CompuServe Thread

#Forgotten again!

13 messages in this thread
#61983From: Mike HalvorsonAug 13, 1993 9:35 PM
Due to the many things that we are adding, things like blurring will probably be left to the last or be in a update. To do it right takes just to much cpu time. We dont want to make it look like some one elses code. I suggest that using Imagine master is a better situation that having a rendering engine do this blurr thing. I am sure that IM will be faster than having rendered. Yeah we will probably put in Flares, geez now every one will have images that all look like a bunch of really crummy photographers got to together and decided that this is the way to do things, even when it isn't. I spent about 6 years teaching photography and film, Cardinal rule your get flare it meant that you were not in control of the camera. I dont want to start some problem but I for one dont use this feature and think that soon no one else will either. THere are some very cool things in Imagine that no one else has ever done before,. OUR particle system will keep you glued to the computer for hours having just too much fun. Thanks for the order and please let us know what you think when you get it.
#61986From: Vance SchowalterAug 13, 1993 11:13 PM
Hi, Mike! The reason I'm so set on flares hails from when I first saw Star Trek – The Motion Picture. The V'GER weapon volleys looked pretty cool. I also remember how much atmosphere it added to films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Blade Runner. Also, I could make fairly realistic emergency flares. Whenever I've seen films using real flares for nighttime scenes, the same look comes across. Anyhow, above flares and blurs, I'm really dying to try out Bones and Particles. Especially since I'm not sure what the Particles feature is. Does it work like that Michael Jackson video where you can have a whirlwind of sandy-looking stuff that comes together to form the singer?
#62370From: Mike HalvorsonAug 18, 1993 8:12 PM
Ok Vance, Particles could do just as you stated, I encourage you to go beyond what you have seen in the movies, dont imitate, create your own new looks. Mike
#62467From: Vance SchowalterAug 19, 1993 7:14 PM
What I was thinking of doing for one thing was to have one object "poured" another object shape. -= Vance =- Image Master Flying high on Black Belt Systems' Imagemaster!
#62573From: Mike StortzAug 21, 1993 5:12 AM
You don't need OS/2 for 32-bit support, you just need to compile to a protected mode target. /// Mike ///
#62020From: Andrew PorterAug 14, 1993 2:14 PM
Mike, Last week I posted a message about getting IFF HAM images from QuickRenderings. Is it possible? Currently my prefs are set as follows: QUIK = HAM & QUFF = IFF. The image I get is apparently a 24bit file that I can't display. Can you help please?
#62092From: Anthony RamirezAug 15, 1993 2:36 PM
>Currently my prefs are set as follows: >QUIK = HAM & QUFF = IFF. QUFF should be ILBM-12BIT, this will give you HAM quickrenders. <<< Tony D. Tracer >>>
#62318From: Tony PitmanAug 18, 1993 10:38 AM
I whole heartily agree with you about flare!!! What is the big deal about flare anyway? My gut feeling is that many people saw Babylon 5 (tv pilot using Amiga for animation, for those who don't know). In the movie, flare was used A LOT, TOO MUCH, BAD THING…..I never have thought to, and like you, Mike, never will use flare unless someone forces me too….If it slows down the engine AT ALL, I vote you take it right back out.
#62357From: Anthony RamirezAug 18, 1993 7:24 PM
>I whole heartily agree with you about flare!!! What is the big deal >about flare anyway? Tony, I agree that people have and will abuse Lens-flare but it doesn't have to be that way. With Lens-flare you can get lights that have moods without having to model them, like glows around the lights, ect… Lens-Flare ISN'T just little reflection disks. Without it lights aren't even VISIBLE! You can change the way current lights look easily. I don't believe that Lens-Flare is a MUST-HAVE tool but having the best/most tools available will let the animator be more creative.
#62372From: Mike HalvorsonAug 18, 1993 8:18 PM
Tony, You know I think that I understand better what you want, you dont want flares you want a light atmospheric dispersion technique that we have been working on for the last two years, We are almost there, it will do what you want and it wont look like flares it will look like lights. Mike
#62418From: Paul GerhardtAug 19, 1993 9:58 AM
Mike, >you want a light atmospheric dispersion technique Oooo! You mean like fog, but a fog with more smarts about how light behaves in fog? Boy do I need that! The only way I have found to produce the dispersed lights needed for my under water project is to create a white bright disk and use an Essence texture to increase transparency as you go from center to edge. It works pretty well but does funky things to the my under water "fog". …AutoPilot Engaged… -Paul-
#62371From: Mike HalvorsonAug 18, 1993 8:15 PM
Tony, At last a breath of sanity. But in reality Flares are cool, but they have only been seen in a couple of situations and we would like to go beyond this obvious use of this technique. We will most likey offer this but as you say not at the expense of rendering times. Mike
#62455From: Tony PitmanAug 19, 1993 5:33 PM
Thanks for the compliment, sometime I consider myself to be almost sane. As one of the other users mentioned, flares could be used to help create more realistic lights, but I like your reply about having a function that is made just for lights (this despersment thingy you answered with). I am GGLLAADD to hear that the flares thing will not hurt rendering speed. Now get back to work on 3.0!!! (i know, going as fast as you can) <G> (big smile) Tony