Rodney

Those nickels and dimes do add up though especially when the money is needed the most. I suppose the key would be to be in the right place at that right time when the interest really kicks in. A couple thousand hits at even a buck or two would then amount to being worth the effort. Slightly off topic: There was a write up not long ago that I enjoyed on the difference between quality and quantity. It stated that quality being as subjective as it is, quantity is the prime area to tap into. The article didn't exactly state it that way... that's just my rodneyfication of it. Obviously you've got to have a high level of quality but end the end that isn't the deciding factor in what draws people in. Some with the bare minimum of quality have captured the public's attention and have enjoyed some lasting nostagia and longevity as well. So how does that apply here? You've got several 'franchises' going and while none may draw a big crowd all by themselves, together they may help you reach some level of critical mass that you would recognize as being commercially successful (i.e. at least enough to cover the cost of wages and expenses). The point being that while important, quality is not enough to get you there... but quantity is and (theoretically at least) will. This is especially true with regard to animation because without quantity we just have a random selection of (tentatively related) still images.

Nice car. I like! I like your description of the 'one size fits all' roadway too. I hope to do something similar with a cityscape (if'n I ever get around to it).

I can certainly give it the old college try. Do you have the model that you posted a pic of in your first post of this topic? I'm liking that guy and he'd provide a nice starting place.

Tar looked a little loney sitting there below the $1K level. Pledged! (He ain't there no more)

Nice write up on real world use of Action Objects. Lots of folks don't know they have those at their disposal. That sounds like an ideal way to reenergize to me. Break away and reattack the problem another day. Thanks for the info Steve and Chris!

Very nice character!

I was drawing so started doodling death... not the Death... but well... skull shapes. Did you ever finish this model?

Here is a quick look of where I think they could be pushed... (factor for your style and more difference in proportions of course!)

Something of an odd thought.... It might be interesting to attempt to base all three of the following in part on the same basic model: Latimer's Father Marc Anthony King Midas Rationale: Remember that Latimer is struggling with breaking out on his own and all three of these character represent some place that Latimer doesn't want to be when he grows up. Possible way to proceed: Press this one toward being a hunky young muscular hero type (Marc Anthony) first, then use this same basic mesh (or the same generic mesh to mold Latimer's Father. Finally, really pull out all the stops and make King Midas a gross representation of the character. Need further reason for pursuing this route? If nothing else you'd have one seriously cool model if it could morph into all three personas. You'd also have a really good grasp of how to animate with the rig. You'd really only have to rig once. Now, there is another aspect of this I've been interested in pursuing personally and that is kind of hush hush for the moment until I can figure out the basics of how best to proceed. We could stop in for a drink at the Raven and discuss the matter if'n you want to. In the end, after giving it a good run for the money, I'd say we'll be needing the expertise of the rigging gurus.

This has been stewing for about five years so I might get it back on the burner again. One way to think of this might be to consider what would happen if you were to place a grid in front of the camera rather than a hollow patch such as you have where A:M 'sees through' the hole and is obstructed by the matte, i.e. your camera frame blocker ™. The standard response should be... 'Um... Rodney. If we put a grid in front of the camera... it will mask the entire scene. In this you would be correct. Now, align that grid in such a way as to emulate your camera frame blocker (it can help t think in terms of something like a 'Rule of Thirds' overlay here). Now, select that center patch of the grid and change it's transparency to 100%. You will now have (more or less) the same setup as what you have in the camera frame blocker. The difference is that the center patch is still there and... can be used in a variety of interesting ways. It can, for instance be colored black and then the transparency can be animated to fade the scene captured in the window to black, out of black to another color... too many options to list here. But there's more... add a patch image to that Name Group... add fifteen if you want. Add Decals/brandings also if you are into that sort of thing. Now you've turned A:M into a customizable compositor. You can edit your entire movie right there in the camera frame by adjusting the transparency of each patch image. Add layers and overlays to better control ambiance, bump, normal maps, etc. Add customized filters (wipes, zooms, etc.) from previously rendered sequences. You've given me a lot more food for thought here because I've been considering such a thing in two dimensions only and not particularly focused on the angle you are here. Simplicity is also key. In that I've been failing to see the forest for the trees.

Yes, No and not necessarily. I'm thinking in all cases here, including some applications not considered by William (for instance, rendering from any angle in a Modeling or Action window) In the case of a realtime render the entire* 'on screen' frame gets rendered to include William's outer frame. In the case of a final render some of the frame might render if it is not exactly aligned or within the renderable frame. *Note: I say 'entire' but this isn't quite the case. It seems the right/left boundaries are maintained but the top and bottom are not. I'm not sure why that is. I've attached a render using William's project where we can see the top and bottom of the added camera frame blocker in the rendered frame. This is what might happen if the user was not fully zoomed in on A:M's renderable area/frame.

I would think this would shorten render times considerably as well (in realtime and when test rendering). We should investigate. For instance, would using an 'on top' rotoscope work better/faster/slower than using a model? Could further realtime optimizations be made so that A:M wastes little/no time because it knows the cover is there? I believe the old 'Eggslice' utility use to use a similar method for-up rez'ing renders to the nth degree but blocking out areas of the screen and then piecing them backtogether later. I'm not trying to complicate your innovation unnecessarily. If it masks unneeded areas perfectly then it's accomplished that goal here.

Hear! Hear! Thanks for everything you've done in making v17 everything it is. Impressive work!

Paving the way for animators everywhere as always Mark. Good on ya! The price is certainly right. If I didn't already have the DVD I'd be buying. Still might. As with most of the current crop of distribution sites I'm always looking for those that don't take too much of a piece out of the pie. (I'm a bit leery of Kickstarter for this reason also) Hopefully most of that $3.99 gets into your pocket. Added: I see this from their FAQ: Seems very reasonable. Anything over 10% has me moving on immediately. With tech the way it is today few distros should charge over 10%. If they are there should be some serious benefits returned for that fee. Gumroad looks to even beat the 'best of class' model of charging 99 cents per transaction. At one time I thought that might be an optimal fee.

The word 'version' is something of a misnomer. There is only one current version of A:M (as of this writing v17.0g). If we pay $79 we get access to the same version we do if we pay $299. We can subscribe for one year at $79 or we can subscribe to that release forever (i.e the version we purchase for $299 does not expire). As Robert stated, when paying $299 we also get the extra physical resources (two manuals and a data DVD full of resources).

Keep in mind that my point here is not that Corel is offering a particular product but rather that the technology in question is working it's way toward us in a variety of products and services at more affordable prices. Things like screen capture, motion tracking and the like have been maturing to the point where it's becoming (more) trivial for software to include them. Some of this might be due to patents fading away but I tend to think it's more because the web is moving toward a more video-centric model and companies see these tech tools as essential even at the lower end of their product lines. As the tech continues to mature and saturate the market new and innovative uses will emerge. In light of this, importing from Premiere to Corel becomes a moot point. If the conversion process isn't in place it'll eventually be worked around and the incompatibilities surmounted. There are two types of incompatibilities, true incompatibilities and those that are artificially constructed. Bridges can be made in the case of the first and the second will be eventually crushed by competition. The first is non-proprietary at its root while the other is intentionally proprietary. The obstacle to the first is mostly one of research and development whereas the latter is acquisition of information that will inevitably bypass proprietary/artificial networks. This is an important distinction because large companies that feel secure in their current stranglehold on technology can lose everything before they even know it. Screen capture is a perfect example of this. There is coming a day when screen capture is going to be ubiquitous. (it almost is already) Right now the default setting for every system is 'do not record' but soon the default will be 'record'. This has important ramifications that will bring even more technological advances forward. As with most advances there will be some early and some late adopters and others that will resist the move. Like water the tech will seek it's own level in the over all ebb and the flow. A furtherance of this is the shift from 2D to 3D systems we are seeing in it's bare infancy at this point. Some of the magic that can be done in 2D will take on more than just one new dimension in a 3D world especially when we aren't considering still imagery and move to non-linear and super-spatial constructs. As an interesting 'for instance' consider what is being trivially accomplished now in seam carving on still imagery. In short order this tech will be moving to video and in time it will change the way everyone except the most stalwart of old school adherents work. Why meticulously paint out unneeded detail on each frame in a video when all you have to do is identify/select an object or area (on any frame) and remove it automatically from every frame in the entire video? Over the years Corel has obviously found a niche market in bringing elements of new tech to the average user who doesn't yet really need or understand that technology. Because the tech is pennies on the dollar to incorporate into their software (or becomes moreso over time and volume) I believe they will continue to push their entry level software as a stake in the ground to advise the average non-technical folk that this new tech isn't just in the high end systems but is now accessible, useful and available via their products. It's almost the equivalent of those boxes of software you'd find in the front of the store in a huge bin that were always 10 times cheaper than the 'professional' software. As a higher end user you knew (or where about to find out) you were going to be disappointed if you purchased one because it was going to lack the full features that you desired in the expensive products but as an average user who just needed a particular task accomplished with basic tools you'd be quite satisfied with the results.

There may be other ways but I like the way you think William! There are several reasons to use the approach you have for augmenting a camera's view. One example is to facilitate camera effects such as fades, cross-dissolves, wipes, etc.

I'd say he looks a bit young at this point... perhaps a but more Marc Anthony than Latimer's Father. He looks to be in his late twenties to early thirties in this latest image so it may be sufficient just to age him by about 30 years. I seem to recall you had him at about 58 years old but perhaps that was Latimer's Mother. Have you heard that old saying about how older husbands and wives often start to resemble each other after spending so many years together? It might be good to save this guy out as an extra at this point and then continue to modify with an eye toward complimenting his wife in the looks department. There is also that approach to inbetweening characters... take Latimer's Mom.... then take Latimer... and push the look of both but with certain features favoring one or the other (in this model). Latimer for instance might have inherited his mothers eyes... but not her nose... he might have his cheekbones but not his chin. Similarly, Latimer's father has inherited traits from his side of the family (his own parents, grandparents etc.) That kind of thing. Like I said though... save this guy out... he'll make a great character regardless of who he ends up being.

Random thoughts follow... so beware... In thinking about environments and color schemes I had a thought related to something I posted before but didn't get your feedback on yet. The original thought was to have a lot of the backgrounds washed out, faded, weathered, grayscale more than anything else. The characters then would contrast even more against this harsher background ...and... Render times should drop considerably. But this isn't the only reason I'm thinking along these lines. The thought is also to really push the constrast between the various environs: Land of the Living (Latimer's Parents House and the living-side cemetery) Land of the Dead Cemetery Just outside the LotD Cemetery (hilly terrain with road... mountains in the distance) Town The Raven Cleo's Castle The Depths (Hellcat caverns) Cleo's Throne Room King Mida's Mines (throne room) Catecombs Widow's House Latimer's Parents House in tLotD Cleo's Ballroom Etc. My thought goes back to the idea that everything in the Land of the Dead is dead. But this would be true only up to the point of exception which is where all of these dead people have created artificial constructs of some kind in order to recall their former lives here in tLotD. In Cleo's castle for instance there might be a lot of colorful greenery that suggests living plants but... it's all fake. None of it alive. Cleo has the power to put folks to work creating artificial worlds just for her. Similarly, King Midas has a lot of slaves ready at his beck and call. A bit too tired to continue this at the moment...

With apologies beforehand for even making the attempt to guess. I'm going to say it's one of your decals. Probably the largest one. Reduce that in size as a test and see if that makes the difference.

おたんじょうびおめでとう ございます! otanjobi omedito gozaimasu!

Thought I'd post this because it represents several trends in software of late. A few of them include: Higher Resolutions (including support for 4K) Screen Capture Motion Tracking Video Layering These represent must-have technologies in my estimation. In this case, I see Corel is pressing into the market more fully by enhancing their Video Studio products and at $79 that makes for an affordable solution when similar products can easily range toward $399 and upward. dYWGQnjFWmk They have a trial version for those who want to explore. (Trial Link) Disclaimers: I have not used Corel VideoStudio in years so cannot attest to its current ease of use or functionality. As with all video editors a lot of RAM is recommended to keep the video editing smooth and the interface responsive. I am an occasional beta tester for Corel products but haven't beta tested any of their video editors. I still have high hopes for the soon-to-be opened source Lightworks as it is a high end video editor that will be available on Win/Mac/Linux. While the future looks bright for Lightworks, as far as I know there are no plans to add screen capture functionality to it. With any luck future operating systems will include that technology.

Hey its officially 'David Higgins' day. Ya'll come out and celebrate. Happy Birthday David!

Very nice David. Very nice indeed! Now you've got me wanting to see the whole film.

This was a bit of a tough choice for me... (the poll choices that is) I chose 'share 'em with the forum' but I'd say to share with the backers first and then after an appropriate time (whatever you deem reasonable) release them outside that arena. In this way the backers have a while to feel 'special'. The assets are valuable. If you release immediately they could (but not necessarily will) lose some of that value. Timed release of information and resources (supply vs demand) has a long history of increasing/stablizing demand. I suppose the trick is to not artificially inflate or deflate the value of the resource but to match the true value of the product or service under consideration. You may want to run another kickstarter some day and if you always release immediately... why the heck support the kickstarter (for that level of support) in the first place. I wouldn't want to back option 3 (Backers can choose to share when and how) because that would create a grey area where some hard feeling could arise such as when I share with some folks but laugh in some other folks face, dangling the resources in front of them... or selling them on the black market because everyone else has decided to keep them to themselves. Disclaimer: I would like to be able to change my view on this subject tomorrow after greater reflection.