I recently found that open-source software for video compositing. Anyone used it before? Is it good?
its not 3dcg
>>541836I've used an older version. Was a little-bit buggy, but for composing multilayered exr image sequences together and some grading it worked actually quite well. Too bad there is no 3d space for more advanced compositing.But overall i am quite surprised what they have achieved so far.Nice tool, would use again.>>541838If you are an 3d artist and don't use compositing you might be doing it wrong.
>>541847>If you are an 3d artist and don't use compositing you might be doing it wrong.....its not 3dcg dude. Its main use is for 2d
>>541847Half of this board is a bunch of neckbeards who make shitty naked girls or/and shitty mods no one will ever play. You think they know what compositing is, let alone care?
>>541850compositing is an integral part of the cg production pipeline. ???
>>541853saying natron is 3dcg is like saying photoshop is 3dcg...
>>541850And the end result of an rendered image is 2d, your point is?>>541851That doesn't change the fact that its useful.>>541853Yes. >>541855So, texturing is ok, but manipulating the final image is not?Don't play that stupid semantics game. Yes you are right, and i am too.
Just use AE or nuke, goddamn.
>>541879<insert same arguments Blendertards use to defend their inferior software>
>>541895>nuke>needlessly complexAre you retarded?
>>541908Well if you think Nuke is needlessly complex, then i really would like to know which compositing tools is not in your eyes.Natron is a Nuke-clone; its just less complicated because its tool-set is limited. Flame, Fusion and Nuke are very similar. If you know one you can adapt pretty fast.
>>541895Nuke doesn't force you to use any of the complex features, and the node workflow is a whole lot easier to use rather than the ridiculous pre-comp bullshit you have to deal with in AE.