Rodney

I want to revisit this again because I don't want to steer you clear of Adobe Media Encoder if you have a legitimate need to use it. There are many reasons that would make $20 a month worth the expense. There is a lot to like about Adobe Media Encoder but the two primary reasons I would likely use it would be: 1) To get at formats I cannot in any other software Currently this is the MOX/NOX format that is new and not well distributed. It's a great format for use in Adobe Premiere and After Effects (Encoder uses the Premeire plugin). Additional reasons in this same general area of interest would revolve around optimization of any given file format. 2) Watch Folders This is a powerful tool in that folders on a drive can be set for monitoring and when files are added/updated to the folder specific activities take place such as conversions etc. An example using your stated goal would be to convert a sequence of TGA files to another movie format. If you render to TGA sequence, Encoder would automatically convert to other format. I tend to render out of A:M into folders named 'RenderFolder'* and... if set up accordingly... Media Encoder would recognize that I've added/updated files in that specific directory and automatically convert them behind the scenes. I haven't tested but I think this would include automated uploads to Youtube, Facebook or wherever. Render out of A:M.... done. The key of course would be that the settings would have to be properly set for the automation to occur. This can be especially useful if a sequence of images needed to be converted to multiple formats, i.e. gif animation, MP4, H264 and perhaps altered in some fashion such as captioned, color adjusted, resized, etc. This capability alone would be worth $20 if the volume/frequence justified its use. If already a current Adobe CC subscriber Encoder is certainly a useful tool in the digital artist's arsenal. *If I'm feeling particularly lazy I name my renderfolder 'RF' or 'rf' and press on. The important thing being to get the rendering going and files appearing in a known location. There are other mostly theoretical reasons for rendering to a static location but few programs take advantage of those in that they render to that location while exposing all the various optimization options to the user. I believe most programs do render to the same location (in temp memory or cache) before handing off the data in final distributed form.

Yikes. Don't do that. (unless you need some of Adobe's other tools) As Robert mentioned, converting via A:M is the easy route. The catch with using A:M as an option would be that the image files need to be named/ordered in a sequence to go that easy route. We can convert unsorted/random sequences too but it's best to get those images named correctly. The primary downside of converting random image sequences via A:M would that the quick conversion needs all the images to be of the same resolution. (As a caveat... even differing image resolutions can be converted via A:M but... not via the quick 'Save As Animation' method.) If I ever need to rename large numbers of files or get them into another format or resolution I lean toward Irfanview as a quick solution. Others have mentioned so useful programs for conversion. In addition to those mentioned I'd add OpenToonz as a option. It has a batch renaming utility/browser. It also has some similar node based compositing and effects tools such as Blackmagic Designs very powerful Fusion compositor. Images can also just be drag/dropped into the xsheet and they are automatically in sequence. Then the sequence just has to be rendered out to the desire format. I should mention that A:M can basically do this same thing by simply drag/dropping images into A:M. If you can provide specific details about your image sequence more specific solutions can be suggested. Without knowing more I'd say it sounds like A:M is the best choice for conversion. I can think of five different ways to convert images from one format/sequence to another in A:M and I'm sure I'm missing a few (for instance, I'm not considering use of Netrender which can be used to automate A:M conversions). It should be said that there are good reasons to use programs such as Adobe Media Encoder but for simple conversion it isn't required. A:M isn't ideal for optimization of formats, reducing file size, adding LUTs, etc. In my estimation the best reasons to use A:M for this... other than that it's quick and efficient... is that such use will suggest some of the other ways we can use A:M to manipulate images too.

I suppose one question to ask would be... What recently changed? This is especially true given that you weren't having the problem before and then... Did you recently install Win10 or a new graphics card? Is this a new computer? I've gone through a wide range of things I thought might be wrong but none seems to quite fit your situation. The difficulty on my end is that I suspect a setting or mode that has you in a view that you normally are not in but it's hard to troubleshoot that without access to your computer. Barring that potential I'd suspect a graphics card issue but that doesn't quite feel right. Let us assume for a moment the problem is with your graphics card. If that is the case then a trip to the website of your graphics card manufacturer would be in order. Download and install any updates or utilities they provide. Again, assuming this is a hardware issue (which I resist believing is the case at this point) we would need to know more of your current computer specs and graphics card details. The effect of the see-through CPs looks like you might be in Decal Editor window (where all CPs show on top of the decal image) but I don't see anything that would indicate you are in that mode. You appear to be in a standard Front view in the modeling window. In trying to mess up my computer I can't replicate the look. It'll be well worth your time to rule out the graphics card. For that I'd first update your driver. (double check that is... I see you've mentioned updating them) Then look at the specific specs and settings of that card. I'd be curious to know if this is an Nvidia card.

I'd be curious to see what happens when you select everything and then hit the F key (to flip normals). Also, if you an include the interface with your screen capture that might help to see the bigger picture of what you are seeing on your end.

Via a Post Effect it is. I imagine the Post Effect would need to be applied to a Camera to get the effect 'in render' otherwise it'd be more of an actual 'post' effect (i.e. process applied to a final image). The Tint post effect has several presets that can be selected but it can also be customized to a range between any two colors. In addition to the standard (old) post effect there is the newer GPU post effects that also include a Tint effect that operates much like the old one. Edit: The GPU effects don't include a 'tint' but rather only two tint-like presets (among other options). Those are sepia and negative. I haven't tried to nest more than one post effect (via A:M Composite) to get a wider range... I'll have to try that. Added: Don't forget that because the Toon effect is determined by model/group surface settings you can have different objects present different ranges of the effect. So in effect (pun intended!) we could have distant objects appear as in in one range, near objects another and those inbetween something else.

I have no idea what brought on this doodle but as Live Answer Time was drawing to a close I found myself modeling barrels full of toxic waste. I surely don't recall chatting about toxic waste... But a lot of other stuff was covered.

Congrats Simon! Keep up the great work.

Looks like he removed it.

I think the short answer is going to be "parallax". When we change the camera's focal length we are 'messing with the math' in ways similar to a real camera. It may be that rather than changing the camera's focal length you need to move the camera forward/backward in space instead (with the same focal length). In that way you shouldn't see the objects appear to change as you currently are experiencing it. If moving the camera in the z axis (forward and backward) isn't ideal it may be that you want to use "Layers" instead of "Rotoscopes" for your image because you can more easily place your images into 3D space relative to the other objects in a scene versus relative to the camera that way. An added benefit to Layers (or Patch Images... or decals on patches) is that they can be rotated whereas Rotoscopes always stay put straight up and down and can only be seen from cardinal directions (front, back, right, left, top and bottom. If you want to try the Layer approach.... Perhaps the easiest way to create a Layer is to drag and drop your image into your Choreography from the Project Workspace listing. When you do this A:M will give you a choice between creating a Rotoscope or Layer. Choose Layer and then position the layer appropriately.

The M3D is the one I got via kickstarter and.... no dice. The plastic melted through/merged with the base before I got a decent print and made the printer pretty much inoperable. I've nothing really against the printer or company as I didn't pursue replacement. It satisfied my curiosity about 3D printing*. The printers surely have improved since the initial release but for my own personal experience with the M3D I cannot recommend it. Perhaps you could purchase a base plate and I could get this printer to you for the cost of shipping/handing. It's still sitting next to my desk... staring at me... reminding me not to waste money... Otherwise it's not doing me much good. *If I need to 3D print something I"ll likely use an online service. Then those guys can maintain their own printers.

It would be my understanding that we can look to the bouncing ball exercise for the answer to that as the ball can be motivated to move (act or react) without appendages. Another way of saying that might be to consider weight (and therefore squash and stretch) and the forces such conveys. For instance, when compressing downward (squashing) the object (flour sack or whatever) is storing energy that is then released upon release (stretch). Add to this the idea of torsion (another way of storing energy) and additional movement can be represented. In the flour sack I suppose the first thing to consider would be what type of movement is desired. In other words, what motivates the flour sack to move. As with the bouncing ball it could be simply a matter of gravity. If the flour sack is not sentient in any way then the environment might be the catalyst for change. For instance, if the flour sack is on the top step of a flight of stairs and the sand inside is shifting to reach proper blance then that might force the flour sack to proceed down the steps. The same would be true of sloping terrain... the weight of sand shifting and adjusting the center of gravity. If the flour sack is seen to have a mind of its own then a degree of suspension of belief is assumed in that the sand might not fall entirely as it would with respect to gravity but is being constrained in such a way as to appear to 'walk', jump or perform some other activity. Even in these cases though I think a high degree of interaction with the environment would be ideal with continual displays of action/reaction. Again, this depends on what you want the flour sack to do. There might be an unseen hand that initially tosses the flour sack onto a teeter totter which in turn launches another flour sack into the air where it performs a somersault. Consider where the center of gravity is with regard to the flour sack and set up some initial condition (or force) where the flour sack is set out of balance. This would then require the sand inside the sack to move and to seek a proper distribution/balance. I suspect that a lot of flour sack animation starts with an initial force being generated by an unseen hand. The action seen thereafter following the rule of 'an object in motion continues in motion'. We just never see the initial force being exerted. If the flour sack is sentient though its reaction to a given situation provides the initial movitation. An example of this from fellow A:M user Paul Daley whose "Sack Attack" had live action dogs chasing a flour sack, the sack was motivated to move by the dogs who were chasing it.

Just returned from watching Disney's Moana and... Disney is still at the top of their game. I started to model Maui when I got home... but failed miserably. I don't think I can fault the visuals in any way. As for the story itself... They rather oddly left a few dangling plot/character points but I'm willing to bet they've got plans for those in the future (ala spin off property or sequel). What makes it especially odd is that those elements are perhaps the high points for character merchandising with regard to the tale. I can only assume they thought they risked detracting from the main storyline and the focus on Moana by echoing those elements back into the story. I see those as missed opportunities and can think of several ways they might have proceeded without adding length to the story. There is something of an rule in storytelling that important elements must echo later in the story or those elements will appear unimportant, arbitrary or even... unnecessary. As such I come away from the movie feeling two entire sequences set up something that we never got to see the payoff for. I didn't stay for any end-credit scene but hope they thought to revisit those characters there.

Here's a quick, no frills test of your image ran through the AI wizard. I used the outer parts of the vector conversion to create the entire AI file (deleted all of the vector details around the middle). I've included an image of the spline layout which in this case isn't exactly pretty but it's (mostly) functional. In A:M this leaves two shapes in the model (a top and a bottom). See third image for example of that. Taking a bit more care in the output of the AI file would get a single piece without all the surface artifacts.

Since the broken edges are vectors you could use the AI wizard to create the shape. The approach I might use would be to model the hole and then use that shape to cut out the hole from a solid cube (as a boolean cutter). Modeling the cut hole could be somewhat daunting but if we were to start with the major fracture lines.... hmmm.... this might be a good use of the oft neglected "Connect" plugin. Here is what you could do: Draw two point splines across your screen (using the cracked rock drawing as a roto reference to place the splines). Once all splines are in place, Right click in the window and select the Wizards/Connect and A:M will connect all those splines at their intersections. Go into shaded wireframe mode and then start breaking splines from the middle of the shape until you've released all the areas that represent the hole. To get depth to the shape you then lasso the edges you want to give depth to and extrude. Added: In order to make sure the faces create themselves as valid patches I think using concentric circles emanating from the center of the hole might be the best approach. If this proves to be a promising method I'll record a session demonstrating the process. And... as an example of Fuchurs suggestion (which is likely the easiest approach) here's Rabbit demoing that idea (your image already has the transparent middle):

Looking good Jonathan! Great tip on changing the light size. That's sure to be useful. Glad to see you got that sorted. Sometimes we tend to forget the silent majority that stop by the forum but don't post often (or at all). It's always good to be able to put a face (or post) with our fellow A:M Users.

Cute! I just renewed my subscription.

For those that dream of cutting edge rendering technologies as seen on the big screen ala PIXAR... The latest Renderman has been released for non-commerical users. Video of features: xhttps://vimeo.com/188229735?mc_cid=7e106f0830&mc_eid=4bb0c32348 Non-commercial release info: https://renderman.pixar.com/view/non-commercial-renderman The most likely approach to rendering from A:M to Renderman at present would appear to be by way of Blender although the command line approach would work as long as A:M files are converted to the RIB format that Renderman can recognize. Concerning the command line the PIXAR site states: The downside: Anyone willing and able to invest the time into working out connectivity between A:M and Renderman would likely be outside of the scope of non-commercial use of Renderman and require paid licensing for their productions.

You have been busy! I really like the cartoon car. That style has long been captivating to me ever since the days of Cartoonz magazine and especially as drawn in the comic strip "Krass and Bernie" by George Trosley.

Usually the plus indicator designates the end of a run. The good news for 12 month subscribers of course is that subscriptions continue on regardless of version. So whatever time remains on our subscription will carry right on through to v19. In the far flung past a subscription to A:M was linked to the release active at purchase time.

Wow. That look very promising.

Very nice!

Microsoft always has a bevy of critics eager to pounce on any effort they put forth but this one is aligned in a way that purveyors of 3D modeling and animation should take note. Not that they will be able to ignore it... Microsoft recently announced several products that point to their behind the scenes efforts to move the computing experience forward. One of these is their move to improve the desktop experience via the Surface Studio computer. Another is their forays into the world of mixed reality with new VR headsets. But the one that I find most applicable and compelling at the moment is on one hand slightly trivial but on the other should prove to be a long term game changer. There are a number of products, services and partnerships that focus on bringing 3D modeling and texturing into the mainstream for computer users. A few highlights of this include: - Ability to scan real world objects (with texture) via just about any platform; phone, tablet, laptop or desktop. - Partnership with Trimble (formerly of Google)... bringing the 3D content of the Sketchup community forward - Update of Windows Paint to 3D Paint. But whatever might be said of these products and services they are not what makes the current effort of Microsoft particularly noteworthy. The important part is that 3D content and creativity is being pushed toward the operating system where the mainstream (and average) user has access. An area that for the history of computers has been off in a niche corner is being brought to the fore. The Win 10 Creators Update is currently available (in part) via the Microsoft Insiders program. Full release is anticipated in early 2017 as a free update to Win10 users and (of course) will ship with new computers as they are released to market.

Nice one. I like.

This is a pretty good overview/intro to the concept and process of storyboarding: xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQsvhq28sOI It includes some reference work from some well known movies as well as storyboard examples from them. A key statement near the beginning is that artistic talent is not required to work out a storyboard. Often simple words a stick figures can be enough to capture the essentials. Added detail is primarily of importance when others involve themselves in a project.

Another fun episode. As with the first episode I really like the pacing and the back and forth banter between dummy and piano keeps us engaged in the show/ongoing conversation between characters. I'm also finding lots of little bits to enjoy upon subsequent viewings. Added: I'm curious how you got the piano playing over the piano's voice. I must assume you've got those separate and layer them together.