#Retouching Framestores
55 messages in this thread
Want to be able to re-touch and alter Framestores – created by the
Toaster. So far – recommendations have been for IMAGEMASTER, with
some reservations. Is there any other software I should consider –
before plonking down any cash ? Glad of input – good – bad – or
indifferent….
IM R/t is cheap ($75), and does alot. I'd recommend getting it as an
add-on to ImageFX or ADPro. (Personally, I haven't used ADPro in
months – I _hate_ their interface, it's worse than IM's by a long
shot.)
ImageFX has a decent GUI, and offers somewhat better area selection
tools than IM. (IM's area selection is shown in a little tiny window
at the bottom of the screen, not like a standard 'marguee' overlaid
on the image – as you'd see on a Mac.) It seemed to lack the wide
range of features that IM offers, which in the end made it easier to
use 'out-of-the-box'.
None of them holds a candle to PhotoShop 2.5…..But then IM is 1/10th
the price of PS.
Have you ever checked out Toaster F/X? It supposedly allows Image F/X
to operate on the Framestores directly instead of converting back and
forth between RGB files. I haven't used it, and haven't seen it
advertised in a while, but would be very convenient if it worked.
Now that you mention it, I remember hearing about Toaster F/X, but
like you have never tried it. (I only had a few hours to try out
ImageF/X)
Real-time feedback on an NTSC monitor would be a nice benefit…….
Thanks,
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Byrd's Eye Software sells ToasterFX. They moved a while ago, so
you'll need to call information for their current number. They're
based in either Waco or Austin Texas…I'm at home and I don't have
my current info available.
ImageFX sells street price for about $200 these days. We also have a
new release, version 2.0, coming out Real Soon Now – we'll be in the
GVP conference on March 3rd to chat about it.
<check out Toaster FX–Erik Flom> Don't hold your breath guys!! I
have come to the conclusion that Byrd's Eye Software(ToasterFX)is
unprofessional as h#@$!! I was in the market for an image processing
package that would allow me to alter my framestores, etc.. I called
Byrd's Eye Software and spoke, at great length, with Ken Byrd about
Image FX–he had convinced me to purchase IFX–ONLY because he had the
other software to go with it. To make a long story short–I have
spoken to him 6 times and E-mailed him once–he still hasn't sent me
Toaster FX!! Everytime he says he thinks he sent it to me–its in
the mail (where have I heard that before!!). I have given up on him
and Image FX (since I can't get my hands on Toaster FX). Did I
mention–he specifically told me to call him AFTER I purchased Image
FX so, that he could send me out TFX–and then I was to tell him how
I enjoyed it? Why couldn't he be upfront with me if there are tech
problems or whatever?? This whole episode has taken 3-4 months—tell
me if you are more successful than I…………… Denise
Thanks for the info' Erik.
Am a bit mixed up however. You mention IM R/t – does the IM stand for
ImageMaster ?
From what you write the ImageFX seems to be worthy of attention. What's its
street price these days ?
I only want to have the "touch up" ability – rather than try and be Picasso et
alia.
All the best, HILARY.
Theres a demo of ImageFX here in the libs you might want to check
out. ImageFX is kinda pricey but I looks to have the best functions
for 'retouching' images for a beginner. I use DCTV paint for
retouching, ImageMaster R/T for FX processing, and ADPro for file
conversion and I/O. Great combo. ImageFX may replace all these for
basic needs. But I don't use it yet, goes for about $250-300.
Thanks for the info' John. Will take a look at the Demo' in the
Library – if I can find it! All the best, HILARY.
IM r/t does stand for Imagemaster R/t, the newest version.
When Eric mentioned that ImageFX had "superior area selection tools",
he justified that comment by saying that Imagemaster doesn't show a
marqee as does the mac; this is VERY misleading.
The small area select window he refers to is for your *previous* area
selection, which is something else entirely than what was described.
Certainly IM R/t shows an outline of the selected area as you create
it (which is when most users need it to, more than 99% of the time);
and, it has more powerful area selection tools than does ImageFX by
_far_ – not only are they more flexible, there are more OF them by
quite a margin. The ability to hot reposition many types of area
selects, the ability to define your OWN types of area selects even to
the extent of creating a face outline and then using it as a
flexible, movable area select in another editing session are examples
of the power avialable here.
On the other hand, when Eric mentions that ImageFX has fewer tools
than IM R/t, he's quite right. :^)
Ben. Thanks for explanation…. As I said, the simpler and faster
the better. I do have some questions on Imagemaster.. Can I select
one of my Toaster Framestores from that directory and bring it
directly into IM. ? Does it show up in the original colors ? Does
it appear full screen (as it would appear in video from Framestore)
? Have I tools at hand to put circles, squares etc. on to that
framestore ? Can I take an area of color on the original Framestore
and alter the shade ? MOST IMPORTANT…. can all these be done with
the minimum of fuss…. and QUICKLY ? All the best…… HILARY.
Yes, you can select a framestore from a directory and bring it
directly into IM R/t. In fact, if you've ever loaded it into IM R/t
previously, you can select it from a group of thumbnail images and
just double click on the picture. Not only will it appear in the
correct video aspect ratio as it did on the toaster (except in IM R/t
you can _see_ the overscan area of the image, where you can't when
it's in the framestore… makes it much easier to deal with overscan
image issues), you can also zoom in as close as you prefer and
operate on any area you like very easily as well.
Yes, the framestore shows up in it's original colors, and it keeps
them too (unless you change them on purpose. :^) The better your
Amiga's graphics capabilities, the better the image will look. AGA
Amigas do the best job at displaying high color images which again
should be no particular surprise; however, IM R/t has absolutely
hands down the best image display technology of any Amiga product. We
can take high color images and show them to you in better color
fidelity than any competing product has _ever_ been able to do on
both ECS and AGA machines.
Yes, you have the tools to put circles, squares and many more shapes
on images – IM R/t has all the standard tools, and whole bunch of
unusual ones – when was the last time you saw a star-shaped area
selector, or a city skyline shaped one? – we've got 'em and you can
add more of your own shapes easily.
Yes, you can take an area of color and alter the shade, and yes, you
can do it quickly (although that varies depending on which Amiga you
have… faster Amigas do it faster which I suppose is no surprise…
:^)
Does IM R/t support the EGS28/24 spectrum board? If yes, I would be
interested in purchase IM.
Juan
No, it sure doesn't. I think AdPro does – ImageFX might (kermit will ikely
answer uyou ASAP if so).
We've never seen the GVP EGS28/24display board; and until/unless they send
one along, there will be no support from us for it.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Thanks very much Ben for all the answers and information you sent me so
promptly.
Will now have to ponder… and scan the ads in "AMIGA WORLD" for a vendor and
his price.
Best regards, Hilary.
One thing you neglect to mention is that your area selection tools
seem to have an arbitrary concept of exactly which pixels to select
when doing an area select. All too often, I will do an area select
operation only to find that one side has selected one extra row or
column of pixels. The only way to get fine enough control is to zoom
in on the image, but then you don't auto-scroll when I reach the edge
of the zoomed in area during an area select operation.
Also, your little boolean operators may be powerful, but they're
nowhere near a simple as being able to add/remove to a selected area
by using the 'Shift' key in conjunction with the area select tools
(as in PhotoShop). Also, when stamping down a cut-out brush, it'd
sure be nice to have a real-time copy of the image, instead of an
outline. (Since PhotoShop on my Emplant can do this just fine, I
don't see why my 4000 would have trouble doing it.)
Also, very often your 'Outline' 'marquee' is barely visible, due to a
poor choice of palette color for the 'outline'. You should use an
alternating B&W 'zebra stripe' XOR'd on the image for your selection
area, as most other programs offer. I've noticed a similar problem in
your choice of colors for 'Show Co-ords' The BKGD is always black,
but the foreground text is almost never white – it's as though you
guys use a fixed palette color for the numbers, and ignore the fact
that that palette position might be near-black itself.
Also, I _still_ have as yet to generate a FLC that'll play on my 486.
(Your tech support this week could offer no solution, and no
projected date for resolution of this problem – this is too bad,
since I _need_ to generate a FLC for a paying project….)
BTW, PhotoShop has a really cool little feature: if you hold down the
option key while using the 'eraser' tool, it'll 'erase' to the
previously saved version of the image – a great way to 'undo'
something you'd done several steps previously.
BTW, it's EriK, not EriC. Thanks.
P.S. You got a really good review in 'On Production' this month! They
actually gave you credit for having the first desktop morphing
program.
Erik (sorry about the name screwup… ;^( ),
I didn't "neglect to mention it" ("it" being area selction
inaccuracy), I wasn't aware of it as a problem. Further, if it used
to be a problem it likely isn't now because the area selection code
has all been rewritten for the next release. :^) I have *never* had
an area selection problem such as you describe; of course, I work in
magnify because when an image is scaled down, you can't always see
the precise boundries you want to work with. You must remember that
IM R/t always scales the display to match the aspect and overscan and
etc, so many images cannot be pixel-for-pixel edited without some
level of zoom – this is inherent. Regarding autoscroll… I _hate_
that and that's why it's not there. I prefer to combine the selected
areas – you have much more precise control and you don't pay the time
penalty for redraws every time you get too close to an edge without
thinking. I suppose we should add it with a user option switch (so I
could turn it off). I'll make a note of it.
Since a large number of our customers ARE producing FLC's that work,
it seems to me that your FLC player may not be up to the task of
dealing with the FLC you are generating. Some FLC players are limited
to specific resolutions or ranges of resolutions. This may be the
root of your problem – or there may be a bug that specifically
affects the way you are doing things as compared to others' methods.
Tech Support is not at liberty to divulge release dates for new
versions unless I *specifically* say so, and I have not, nor will I
at this time. Don't blame them, blame me. :^)
Our "little boolean operators" do exactly what you describe. Press
the appropriate one (just like you'd press the "little shift key" in
PS) and use the make mask operation under process and it'll do just
what you describe (with any set of area selection tools)… add or
remove areas. once you've got the complete area done, using redo and
any operation gets it done.
The use of "actual" images of the brush are a bit problematical as
well, due to the huge number of display modes it'd have to be
supported in. Not impossible, just really, really, hard. We'll
probably add it sometime when we've got several weeks to spend on
that one issue. Since what's there works just fine, it's not a high
priority.
You can't "XOR a B&W zebra stripe", Erik. When you XOR, you get
colors which are ordinal opposites of the palette number of the pixel
under the XOR. You have to _draw_ a zebra stripe. When you draw one,
you have to redraw the image data underneath it. When you redraw in
the case of a low color image, you have to know either (a) the exact
display state for every surrounding pixel to reconstruct the dither
or, (b) save every pixel, or (c) redraw without dither (which
seriously degrades the image and takes mucho time). When you XOR a
line, XOR'ing it again removes it quickly and easily and without
resorting to the image data or dither issues. Those are very time
consuming (in the CPU sense) and that's the precise reason that the
functionality isn't there. It's easy for an end user such as yourself
to forget the color limitations that stock Amigas impose on software;
when you're picking colors for image fidelty from a group of 16, for
instance, any two colors dedicated to "zebras" significantly (as in
oviously) degrade the display image quality – this is something we
like to avoid as much as possible.
Heck, it we had just 256 color and 24-bit to deal with seriously it'd
be a whole different ball game. But that's not the case with the
Amiga. Or even the PC, anymore.
The co-ordinates problem sounds like it would be easily fixed, and
should be. I'll see to it.
Imagemaster R/t can "erase" to a previous version of an image easily.
Load it into a buffer. Keep it around as you work (in fact, make the
buffer each time you decide you have a "keeper" version. When you
want to go back, select it as secondary and rub it thru. Works just
fine.
Photoshop: Imagemaster R/t is not a Photoshop clone. Photoshop is
fine, for what it does (which is a darned sight less than IM R/t can
do). It's got some very convenient tools and shortcuts; and for
"prepress" ops, it's pretty much without peer at this time. However,
IM R/t is designed to be a generalized image manipulator – and it far
outperforms Photoshop at that task. I'm NOT saying we shouldn't use
some of the capabilities that Photoshop has – sure, they'd be very
convenient. But in point of fact, I could list you literally hundreds
of operations you just can't do in Photoshop at all which IM R/t does
without breaking a sweat.
On Production actually got the credit right, eh? Amazing. After the
all the botch-ups in that other recent review (new media, was that
it?) where they screwed up darn near everything, it's nice to hear
that some accuracy snuck in somewhere. $599 list price, indeed. Hah!
Thanks for the feedback.
PMFJI but I also had problems with Imagemaster's FLC writer. I seem
to have found the problem tho, if I DON'T set it to Loop it works
perfectly. If I set the loop frame then bizarre things happen. Hope
this helps in the FLC mystery
Ooooh, oooh! I'll give that a shot.
Try it,it works. No loop frame and I have no problems. Well Erik, I
just tried it WITH a loop Frame and it WORKS FINE. Musta been a
previous version I'd tried that it didn't work. If memory serves I
have 1.03
Yeesh! I've got rev 1.06 (unlabeled _rev 1.06r2_, but that's only if you
look on the disk, not in the program itself….)
Grrrr. I did it once. It's simple in concept. How come I can't get it to
work?!? (Oh well……)
Thanks for checking. I'll try it again when I get the chance. (Probably at
least once before the March 1 due date for this project! :^)
Thanks,
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Good Luck Erik. Which Player are you using on the PC side? AAPLAY.EXE???
Can you tell me what version this happened with?
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
I think I have IM R/T 1.03 Ben. Hold a sec I'll check er out. Ok I
just checked, it is 1.03 and guess what…….. Yup, I must never
have checked THIS version because I just tried it on a 160*100 rez
FLC WITH Loop Frame and it worked Perfectly. Scratch another problem
from the list!!!!!!! YEAH!!!!
So whens the next version due Ben this way I can call in for an
upgrade? Thanx. BTW what're ye upto ? 1.07????
Glad to hear it works for you… you had me going there. :^) I dunno
exactly where we're at, in fact… I have the beta of the next
release on my HD here and it's 1.5 – which is quite a step from the
minor releases (for good reason). Few weeks, I think. But that's not
carved in stone.
ok Ben. Thanx foir the info on versions
Point taken about area selection. I guess you're just used to the
'consistencies' of your interface as opposed to the rest of the
world. Well, the FLC player I'm using is AAPlay. The problem I am
having (and have always had) is that the file bufname.flc _never_
gets bigger than one frame in size. Your program will sit there and
render out the images until its blue in the face, but the FLC file
will _never_ increase in size. BTW, your tech support rep confirmed
that _he_ was getting errors trying to use AAPlay to play FLCs
generated by IM. Like I've always said: just tell me what I'm doing
wrong, and I'll stop asking why it doesn't work. (It's been over a
year now, and all I've been able to generate are 2 files that choke
when run on the PC.)
As for your 'little boolean operators': All I'll say is that it's
alot easier to push and release a shift key….and it's also easier
to remember to turn it off (let up on the key), as compared to a
toggle. Numerous times, I will use the operator, but then forget to
disable it for the next operation, leading to results I don't want,
and the need to undo and redo the operation.
Your comment about using images of brushes during line draw placement
are falling on unsympathetic ears. Your statement that it 'works
fine' does little to make it easier to use.
OK, so you get colors when you XOR a 'Zebra Stripe' over a color
image! So what! The point is that your current selector/outline is
_usually_ very hard to see against a mottled background. I've seen it
in other programs. The least you could do is impliment it for the
large group of AGA users out there who have the luxury of a 256 color
palette.
I knew I was going to get flamed for bringing up usability problems
with your program. Like I said: your program does some great image
processing, but I sure wouldn't want to have to use it in a
production environment w/o a couple of weeks of training. For 1/10th
the cost of PhotoShop, it does some cool stuff.
I was *not* flaming you. I was just trying to explain how we see
things and (in the case of the zebra issue) why it's not as
straightforward as it seems. I wasn't saying I wasn't listening to
your comments either… the next version already addresses some of
these concerns. :^)
Sorry, I've been working alot recently, and most of it has been on the
PC.
I have a greater respect for Amiga programs and their peculiarities…..
:^)
Anyway, it wasn't really taken as a flame, and I _do_ understand your
problems w/ the Amiga display setup – unfortunately, it doesn't make
my job any easier. (Especially when I find out that your GIF render
option _does not_ use the existing palette as specified in the
'Adjust Palette' requestor on the Amiga. [Remember when I commented
that the palette was not updated to reflect a GIF render….well, now
I know why. :^) ])
Thanks for listening,
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
<looking crosseyed> It doesn't? It should! I'll poke the boys about the
GIF palette…
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Erik,
Until Black Belt fixes the GIF problem, here's a possible solution: use AdPro
to remap the image. (Everyone has AdPro, don't they?) Load the palette. Lock
it. Load your GIF. AdPro will say, "The palette is locked. Replace it?" Answer,
"No way". Then select CUST and Execute: the image will be remapped to conform
to your specified palette. Not perfect, but it works.
Blaq!
Offtopic but…..THANX for the tips on the Particles in Imagine. I just
completed a Meltdown of a Chrome Statue using your idea. Very Nice…..
Also Overusing it now, doing a Reverse Time Partilce Anim of the "Chronic
Rift" logo
'Everyone has ADPro, don't they?' – Not this cheapskate! :^)
Seriously, I just _hated_ their early LoRes NonLace interface, and haven't
looked at their product since…….maybe to my detriment. But, I can get
most of what I need done (for this job) with IM & DPain(t) on the PC.
(It's just figuring out how to use all those undocumented 'features' that
you get when you try something in IM….:^)
Thanks anyway!
Keep On Toastin'
Erik Flom
Ben,
I agree with part of both messages, Erik's complaints about area selection and
your reply. One thing I hate about working in IM is the inherent lack of
precision that arises when trying to outline a 24-bit region on my .31 dot
pitch 1950 monitor. When I work in DPaint's hi-res mode, and I'm trying to pick
up a bevelled plaque, say, as a brush, I can confidently release the mouse
button because DPaint's XOR-type area selection border visibly changes color
when the edge of the brush falls on the plaque rather than the background. This
is something I can't have in IM, but I can't really complain about it, because
IM is simply overlaying a 2-color selection area display onto the 24-bit image
displayed by my 24-bit card. There's no interaction between the two images; IM
doesn't care what each 24-bit pixel's color is. The only reason I can't easily
see whether my selection accidentally includes one row/column of background is
my monitor's limited sharpness, and there's nothing you can do about that. The
alternative would be for IM to actually draw the selection area onto the 24-bit
image, a slow process. The way things are right now, area selection is snappy,
because all IM has to keep track of is a white selection border on a 1-bit
black background.
I have to agree with Erik, that selection areas and text/number displays can be
hard to read when the area/text/number color is similar to the underlying
region of the 24-bit image. Here are two ways for you to solve the problem: 1)
Use a key, Shift for example, that alternate the palette color with which you
draw areas/text/numbers. This way, there would always be a way for the user to
get a readable display. 2) do what Impulse did in Imagine 2.0's menus: draw
everything with a dropshadow! White text with a black shadow would be very
effective, regardless what the 24-bit card is displaying.
Finally, I have to agree with Erik on the lack of precision when selecting
areas. I too have had the feeling that Imagemaster's selection was off by one
pixel on
[ MORE ]
Blaq,
The next release of IM R/t has a completely reworked area selection
system. It looks different – zebra stripes, as a matter of fact (although
you can still XOR if you prefer). The code underneath that selects the
regions themselves is all new, and much more precise. It's a back-port of
the code in our windows product, in point of fact. The area selections can
also now be much more complex (overlaps, multiple concave and covex
regions) without any fill errors or oversights. The area selects them
selves are faster, and the reediting is more powerful. Hopefully you'll be
pleased. We've been working on this area of the program quite hard.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
[ continuation ]
occasion. This is just a feeling, though, and as a developer/bug reporter, you
need more than anecdotal evidence. Perhaps Erik can better document the
problem? It would help us all.
Blaq!
Sorry, the 'short-hand' among ImageMaster owners is to call it IM. The
R/t indicates the new version (6-8mos old) which has an improved
interface, and allows retargeting to some 24 bit boards.
(Unfortunately, it doesn't support the Toaster….:^()
ImageF/X runs about $250 from DevWare. (The same place selling IM for
$75) You might find IM too frustrating for general 'touch-up' work
due to it's lack of an on-image selection indicator, but it does do
alot of cool image processing….
BTW, congrats on your Wangtek probs!
"I only want to have the "touch up" ability – rather than try and be
Picasso at alia" Believe me, once you get IM (Imagemaster), ImageFX
or AdPro, you won't be able to tear yourself away from these effects
menus! "Maybe this still would look funkier with Relief… <undo> or
maybe Brightness dilate… what, 2 AM already?"
>> (Personally, I haven't used ADPro in months – I _hate_ their interface,
it's worse than IM's by a long shot.)
ADPro was just upgraded to version 2.5, the interface has been changed
and is now completely Amiga StyleGuide compliant. The price for the
upgrade is $40. plus $5.00 S&H. from version 2.3. Check their forum
for more info.
I was never an owner of the product. I only had a chance to use it for a
little while, and the fact that you have to buy their 'Pro Conversion
Pack' to do anything kinda turned me off to it.
I'll definitely check it out though. I get the impression they are
interested in trying to improve the usability of their product.
ImageMaster seems like more of an image processing tool than
painting, ImageFX may be better for this.
Nope – Im R/t has more painting power than any of the competitors.
Statements to the contrary aside, your comment is a very accurate
one.
I haven't used ImageMaster in quite a while, and since Ben seems to
upgrade every few weeks, my own confidence in my opinion was not high
enough to attempt a rebuttal. I always like these Adpro/IM/Ifx
debates, but rarely say the real answer: Most serious users will
eventually own all these programs, and use each for their own
particular favorites strengths. I still like ADPro's palette
control, and haven't even messed with these features in the other
two. In this particular RWar, I'm an agnostic!
Hmm. :^) Maybe it's time you looked at IM R/t's AGA palette controls?
because it's got…
– 24-bit painters mix area w smear,wash,draw
– 256 24-bit palette wells
– Independently for every color, the ability to:
pick when rendering using a VERY powerful color picker,
use as is (color as you set it in the palette), or
not use at all (will not be used when rendering).
– RGB, HSV, CMY, CMYK & HSL controls
– RGB color cube, live
– 10 available 256 color ranges
– RGB Spreads
– Hue Spreads
– Mirror RGB spreads
– Copy & Swap
– Hue and Luma sorting
– Range insertion and extraction
BTW, I agree that serious users will own all three products – and there's
good reason for that.
OK, I really need that:
>>pick when rendering,use as is, or not use at all<< adpro only lets
me set a beginning offset for colors not to pick AND render with, its
a trick to get the gadget colors to be untouched, yet still use those
colors in an image without redundancy in the palette.
You didn't mention anything like a multi-image palette picker, which
could get a histogram from some huge series of images, and make an
optimal palette. I currently shrink and composite all the images i
can, which chucks alot of data while also taking longer than
necessary.
Your suggestion of a 'multi-image palette picker' to optimize palettes
for animation would be a cool option.
Yo, Ben. I second Arnie's suggestion to have a means of optimizing a
palette for a bunch of images. (It would have greatly eased the
'palette hell' I've been going through on this PC project. :^)
Ok, we're working on it.
Our color picker doesn't use histogram techniques… which is one of
the reasons it outperforms every other one on the market. :^) Your
composite and render is a good method for picking, but has the
drawback that since the images are reduced, many colors are
subsampled or averaged out. However, we're working on this specific
issue… :^)
You "like ADPro's palette control", eh? I've finally resolved some
palette problems for a recent PC CD project, but trying to get what I
want from just IM, and a few low-end PC 'paint' programs has been
frustrating at best! (Mostly due to my own assumptions. :^) Thanks
for the input.
BTW, Just got issue 2 of LWPro, with your article about macros. Wow.
I knew feeling there was some cool stuff, but now that I've got more
than a title, some of those macros give me some 'interesting' ideas.
<VBG> (Just wish I had time to play…..writing 'Multimedia' programs
in DOS on a PC for the last few weeks is driving me crazy!!!! Lesse,
I've got 8 characters for a filename, and dozens of
images……Aaaaahhh!)
See my reply to Ben, we tend to like what we know and have tons of arexx
macros for. MS-DOS is a wonderful OS, I haven't seen one like that in
years!
If you want to retouch the images as in a paint program, I recommend
Brilliance. Their True-Brilliance paint program uses HAM or HAM-8
displays but keeps all info in 24 bit format. In other words it loads
and saves 24 bit files that look gread displayed on a 24 bit card
such as the Toaster of the PAR card.