#Imagine Textures Kit
39 messages in this thread
Rick, Is Impulse going to have a "Textures.kit" in their next release of
Imagine. If not, are they going to release a "Textures.kit" in some other
form? I really liked this capability in Turbo Silver SV and hope to
continue using it with Imagine. The Silver textures (as I'm sure you
already know) are not compatible with Imagine. The Marble texture in
particular is sorely missed. The Imagine wood texture is nice, but it's no
substitute for marble. Thanks, Terry T.
Terry, I believe a textures kit will be forthcoming, but Impulse will first
be completing its paint program for the Firecracker. Did you ever create
any textures for Turbo? Which ones? –Rick
Rick, I did some exmentation with the provided wood texture and created
some new marble textures. I thought my textures looked better than the ones
that came with SV. I'd have uploaded them here if I hadn't lost them in a
Hard Drive Crash. I've been waiting for the kit for Imagine before I take
the time to recreate them, but with the news that it might be a little
while before the kit is available, I might re-do them for SV. I like using
the textures better than brush wrapping because they use less memory.
Although the brush wrapping capabilities in Imagine are incredible! I'm
just scratching the surface of what Imagine can do… Too bad I have to
work for a living!
Thanks, Terry T.
Terry, what I enjoy most is being able to wrap 24-bit images. These are so
satisfying and make creating photorealistic scenes very easy. –Rick
Rick, Hmmmm… I'd never even thought about using 24-bit brushes. Doesn't
that eat up your memory awfully fast? I know super bit-maps do. Don't get
me wrong, I do like and use brush maps. I've liked the textures though
because they don't take as much memory.
Terry T.
Terry, I'm using a nine-meg setup, so I haven't gotten in trouble. I've
used up to five brushes, all 24-bit 768×482, in a single scene. I suppose
if I pushed it much beyond this point I would reach my memory limit. It's a
lot of fun, though and the 24bit output is spectacular on a Firecracker or
Toaster. –Rick
Rick, I'll have to try that. I don't own a 24-bit buffer but I generally
render in 24-bit and convert using TAD because I like it's dithering
better. The thing that's been keeping me from getting a 24-bit buffer has
been that to use it to good advantage you need a single-frame recorder. I
noticed recently you said you have done this by "hand" using a Sony 9850
and an edit controller. How much does a 9850 cost? Can this be done with a
Panasonic AG-1960 or the new Sony S-VHS unit (SLV-R5, I think)? If I could
get into single frame recording for say $1500, then a true buffer ala
Toast' or 'Cracker would be feasible for me. I'm not afraid of a little
work. I've tried to do single frame with my present recorder (Sony
SLV-757UC) and it's close, but not usable. It will work three times in a
row and then be off by 2 frames. Also there is sometimes some weird color
shifts in a frame. If I can't get into a single frame recorder at a
reasonable cost, I'll probably end up with a Ham-E or DCTV pretty soon.
Thanks, Terry T.
Terry, I went thru same dilemma on 24bit boards (wanting one, but
realizing that they required frame-by-frame to do anims with). I now have
a HAM-E which gets me about 90% satisfaction, for about 10% of the price. I
usually use the 256 color mode, which looks pretty darn good, and is easy
to animate with. Have the same limitations on real-time anims as you do
with hires anims (ie. watch the amount of changes, etc), but its very
feasible.
Someday I'll likely get a full frame buffer (the FireCracker sounds great),
but for now the HAM-E is doing me just fine. Just thought I'd throw my .02
dollars in. ttfn –jp–seattle–
John,
I also have a HAM-E, and I find that images I ray-trace in full 24-bit mode
turn out excellent in the HAM-E mode (18-bit mode). I've rendered some
items utilizing Sculpt-4D in 24-bit 320X400 mode and the results were
outstanding. One thing you have to do is turn the DITHERING OFF. If you
keep DITHERING on in the rendering, displaying them in the HAM-E 24-bit
mode will look less than satisfactory. Try rendering in Imagine with the
dithering turned off, and I'm sure you'll see a big difference in the REG
modes & HAM-E modes.
Joe
Joe, Imagine automatically disables all dithering when rendering in 24 bit.
–Rick
Really Rick? That's great! It's been a pain to keep resetting object
attributes for 24bit or standard HAM, etc. (I don't remember that tidbit
in the manual?) –jp–seattle–
John, It sounds like we're in the same boat! If I understand what you're
saying, it sounds like you prefer 256 color Ham-E to the 262,…? color
Ham-E mode because it plays faster? I'm guessing that that's because when
there are more colors available and more colors on screen, then each frame
has more changes than the same animation with less colors. If this is so,
how does 256 color mode compare with straight 4096 Ham as far as appearance
goes? When working in the 262,… color mode, how small do your movements
end up being to keep full speed animation going? Is it a severe limitation,
or merely something to be careful with? I typically work in 352X440 Ham
mode and only rarely have speed problems. Have you ever compared Ham-E with
DCTV? I've heard some discussion about DCTV's composite output being poor
when compared to the Ham-E RGB. But since many people (myself included)
want to record the output on a VTR anyway, a better comparison would be a
comparison of DCTV's output to a composite encoded output from Ham-E. For
my purposes, the DCTV seems to be a better buy assuming the composite
appearance is as good and animation speeds are the same. All else being
equal, the only draw back for me would be that DCTV can't be Genlocked.
I don't yet have a digitizer and that's a plus in the DCTV column.
But, appearance and playback speed definitely take priority. Any info you
have would be appreciated. Thanks,
Terry T.
Terru, re your questions about HAM-E anims, etc:
1) prefering HAM-E 256 color (Register) over HAM-E 262,000 color (HAM-E).
Register usually plays faster in large change anims, as long as the palette
is optimized. HAM-E is much more likely to generate larger delta files, and
slower anims. But that may be partly due to the fact that there is
currently no way to guarantee the same base palette in different HAM-E mode
images. That may help (when they put that option in); I won't know till I
see it. For now, the Register mode is easier to use for large change
anims. When doing DPaint style anims (ie with basically static
backgrounds, and animated brushes), however, I haven't seen much speed
difference. (HAM-E Paint software has a wonderful ARexx-based animation
program that makes this style anim easy) As in all ram-based anims,
keeping the delta changes to a minimum speeds things up. How small do you
have to be? I don't know. I have no problems with several 1/2 screen
brushes moving at once (get 15fps or so), but I have an 030. I don't find
it any real limitation at all, except that a full screen anim with tons of
changes (ie scrolling background, etc) is going to be slow regardless.
I have seen DCTV, first at AmiExpo, and lately at a local dealer. Of the
two I prefer HAM-E considerably. Aside from all the questions of recording
quality, etc (which Ben or someone else is better qualified to answer than
me), there is the software question. I currently use the HAM-E paint and
IP software, and it is spectacular. I guess I wonder if DCTV will be able
to match that software performance. I've always claimed that the software
is only as good as the artist using it, and I suppose I could extend that
to say that the hardware is only as good as the software supporting it.
DCTV may be the right choice for you, for many reasons. But, as in all
things, I'd advise seeing both, trying both, thinking hard about that
$300-500, and then deciding. Hope this helps. –jp–seattle–
[ MORE ]
John, Thanks for the info. I've "glimpsed" both the Ham-E and the DCTV
units, but never side-by-side and never for very long. Unfortunately, the
Amiga dealer in this area tends to pull everybody to the Toaster saying
things like "Nah, what you really need is …". I've got to admit the
Toaster is nice, but currently, I don't think it meets all my needs. He did
tell me that Newtek is working on some kind of a Ram system that will allow
limited (2 to 4 secs) animations of full resolution 24-bit screens. If that
rumour becomes a reality, then maybe the Toaster is in the cards… Thanks
again for the info.
Terry T.
When converted to Composite, DCTV and HAM-E will be approximately equal.
However… :^)
You can use a DigiFEX encoder to convert HAM-E images to S-VHS. These will
look considerably better than standard composite – and you can't do that
with DCTV.,
Ben
Amateur Radio Callsign is A A 7 A S
[ continuation ]
Terry, I understand that the Panasonic 7500(?) is the only SVHS recorder
they sell which is frame accurate. It 's a shame, because at present you
really can't get into single frame recording for under $6000 in video gear.
The 9850 was around $8K, I believe. –Rick
Rick,
Sigh… It looks like you lucky guys get to have all the fun! Maybe
a single frame recorder is around the corner for the "prosumer". There
seems to be a good demand for one. In the meantime, it sounds like I'll
have to get one of the quasi 24-bit boards (Ham-E or DCTV) and ease into
the 24-bit waters.
Thanks for the Info,
Terry T.
Terry:
I just got TAD today. ofcourse the very first thing I tried was a
24-bit Imagine file. I dont think I got it right though… In the Project
editor (of Imagine) I selected RGB8, but dose it matter what presets I
select ( Hi Res or Ham ) ??? And once I got to TAD my image lost most of
it's dithering. It looked much better as a Ham image. What's the correct
procedure…. Any help is good help. Brad Hayes
Brad, the RGB8 you created in Imagine had NO dithering. So TAD/ADPro did
right to not put any in (unless you tell it to). Remember that when you
render an Imagine pic in 24bits (RGB8) and choose show, it automatically
reduces it to an Amiga HAM mode with dithering, but the actual source has
more color info, and no dithering. Imagine is just trying to let you take
a peek at an otherwise undisplayable image (24bits).
Rick (of Impulse) recently posted here that Imagine automatically shuts all
dithering OFF when you select a 24bit image format. (even if you have it
on in the objects, etc).
You should be able to use the TAD/ADPro Floyd-Steinberg dithering, (or
another) to get your nicely dithered image back. –jp–seattle–
Brad, I generally render in ILBM-24Bit mode rather than RGB8-24Bit so that
might have some affect, but I think it should be the same only you should
use the Impulse loader for RGB8 and the IFF loader for ILBM. As John P.
pointed out, the Auto Dither box in the projects menu only effects the show
command in Imagine and does not effect the image data itself. Also, as near
as I can tell (ask Rick Rodriguez to be sure of this), when renderring in
24-bit, the HAM switch doesn't affect the image at all. The HiRez switch (I
think) affects the display mode. That is if your image size is 640 by 400
and HiRez is set, then it is a HiRez display mode and the size of a normal
display. With HiRez not set, the same sizes would yield a LoRez display
mode, but in a super bitmap size (i.e., bigger than the display). I'm not
sure what happens when both HAM and HiRez are set as that really doesn't
make sense. In any case, using the scale and screen controls in TAD you
should be able to take in any image from Imagine and generate (in TAD) the
exact size, display mode, and number of colors you want, subject, of
course, to the limitations of the Amiga's display.
I think, as John P. also pointed out, that you probably didn't use
any of the ditherring options when you were in TAD. I personally favor the
Floyd(1), Burkes(2), or Random(6).
Hope this helped you some. For more info on wrapping, see my
message to Mike Egan about Imagine Altitude Mapping.
Terry T.
Rick, speaking of reaching memory limitations, I have just run into the old
problem of having objects missing from ray trace renders, the way it
happened with Turbo Silver. The object setup was filling an area just
approaching – and + 600 on the X axis, so I put in a size line in the
globals increasing the universe to 2048. When I did the traces, the man,
his desk and chair were all gone from the scene. Subsequently, I shrunk the
ground axis so it would fit into + and – 512, and then removed the global
size line. The image then rendered fine. Something tells me that the same
bug that plagued Turbo and its world sizes is back again… What do you
think? BTW, when the world size is set in globals to 2048, does that
effectively mean "up to 2048 on all axes", or does it mean "up to 1024 on
all axes", for a cubed area of 2048? Thanks! Scott
Scott, could you explain that bug a little more? That is exactly what is
happening to me with one of my images and it is driving me nuts! Do you
have to shrink your larges axis in order to get around it?
-Brian
The bottom line seems to be that everything must fit within a 1024 area
centered around the 0,0,0 axis point, and no increase in the world size (on
the globals size line) is functional… Scott
Terry,
I just got a mailing this week from MicroSearch offering a new package
of high-res (704 x 480) HAM images for brush-wrapping, including stone,
marble, brick, etc. They note that future releases will have wood, cloth,
and organic textures. They have a pic in the literature of 5 bowling pins
of various map rendered with Imagine. Though in B&W, it looks very good. My
order went out yesterday.
Karl
Karl,
Thanks for the info. I'll have to check them out. My main interest
though is in the "structured" textures as they use much less memory and
provide (in a way) more resolution than the brushes. I have been
experimenting alot with brushes in Imagine however. Especially now that we
can put multiple brushe on the same object. One of my favorite techniques
is to use the same brush as both an altitude map and a color map on a
sphere… Instant planet complete with surface contours. Good brushes for
this technique are Marble, Wood, and Fractals.
Terry T.
Terry,
Hmm, sounds interesting! I'll have to try that!
Ever think of UL'ing an image or two? I'd like to see one.
Karl
Karl, I hadn't thought of uploading, but that's just because I never have.
I'll try uploading a sample or two in the next day or so. The results are
very striking (at least to my eye)…
Terry T.
Terry,
Great! I'll be looking for them.
Karl
Karl, I just uploaded a frame from a recent animation I did that has a good
example of an altitude and color mapped planet. It also contains a brief
summary of the tools and techniques I used. The animation is quite nice
(and quite big-4 Meg) at least by the standards of things I've seen. It
depicts some Star Wars vehicles flying away from a small planet while the
camera kind of follows the vehicles on their flight. The planet is slowly
rotating. Too bad I can't upload the whole animation, but at 4 Meg that's
pretty farfetched. Tell me what you think of this image. It's my first
upload so go easy on me if you think it stinks! I'm pretty proud of it. The
animation is VERY impressive on my 27" JVC. George Lucas might even be
pleased! Oh, by the way, I uploaded the file (named PLANET.LZH) in the
AmigaArts section under "Raytraced Art". Download time should be about 3.5
minutes at 2400.
Terry T. P.S. The Sysop should post it in
the next few days.
Terry,
Terrific! I'll be drooling to download!
Karl
I also vote for a texture creator. (or better yet, an editor, but that's a
bit much) I experimented with the texture kit of Silver, but never really
got anything…. oh well.
You sound like you are having great success with brushes. I have tried the
multiple brush stuff too, with minimal success. Individual maps work ok,
but combining them seems to create a real muck at times. Any particular
hints? –jp–seattle–
John, Hints? Well, I'm not sure what it is I'm doing that seems to be
working. I think one of the things I found (Impulse might want to correct
me as to the details) is that when using "Wrap Z", the X size should be 1,
and likewise, when using "Wrap X", the Z size should be 1. Additionally,
when using "Wrap" as opposed to "Flat", the axis likes to be at the center
of where you want to wrap around. As an example, for a sphere at (0,0,0), I
would use both wrap X and wrap Z with X size of 1 and Z size of 1. It seems
to me that the sizes when using the "wrap" mode relate more to the number
of times your brush will wrap around the given axis. Oh, I didn't finish my
example! I would then put the brush at position (0,0,0) also. To sum up, it
seems to me that the sizes (of the brush) mean different things for "Wrap"
and for "Flat", and also, the brush axis location wants to be at different
locations for "Wrap" and "Flat". I told Karl I would upload some sample
images. You might look at these and if what I've told you above doesn't
make sense, I'll upload an object example.
Terry T.
Thanks, and you did make sense. 🙂 I noticed that Rick from Impulse
uploaded a brush wrapping tutorial, Wrap.lzh, so between the two of you I
hope to solve the multiple-brush technique. Thanks again. –jp–seattle–
Look for news in the Amigaarts Libs for my new product "Surface Master for
IMAGINE"…a comprehensive guide and set of tools to learn all of IMAGINES
TExtures and Attributes………………Louis
Louis, thank you. –jp–seattle–
They do indeed look nice, picked them up a couple of weeks ago. The info
enclosed says that you can special order the original 24 bit images from
them too.
Bill Carey – via Whap!
Bill,
Were you referring to those MicroSearch textures? (I'm not sure what
thread this was)
Karl
Yep, the Micro-Search.