#Caligari vs Imagine
61 messages in this thread
Hi Everyone,
As the new owner of a GVP Impact Video board, I now own a limited
version of Caligari 3D rendering software. I would appreciate hearing from
anyone that has used it and Imagine, and would like to hear any opinions on
whether it would be advantageous to acquire Imagine to do any serious 3D
work. I am purely a hobbyist and have shied away from 3D imaging software
until I obtained a 24 bit graphics board. Presently I see no way to
implement 24 bit animation, since the Caligari version supplied doesn't
implement this feature, and all other 3D programs wouldn't animate using a
24 bit board.
I would appreciate any informed opinion about this!
Thanks.
-RSL-
First thing, Roy, please voice your opinions on the GVP Imact board! I,
for one, am eagerly awaiting news from 'real' people about this board.
Thanks.
When you say that none of the 3D software uses 24bit animation, I assume
you mean real-time? You can certainly use the 24bit images in a
single-frame video recording environment, if you have the big $$$$ to
afford such equipment. The only 'pseudo-24bit' boards that currently allow
real-time animation are the HAM-E device (Black Belt Systems) and the DCTV
(Digital Creations)….
So, if you want to create amiga real-time anims, you'll be forced to
convert your 24bit images down to standard amiga resolutions (HAM, 32color,
16color, etc) and just do regular anims with them. A bit of a downer, when
you really *want* 24bit animations! (I know, I use the FireCracker24
board, and cannot animation on it real-time either)
A thought though…. I have had great success putting backgrounds in full
24bit resolution on the FireCracker24, and then playing live amiga-res
animations over the top of it. Recording that. Because the background is
the full hires-24bit resolution, doing the foreground is in lower color
isn't nearly as noticable. Looks pretty good! (note: the FireCracker24
allows overlaying the amiga RGB out over the top of it's 24bit buffer
image…. if the GVP board allows the same thing, then you could do above
also) A side benefit of this method is that since the background (often
complicated) is removed from the amiga animation, the resulting anim is
often faster and shorter. A nice benefit.
Re Caligari vs. Imagine, since I haven't used Caligari I can't say much.
Imagine will certainly generate 24bit IFF files, which I suppose could be
used with the GVP board? (would certainly hope so!) But it wouldn't
automatically output to that board (nor will it automatically output to the
FireCracker24 🙁 ) So, if Caligari meets your needs for 3D rendering,
I'd probably stick with that. After you get more involved with
[ MORE ]
John,
It's not that easy to discuss the IV24 well, since it's true impact
(pardon the pun) is visual. The board does have this strange habit of
having a few pixels that sparkel for the first 10 minutes that the machine
is powered up. I'm not sure if it is a problem configuring some of the
boards software controlled fine tuning controls or a matter of the board
warming up a bit and coming up to full specs. After the ten minutes there
is no visual artifact present, and the flicker fixer is just as good as my
A3000's one. One of the great features of this board is both that you can
render the 24 bit graphics to the computer monitor and you can still have a
flickerless non-interlace display (unfortunately if you wish to output to a
composite monitor/recorder you have to shift back to interlaced/flickering
mode (a very simple procedure – just hit alt-F2 and it toggles it on/off).
The two problems I have is the need to reboot to shift into and out of
"Genlock Mode". From the docs, it indicates that this is due to the
Amiga's requirements, rather than the IV24 board. The second problem is
the erratic computer video quality, while in "Genlock Mode" (which is why
it isn't a satisfactory solution to the first problem, to default always to
the board's "Genlock Mode"). Using a video camera, the image is locked in
well, but using my VCR's video output (fed from it's tuner) causes my
monitor to jump about every few minutes (nothing terrible, just a bit
annoying), and that's not even when it is actively genlocking with the
signal. I am hoping that when I acquire a RGB converter (ordered today)
that this problem will go away (I doubt it, but hope springs eternal).
The image from the board is fantastic. Unfortuantely the simple
software that loads the IFF24 images, distorts these images somewhat, and a
fix is in the works. MacroPaint is far more buggy, and it is very easy to
crash things by using this software for more than ten minutes. MacroPaint
is VERY picky about
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
loading IFF24 pics, and will often choose not to load a file that loads
using the simple view software, and lock up the program. Once MacroPaint
locks up, the graphics board can not be turned off, so the computer becomes
inoperable until it is rebooted. MacroPaint has a great feature, that
simulates switching screens to the workbench screen, and therefore
operating the computer while MacroPaint and the 24 bit board hide in the
background. It's a great idea, but badly implemented. If you move your
mouse too close to the edge of the workbench screen, the 24 bit board will
be superimposed onto the simulated workbench screen. This feature needs
alot of work. Indeed, most of the software requires a lot of additional
work. I can think of many features that they should design into their
software, but I'll wait for them to get the simple stuff right first!
Scala is quaint. It comes with one disk, and the major feature that I
can see is it's ability to utilize WB 2.04's outline fonts (the only
software I know of that can do this). The backgrounds offered in the
individual package are not in this bundled version. In fact the IV24's
ability to genlock backgrounds is supposed to take its place (BTW Scala
doesn't utilize the IV24 actively in any way – it just serves as a
genlocking background maker).
Caligari is a bit of a disappointment. They added the ability to render
directly to the IV24 bit board, and it appears to be a sturdy program. The
problem is that they left out MANY of Caligari's features. They left out
animation, point editing, metal shading to mention the major ones. It just
seemed like they want to use it as an advertisement for some future verion
of Caligari Broadcaster (for some rediculously expensive price). Perhaps
if I had more experience with 3D modelers, I could go into more detail, and
perhaps do greater things with the version of Caligari that they've
bundled. At this point I am seriously considering purchasing Imagine. Ray
tracing, although it is more
[ MORE ]
[ continuation ]
CPU intensive, is still the best way to simulate 3D images (until someone
starts writing a "wave rendering software package").
I hope this rambling if what you were expecting. I am looking forward
to getting my RGB converter, so that I can genlock onto my computer screen,
and get to play with the Picture-In-Picture program. That should be fun!
If I left out some aspect, feel free to ask away. I consider it my duty
as "the first guy on the block to get the IV24" to pass on my gut feelings,
without the need to be kind advertisers.
The one thing this board has done is make me hope that there are more
pieces of software written that use the IV24 board, or atleast IFF24 files.
I'd love to see 3D fractals generated with 256 levels of color or grays
(Are you listening Dr. Wolf <G>!). I'm having loads of fun playing around
with VistaPro and the IV24.
-RSL-
Roy,
Thanks for the quick overview/first look at IV24! Would it be impolite
to ask what it costs and where you purchased it? Please keep us (or just
ME if no one else cares) updated as to new stuff you find right and wrong.
One other question, have you seen Firecracker 24 and if so, how does it
compare to IV24? Thanks!
Leslie,
You're welcome.
This is going to hurt typing, since I haven't had the "jo" to write the
check to my credit card. I paid $2,174.95 including shipping and handling,
from Creative Computing. I haven't had the opportunity to see the
Firecracker 24 other than a quick look at a past AmiExpo. Some of the
major features that lead me to the IV24 was the ability to maintain a
single RGB monitor with external switching, and the ability to maintain a
non-interlaced computer screen. The PIP and frame grabbing features were
additional "icing on the cake".
I am anxiously awaiting Harmonic Research's Composite->RGB converter,
inorder to play with the latter features. I'll be sure to voice my ohhs
and ahhs (hopefully) when I get a chance to try them out!
-RSL-
I thought I read IV24 was around that price range. That's quite a bit
higher than a Toaster or Firecracker 24. (Actually, it's about the price
of a Toaster AND a Firecracker 24!)
Off the subject a bit: There is an article in the latest "Forbes"
magazine that tell about how TV's and computers are merging. It is
interesting reading and mentions Commodore briefly as a loan sorce for an
experimental television.
Leslie,
You're right about the high price, but they are all three very different
things. Each board has there own uses, their own advantages as well as
disadvantages. After all, as powerful as the toaster is, without a TBC, it
is a "24 bit" composite output device. If you have an A3000, the toaster
is little more than a very expensive paper weight!
If I could get the features that the IV24 offers for a cheaper price I
would have jumped at the chance!
-RSL-
I heard the Toaster is useable on a 3000 with 2 somewhat simple
modifications.1-ya have to trim the 3000's case a bit to allow the Toaster
to fit and 2 replace the new Denise with an older version. This is what I
heard.I haven't tried it so……….
I had heard that the Denise replacement was no longer needed, as NewTek had
done some kind of software change to allow it to work with the newer
Denise. So all you'd need is to trim the case to make it fit. Or at
least, that's what I've been told. If you really need to know, you can
always call NewTek.
–>Steve Bennett
Hmmmm Thanx for the info.I'll ask in the Amigaven area
Peter,
I believe you are right, but why would anyone go to the trouble of
buying an A3000 and then start sawing away at it's case, and pulling out
it's chips. I happen to like my A3000 the way it is. If I was going to
run my own cable station I guess I would just go with an accelerated A2000
with the toaster and thousands of dollars of additional necessary
equipment. All things considered, I'm happy with my IV24 (but I'll be
happier with it when my Composite->RGB converter comes in and I get to try
out it's PIP and fram grabbing features!).
-RSL-
Sounds good to me.I was just mentioning that the toaster is useable on a
3000
[ continuation ]
modeling, then you'll be in a better position to decide if Caligari is
sufficient or not, and to pick & choose among other programs carefully
(Imagine, Sculpt, Real3D, 3DPro, etc)…..
Hope this wasn't too long. A favorite subject of mine! Good luck, and
please do post everything you can about the GVP board.
–jp–seattle–
Serious envy towards you…..
I saw IV24 at some convention. I was pretty impressed. I definitely will
buy one if the price range was lower. As of software, too bad it only
comes with Caligari consumer version. Caligari shows its maximum power
when incorporated in animation!
I think the main difference between Caligari and Imagine is its ease of
use. Imagine can definately pull of some impressive image as well as
animation but it falls short on documentation + intuitiveness. I saw
Caligari Broadcast version and was impressed how you move things around or
transform object. I guess if you are serious and capable of fully
utilizing Imagine, I would recommend it. Another thing, I think the latest
trend in 3D is not raytrace. Because raytrace take too much time,
simulating raytrace in normal rendering and how much its close to raytrace
image matters. Considering that, Imagine fall short on speed, and in
normal rendering, image doesn't look that great although its fast. So if
you can afford it buy one anyway, why not… You can get all kinds of
documentation other than Impulse to full fill the lack of documentation now
a days.
One other 3D software I would look into is REAL 3D. The image looked good
and there should be a DEMO here on CIS
BYEEE
– THANX R.SATOH ->via Whap!
Rawl,
What can I tell you, it was my birthday, and I'd never forgive me if I
didn't buy it (besides if you can't spoil yourself rottin to the core,
what's the point of life anyway <G>)!
My understanding is that current technology produces the best images
using ray tracing. The problem with ray tracing is its slow rendering
time. Other techniques such as giraud or phong are far less CPU intensive,
but CAN give good images in certain cases. The best technique that has
recently been discussed in the jouranls is "wave tracing", which treats
light as a wave phenomena, rather than as a ray/particle. Although this
gives more realistic images (supposedly), it is much more CPU intensive.
The specialist are trying to find an efficient algorithm to produce images
using this principle.
I realize that 3D rendering is very dependent on the user's expertise,
and that Imagine's docs are not great. I plan to get Imagine in a month or
so, along with any reasonable third party instruction books that I can
find!
-RSL-
Hmmm interesting info on wave tracing. From the way I see it, for these
CPU intensive stuff I figure I need a Accelerator. I thought A3000 25mhz
was fast but not really when you get into 3D. And especially for Imagine
Raytrace I don't think 68040 will be fast enough either, so the quest for
speed with these 3D softwares.. As of now, I want true 24bit display
device, 68040, 24bit full bed color scanner, ..so on and on…. Probably I
have to wait till these things get dirt cheap and then I'm tempted by more
new stuff. $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yep Imagine is great, and hopefully it will get bet with next upgrade. Lets
say its still your birthday, check out those REAL 3D and tell me what you
think! $$$$$$$
Oh well, I'm sorry, I'm just too envy of other people.
THANX
– THANX R.SATOH ->via Whap!
Rawl,
Going from 68030/25mhz to 68040/25mhz only gets you a 300% improvement
(not worth the $1400 cost in my opinion). I was considering PP&S's 68040
board which was planned to have a real-time file compression function that
was going to double available hard drive capacity, but they have appeared
to drop that feature. No one even features large Static RAM caching (only
internal dual 8K caching is available). Perhaps if the features/cost ratio
improves (someday)!
As far as going out and buying a bunch of 3D rendering software, I'm not
made of money Rawl <G>! I don't have the time to figure out more than one
complicated 3D rendering program (I am already behind in reading my present
softwares documentation). I'm planning on Imagine (whether it is 1.x or
2.0 is up to Impulse) for now…
-RSL-
Roy,
I don't know if it's the reason, but I had mentioned to PP&S a while
back that the compression scheme suffers when one must do random seeks.
They agreed but opined that it didn't happen all that often. I then
suggested they try writing a few big IFF files (most IFF writers do MANY
'seeks' while writing).
Vic,
So you're the reason they dropped that great sounding feature, eh
<grin>. Oh well, it sounded like a great idea when I read it. Why doesn't
anyone offer a large last memory cache on 68040 boards. It seems that all
the 68040 boards offer the same features. I guess its a good thing for my
checkbook that I don't see a 68040 board that I like!
-RSL-
There are a load of HELP files here on CIs as well as a Few Imagine objects
I uploaded and others have ULed
To animate in 24 Bit color you need a Single Frame accurate VTR or a
Recordable Laser Disc machine.I have both Caligari and Imagine and like
Imagine more.It is VERY easy to model with Imagine as well
Peter,
Thanks for the comment. How important do you find the metal shader in
Caligari (my version leaves this feature out and the metal surfaces are
pale imitations of the real thing. Is Imagine as easy to model with as
Caligari?
-RSL-
I find it easier to Model with Imagine than with Caligari I used Caligari
for approx 1 week and didn't like it at All I even prefer Sculpt 4D and
Turbo Silver to it
Peter,
Thanks for your opinion. It confirms my feeling that the partial
version of Caligari wasn't the best software available to use with my new
IV24. I just ordered Imagine, along with Mapmaster and SurfaceMaster. Do
you know of any third party text to help first time users???
BTW, I just downloaded the Compendium in the DL here on the Forum.
-RSL-
Roy, a sure winner in the Imagine help area is 'The Imagine Companion', a
book/disk combo. Sells for @ 30.00. You'd have to write the publisher,
Motion Blur Publishing, 915A Stambaugh Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 about
ordering. (Maybe your dealer, or a mail order places is carrying it now? –
it's been out for six months – one year or so.) The book has several
tutorials well done, and a decent 'hints&tips' section.
Anyway, you done good on the Map/SurfaceMaster…. it's certainly not a
tutorial on using Imagine, but definitely helps you get the most out of
it's effects.
–jp–seattle–
John,
Thanks for the information. Do you happen to have Motion Blur
Publishing's address? I'd love to know the exact price along with
shipping and handling fees for the book/disk. I've downloaded the
compendium in the DL area, but haven't had time to REALLY study it. I
just got the program, and the documentation is appalling!!! This
thing looks like it should come with a two semester college course.
So far I'm so intimidated that I haven't installed it into my hard
disk yet. In addition to Imagine and Map/Surface Master, I got
something called ProTextures, which are high quality maps in both HAM
and 24 bit versions, to map across Imagine objects. I can't imagine
(no pun intended) what Impulse has in store for us with Imagine 2.0!
BTW, Creative bundled Imagine: A Guided Tour with the program. I guess
its a nice tape to get started, but it certainly doesn't contain any less
than obvious aspects of the software (indeed, at times I think they
actually quote from it!).
I seem to remember a video made by people at Impulse. Do you remember
its name and where it can be gotten (and your opinion of it, if you've seen
it)!
Thanks again!
-RSL-
Motion Blur Publishing, 915A Stambaugh Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
-I just looked up the check I wrote for it = $29.95, so I guess there
was no shipping charge.
Another video tape, much better than the guided tour, is "Imagine –
The Possibilities, Volume 1". This was done by Rick Rodriquez, the
Impulse rep in AmigaVendor. Explains some things pretty well, but
still not an 'end-all' for Imagine use. It is available from
Impulse for $30, as I recall.
You can go into debt getting Imagine tutorial stuff. Nothing beats just
sitting down for a long time experimenting though 🙂
–jp–seattle–
John,
Thanks for the info! I just sent a check to Motion Blur for their book.
I guess I'll be making a call to Impulse to find out about their Video.
"Playing around with Imagine" is a real kick, I wish there was an
inexpensive way to speed up rendering time (I use scan option rather than
trace). Perhaps next year's birthday present will be a 68040 upgrade. I
wonder what Imagine 2.0 will offer…
-RSL-
Theres a Videotape that is great if yer a total beginner and I also just
bought a disk/book combo called the Imagine Comapanion also look in the
Amigaven and here for objects ULed by myself and others.Also don't forget
that if ya have Syndesis Interchange You can use AutoCad and Atari ST CAD
3D models /exit
Peter,
Thanks. Where did you get the book/disk combo (retailer or
direct)? If you ordered it direct, can you tell me their phone
number and/or total price with shipping and handling. Was the video
"A Guided Tour"? That video was bundled with my program purchase
from Creative. I'll check into the AmiVendor DL areas for Imagine
objects. At this point this program seems to be rather
intimidating. I wonder what they're going to add in 2.0!
-RSL-
I got it at my local Dealer Sorry dude.I got the "possibilites" tape
Peter,
Is that the tape sold by Impulse?
-RSL-
one Imagine tape is sold by Centaur Software the other I forget who But
neither are by Impulse
Peter,
I've seen the Centaur/RGB video. It's strictly for the beginner. The
other one is sold by Impulse (which is where I ordered it).
-RSL-
Peter,
I've recently dropped a bunch of money on my Amiga, but it's peanuts to
the price of a professional single frame VTR. If I was a professional, I
would think about it, as a hobbyist, I can only wait and see if the price
EVER plummets!
-RSL-
Yup,I know Single frame capable VTR's are expensive tho Actually now that
Sony has Released there Recordable Laser Disc machine I'd prefer one of
those at the bargain price of $37,000 plus $300 per blank Disc.The nice
thing is Your master will be INCREDIBLE and even once ya copy to tape from
Laser Disc there is almost no loss perceived.The tape will look like it is
the First generation(original)
Peter,
Gee… ONLY $37,000. Something to consider for next year's birthday
present <G>.
But seriously folks, some day the prices will go down to consumer
prices, but by then it's possible that real time high class graphics will
also be available at similar realistic consume price ranges.
Who knows what the twenty-first century will give us (I know Jerry
Pournelle doesn't have the faintest idea {GRIN})!
-RSL-
"To animate in 24bit color you need a single frame accurate VTR or a
Recordable Laser Disc machine…." OR, you need a good film recorder. 🙂
(I would love the new Poloroid CI-3000 film recorder with 24bit accuracy,
4000+ X 2000+ pixel resolution, etc…. would make a real nice film, no?
Wonder how long it would take to render all those 4000+ X 2000+ Imagine
images though? 🙂
–jp–seattle–
donna know, but bet you could use 4×5 sheet film and change it by hand 🙂
-bill – via Whap!
John,
While I don't know about the CI-3000, I did see a film recorder (analog
NTSC scan rate, RGB, Composite, or S-VHS) at our last Graphics/Video SIG.
It is being sold by Prime Option (yes, the old Liquid Light people) and the
price was reported to be US$1995 (MSRP). It took about 15 seconds to
record a frame.
I shudder to Imagine(he he) how long a 4000*2000 rez pic would take I
rendered my Battloid Model in Imagine in Full Trace and even with my
Accelerator on(adspeed) it took over 10 hours and that was only a 320*400
pic.BTW that Film Recorder you mentioned Is that for Stills only or can you
use MOVIE film of 70 mm Variety That can be shown in Theatres? thanx
The Poloroid CI-3000 film recorder can accept 35mm movie film, if you
purchase the 'film back' for it. Rather costly, I've been led to believe.
Yeah, it would take a while to render a film in 4000×2000 res, but that's
only till we get our 68060's, right? 🙂
–jp–seattle–
Naaaa forget the 68xxx series Rumor has it that CBM is working on RISC
setup or better yet a new Superchip running at 35 Billion instructions per
nanosecond hehehehehe with 40 gigs standard all for $1999.95 and of course
a 750 Gig removable HD for another $500
Yeah, but will a Toaster fit into it?
Steve
Yup BUT you have to cut a bit off yer 3000's casing to fit the toaster in
The modelling may be easy with Imagine, but the animation is damnear
impossible! After 3 days (full days) of trying to get a simple path that
goes from +y to -y (i.e. a line) in the top view with an object whose front
is facing in the -y, and have the object align to path going "forward" down
the -y (i.e. comingout of the screen at ya) I have concluded that it is
not possible because path directions cannot be changed easily. Also, the
180 deg rotation put on the added point win a split segment operations
makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!
It appears basically that you must already know how the objets are goint to
move before you build them due to limitations on paths and object
alignments to the paths. Very poor and "unfreindly" if you ask me.
wmc
Did you try using key frames for the starting and ending points and letting
Imagine take care of the tweening?
You might look at the Imagine Compendium and the Imagine Mailing list
archives in the library. There are a lot of good tips in there…and it
really helped me!
Steve
Steve,
I hit it again fresh today, ignored the docs and tried it similar to the
way Sculpt does it. It worked after I transposed the objects axis AND
figured out that paths only go out the +y axis regardless of where the next
point is on the path (at least that is true in the top view).
wmc
Why not simply use the "Align" feature and "ADD" the turns ya need
Basically 'cause the camera won't follow the object I want it to follow for
the frames I want it to. I had to call Impulse. They revealed that you
have to creat another path and an object (axis) to track the camera to. So
then the trick became trying to get the object and "track axis"to be in the
same places at the same times so that the camera could pan for the portion
of the object "fly-by" that was close to the camera. It took 3 days and
roughly 20 renderings of the animation to get it right.
I don't care what anybody says – the animation control in Imagine is not
intuitive. In fact, I'd call it a mess. I don't believe that if I
position an object at the start of a path at frame 1, and I don't want it
to start moving until frame 21, that it should move to the end of the path
in frame 2 simply 'cause I put one position bar in frame 1 and the "follow
path" position bar in 21 – 70 of a 90 frame animation. To reslove the
problem I have to add another position bar at 2, identical to frame 1's
position using the postion bar menu in the stage editor, then tween from 3
to 20 with the end position of the tween identical to the fram 2 position.
We won't talk about the needlessly complex way that one must use to select
objects in the stage editor (whats wrong with a simple click or double
click?) or the fact that you must define paths in the detail editor but can
only edit them in the stage editor. Even the defaults in the requestors
are offset top the right and th cursor is left justified so that editing
the default requires many more strokes than it should.
The results may look good, but the overly complex, unweildy interface will
wear you, your mouse, several sheets of paper and a pencil or two out to
get there.
wmc
What needlessly complex method of chossing objects?I don't know what
version of imagine you are using that doesn't allow you to click twice on
an objects axis to pick it but mine(1.1) works fine with 2 clicks.
Peter,
I have 1.1. I am using the "FP" version. In the stage editor, the only
way to pick an object is to either:
1. use "select next" or "select previous" previous repeatedly from the menu
until the object is "oranged". Then use "pick selected" from the same
menu. OR
2. Use the "find requestor" menu item. Select the desired item from the
requester. Then use the "Pick select" menu item.
Double clikcking turns the item blue, but blue means nothing, apparently,
in the stage editors. In the other editors it means sometimes " the last
thing you picked whit ch is no longer picked" (useles information if you
ask me, since there seems to be no processsig based on it) or a member of a
multiple pick operation (picking with the shift key down).
Note that on the other editors, double clicking works but not on the stage
editor. Also, deitting the path in the stage editor does not "take". I
have to go back to the deatail editor, recreate the path I want to edit
with edits I want to make, save it, go back to the stage editor, delete
the old version, load the new version. VERY poor method, but no other one
seems to work.
wmc
Don't don't make sense Bro.I'm using the Non FP version and it works fine
if I double click
Peter,
I guess I better call Impulse again. Double click in the Stage editor
doesn't work, at least on my FP version.
wmc
Hope ya find out the problem.Ya might wanna un compress the prg again from
yer original disk
Wayne,
You can also just hit F1 after the object you've clicked on is blue.
Karl
– via Whap!
Karl,
Thanks. I'll give the "F1" a try.
wmc
Wayne,
regarding your problems with having an object stay put for 20 frames
before starting its journey along a path, I think you approached it from
the wrong point of view. A simple solution to me would be to look up the
position of the path's initial control point through the Transform
requester, then define a 1-frame Position bar at frame 1 and type in the
same coordinates. Frames 2-19 of the Position track would be empty, leaving
the object at the same spot, and the "follow path" Position bar would
stretch from frames 21 to 70. What's wrong with that?
Blaq! – via Whap!
Charles,
Your method is EXACTLY what I tried. However, leaving the 2-19
frames blank in position bar caused the track object to go to the end
of the path position until fram 20 where it reverted back to the
start of the path and began to track as directed. Note that it would
have been a whole lot easier if Impulse allowed the camera to have
multiple alignment track lines with tracking set to the object you
wnat to view. However, this results in very jerky motion. A phone
call to them resulted in the suggestion of creating a seperate "track
object" (axis) that has the multiple position/alignment bars needed
to track the object to be photgraphed. Then the camera has one
"track to track object" bar. [I guess this is the "transitive law of
animation".] Very poor and overly complex design, ESPECIALLY since
it ain't documented, IMHO.