Blackmagic Forum

-

There's a few comp scripts floating around that do that. Name of the Saver (usually the file name) and a checkbox.

As an interim solution, though, it would be nice to get a notice in the render dialog about how many sink nodes or intool scripts there are. Like it would replace "This composition does not contain a saver!" with "This composition has 3 Savers, 1 Run Command, 1 FBX Export, and 3 tools with End Render Scripts."

I'd attach an example of this, but .eyeonscript isn't an allowed extension, and the Choose File dialog won't tell me what extensions are acceptable.

Also:

http://www.steakunderwater.com/wesuckle ... ?f=6&t=278

-

Yes, I agree with Theo. The render dialog wants to be helpful, so it has this message. But the problem is that this message isn't that helpful (anymore). Every comp I've ever made has branches that don't end in a saver and I don't need to be reminded of it. On the other hand, I have rendered many a frame in vain because the saver's range was restricted and I forgot about that.

-

I think the idea of a render manager / saver manager is good. Flame has one, as you can have many savers for various reasons, mainly to do pre-renders. The dialogue box is easy to read and easy to manage. It is a huge time saver in my opinion.
As Chad said I am sure there are scripts out there, but having a native tool makes more sense to me, since it will be natively supported with the thought of what the future may hold for fusion.

cheers

in addition , a render order option in saver will be a nice feature, for exemple to render a image sequence first and then render a quick time from this image sequence.

Mark Rasmussen wrote:As Chad said I am sure there are scripts out there, but having a native tool makes more sense to me, since it will be natively supported with the thought of what the future may hold for fusion.

I would somewhat disagree. I'd rather the Render button launched a script. The basic one would be included in Fusion, but users would be free to adapt it to their needs.

phantom-studio wrote:in addition , a render order option in saver will be a nice feature, for exemple to render a image sequence first and then render a quick time from this image sequence.

That doesn't make any sense, though. Why wouldn't you just render both at the same time? Or if network rendering, submit a job for one machine that pulls in the frames that the other machines rendered? The Loader has a Wait option that works perfectly for this. You could also use an End Render Intool script to make the multiframe file using a completely different product. Heck, you could even have it burn it to a Blu-ray.

Chad Capeland wrote:

Mark Rasmussen wrote:As Chad said I am sure there are scripts out there, but having a native tool makes more sense to me, since it will be natively supported with the thought of what the future may hold for fusion.

I would somewhat disagree. I'd rather the Render button launched a script. The basic one would be included in Fusion, but users would be free to adapt it to their needs.

I can see what you are driving at. Offering flexibility, for the end user in deciding how that will happen. I just feel that BMD being the architect of the idea would be best as they can better see how the product will develop and could design it with certain things in mind. Keeping it flexible is not a bad thing.

Cheers

Mark Rasmussen wrote:

Chad Capeland wrote:

Mark Rasmussen wrote:As Chad said I am sure there are scripts out there, but having a native tool makes more sense to me, since it will be natively supported with the thought of what the future may hold for fusion.

I would somewhat disagree. I'd rather the Render button launched a script. The basic one would be included in Fusion, but users would be free to adapt it to their needs.

I can see what you are driving at. Offering flexibility, for the end user in deciding how that will happen. I just feel that BMD being the architect of the idea would be best as they can better see how the product will develop and could design it with certain things in mind. Keeping it flexible is not a bad thing.

Cheers

BMD has moved away from flexibility, so I'd like to see that trend end and move toward allowing the end users to do more. They could ship a script that looked exactly as the dialog does now, so nothing would be lost. I feel the same way about the hardcoded hotkeys. I'd rather that all of them were moved to somewhere the user could edit them.

A render dialog is exactly the kind of pipeline specific control that I wouldn't trust any company, not just BMD, to do correctly for all users. Anything a 2nd or 3rd party would do, BMD should NOT do, and should focus on the things that no 2nd or 3rd party would attempt.

Chad Capeland wrote: BMD has moved away from flexibility, so I'd like to see that trend end and move toward allowing the end users to do more. They could ship a script that looked exactly as the dialog does now, so nothing would be lost. I feel the same way about the hardcoded hotkeys. I'd rather that all of them were moved to somewhere the user could edit them.

A render dialog is exactly the kind of pipeline specific control that I wouldn't trust any company, not just BMD, to do correctly for all users. Anything a 2nd or 3rd party would do, BMD should NOT do, and should focus on the things that no 2nd or 3rd party would attempt.

Well, I think I kind of said what you just said at the end. However, I think we will be opposite on this for the most part. Coming from Flame also, and TOXIK as I was in the early beta, they both have a render manager / saver manger if you want to call it that. TOXIK in particular was very good. So you had various savers. You set what you wanted, but the end user could use python to apply what they needed. The database in TOXIK allowed for tokens to be used to customise the output which is great, and why I would never want a third party to develop stuff like this. It is integrated into the software as it should be, but allowing end users to expand on the core. This does not mean allowing a user/company to make there own saver system. However, I suppose there is some call for that if required. The point I am trying to make is that BMD should develop tools that are highly connected with the rest of the software. I also want it to be somewhat standardized so all users know what to expect. Being able to expand on what it there is more my thinking. Not leaving it up to the masses. OMG, that would be the last thing I would want..

cheers

But all the render dialog does is set some arguments for the render. Set which frames, what proxy, whether to render some or all, which machines to use, etc.. There's nothing in there that is any sort of special sauce or anything that only BMD can develop. Considering most facilities aren't even using Fusion's render manager anyway, but are using Deadline or something homegrown, it's basically a waste of UI space.

I don't think it's a core function at all, so that's why I wouldn't want to see effort invested into it.