methodology alone. Too bad really as there is so much potential for pure power!