Rodney

Ah, good news. v1.02 of OpenToonz has been released and it addresses several major issues facing potential users. The greatest of these was very likely the need to save files in multiple places which is now covered by the Save All command. The other major updates are mostly those captured in the various nightly builds that primarily restore the Toonz Harlequin features that were set aside to optimize workflow for Studio Ghibli. https://github.com/opentoonz/opentoonz/releases

The Tinkering Gnome clued us in to this site that frequently presents 100% discounts on software. (Thanks John!) On occasion some pretty useful software is shared. I've hesitated in the past to post some of these offerings for a number of reasons but I've found several of the software packages useful for myself so they might be for others as well. The way it (generally) works is that in exchange for your email address and occasionally a request to share the link to the site with others you get an activation code. Sometimes the code is one specifically used with that promotion. Other times its the same as you would receive straight from the software developer. Of course, there are also the other discounted software packages that aren't 100% off but I tend to stick to the freebies. One that showed today might be of interest to those wanting to setup a server. The software is syncplify.me server and I've ran through the basic installation quickly and without any hiccups. I set up the virtual server on an external hardrive. This software states its regular price as $399 for a regular license so may be well worth the look if you are considering server use already. As for me... I suppose I'm mostly investigating why I might need a server in the first place. I.... think I need one. The related offering is the same software with free updates and support for $119. Here's the link: http://sharewareonsale.com/s/syncplify-me-server-giveaway-coupon-sale The jury is still out for me on the Shareware for Sale site and their approach to software sales. I must say that thus far it seems that they have an interesting business model and if all legit may find themselves with considerable success. As I see other useful software mentioned from this site I'll post it in this topic and please feel free to do the same.

Another plug has been posted on the Axanar blog, after Alex Peters got a chance to see Mark's new short: http://www.axanarproductions.com/captains-log-april-22nd-2016/ And it got me to watch the short again.

I thought this was pretty cool.... puppetry imitating 3D animation... xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oN6SN_TnFY Zootopia... Wreck It Ralph... etc. etc.

Looking good.

Yes, I'm more than a little curious about how that subject matter came to be. Looking good thus far!

Not to give weight to negativity or give you reason to dwell on criticism but... do you know what is it that was hated? Jokes not funny enough? Your turn around time too slow? It didn't meet their expectation for parodies of Axanar? Members of the cast and crew? Employees of CBS or Paramount? Not fans of satire? I can hardly even spell Reddit so I wouldn't even know where to look.

Nancy, As you surely know, John is still running top secret tests of video formats, codecs and such.. It's all hush hush classified stuff that only his grandkids get to see. but... seriously... just when I think I've got every possible angle covered in viewing video online John posts a tinkering that I can't see. I've found that the VLC player usually does best in deciphering them. John, For some reason this monster looks like he came out of a garden to me. Maybe the multiple eyes are evolved to better spot vegetarians who arrive basket in hand trying to eat him.

The link to Jonathan Lane's article on your collaboration showed up in my email (I subscribed to the Anaxar Productions Fan Film Friday blog after your last Stalled Trek episode was featured there. Here's the article: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/1543ecb032af85a5 Fun stuff.

For those of you that want to delve into the world of PBR materials and texturing this might aid you in getting that ideal texture onto your model in A:M. Basic workflow would be to export OBJ models from A:M which would then be used as the basis for texturing your spline based models in A:M or to import as Props. This was (apparently) the the primary program used to texture that real time animation recently featured by Unity 3D and according to the hype (and 3D world) is 'this year's best texturing application'.* I note that there is currently a 40% off banner on their site so for those with the $ to splurge it might be worth investigating. Photorealistic textures are the major contributor to realistic scenes and access to collections of materials to use as the basis for building up detail is an important consideration. Illumination itself is like-wise important but can only reveal the forms whose textures are in place to receive light and shadow. Of particular interest is the smart materials that allow (through image mapping) additional materials to automatically be effected by edges of forms. This will be primarily for users of Photoshop. Link to Promo video: xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1boM1MRPXxs Link: http://quixel.se/ Here's a demo of some of the normal map tools in NDO Painter: xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTy-uyUcBRA *I will assume this is for 2015.

For those of you with a high interest in rendering you will learn much from studying the workflow of other renderers and this can and will inform your use of A:M's renderer (in both positive and negative ways). In many (most?) cases A:M can meet the needs of its users in rendering but as with other renderers what comes out of the renderer depends on what gets put in. I am constantly amazed by the number of folks who see 'high end' rendering on the internet and wonder 'why can't we do that in A:M?" In many cases... certainly not all... we can render an equivalent in A:M but it still takes knowledge and experience to set up a good rendering. This is underscored by the number of tutorials and classes (most of them paid instruction) that others put into the field to walk people carefully through the arcane steps of setting up lights and rays and bounces and backdrops and whatever else is required to ensure our results will appear on the screen as anticipated. There are other aspects of chasing after the perfect renderer to consider as well. Unless I am mistaken, Arnold is (of itself) a command line renderer that interfaces with other programs through plugins. These other programs are generally not free and most are are not cheap. If you've purchased them you already know this. So there is additional cost beyond the render software itself to consider in the equation. Rendering with Arnold may only set you back $8 a day (one pricing scenario with minimum of $350*) but if you forget to include at least one seat of the software required to put a user friendly interface on top of it you've done yourself a disservice. This also doesn't preclude the need for high quality models and additonal time dedicated to setting up the scene that will be rendered. And, don't forget, the expectation is that within any project at least YOU will want to receive some form of compensation; even if only the accolades of your friends, family and peers. Now, my suggestion to the bottom feeders (that'd be most of the folks who hang with us here like you and me) is to learn everything you can from these other rendering solutions and those that tirelessly seek the perfect rendering and apply what you learn from that to what you will setup and render in A:M. If folks did this we might be further amazed at what A:M is capable of rendering. Researching other renderers is certainly not a requirement. Only a suggestion. There is much to be learned in rendering. But when doing so, I hope we can consider how best to accomplish a reasonable equivalent right here in A:M *I suppose this might make $350 the base price for one image rendered out of Arnold (of any type and quality) not including cost of software used as as the preferred interface. As renderers go that's not entirely bad. Using the same factoring, A:M's cost for that first image (of any type and quality) would be $79.

For what Kevin refers to and to see what so-called high end renderers tend to cost here is a link: https://www.solidangle.com/arnold/buy/ $8 a day might be a pretty good deal.* I must assume it is especially so for clients with high expectations. A lot of things factor into evaluation and I'm not sure I have much of an opinion one way or the other (related to renderer expense). Whether something is expensive or not directly relates to added value plus perceived value minus long term reflection minus anticipation of what is imminently to be released. This is why some folks wait as long as they can to upgrade... maybe something will be added to the product that will make my purchasing dollars even more valuable! As I don't have a lot of content to render I don't have much of a reference point from which to calculate value. As with most renderers I'm sure much of Arnold's results follow a garbage in/garbage out train which suggests that it's important what is fed to any renderer. Surely one of the reasons Solid Angle kept a tight reign on who used their product in the past related to the level of quality they wanted to see presented from that renderer; real and perceived value to be maintained. How will this change as more folks gain access to Arnold that aren't able to input the quality into the renderer? That remains to be seen. Ultimately, I see this as a good (if not someone inevitable) move that will be good for rendering in general. There is a lot of talk of CPU vs GPU and the pros and cons of each. Will Arnold move to the GPU? That seems unlikely. While there is little doubt the gems of code will be extracted to improve other Autodesk products and services a likely scenario would be for Arnold to take it's place in the rented renderer space (ref: cloud rendering/Zync) where it can munch through pixels behind the scenes without needing to be installed on the local machine. Why does this scenario appear likely? Because Autodesk leadership is committed to moving to the cloud and such a path helps maintain and manage real value.

Wow. As impressive as it is biting (in satire and social commentary). Timely too! I saw the announcement over at Axanar about other productions being asked to shut down by CBS. It seems somewhat reasonable given that CBS is trying to launch a series themselves based on the original Trek series. The sad thing of course is that Star Trek itself wouldn't very likely be where it is today if not for the fans that rallied around the series in the first place. On the other hand, I can see why the corporate heads might be concerned. I was watching some of the other Trek fan films online and some of those are almost more 'Star Trek' than the original series! This does fully relate to comments I posted in the copyright topic just yesterday. Some provision should be allowed for products that add value to the original product and most of what I've seen from the Star Trek fan-film community does exactly that; add value. But to the here and now: Impressive work Mark, especially given your turn around time!

I don't know. I know a lot of folks that won't use either Adobe or Autodesk products. It is true that the primary reason they don't is price (use is costly) but still, these folks have little or no interest in using their programs. I occassionally fit into that mold myself, especially when having to open my wallet. If you mean folks that constantly blog and chat and rally against the companies I'd say few do that regularly although there are some pretty vocal users of both that constantly and very publicly question every move they make and generally ascribe intent of their decision making as evil and/or incompetent. Not too hard to see... you may be looking at this from a single user perspective. One must remember that the primary customers of Adobe and Autodesk (probably moreso Autodesk) are companies and not individuals. Their business models for individuals follow a path that maximizes volume sales in such a way that they can classify those as business users too. I'm not privy to how that might roll out in the bean counters conference rooms but we could easily imagine that when modeling their sales they might consider individual cities as businesses and when sales slump in a particular city focus can turn to that 'client' and their marketing machine gets to work. Consider also that when selling a high priced product you might have to work a bit harder to sell that product but if you can make one sale at the high end that might equate to thousands (hundreds?) of sales at the low end. This is why companies have volume discounts. This fits in to Ken's observation that people haven't rallied against the machine in order to see better behavior from them. Storytime I come from a very small town next to a bunch of other small and very small towns; sparsely populated by farmers and their farm lands. Every now and again the subject of Walmart moving into the area arises and these small towns resist the idea. I'm a bit torn myself. On the one side I'd like to see Walmart move into the area because jobs are scarce and the area needs to keep young folks from moving away. There is little opportunity nor incentive to stay short of piece of mind and freedom from joining the rat race. But I also know that Wally World moving into the area would be devastating for the small businesses (at least in the short term) and many would go out of business. Ha! We're moving forward Grandad... with or wit'outcha!!! There are some really tough decision to be made on those small city counsels. I don't live near my hometown currently because, while I think they would thrive, my family (wife and daughters) would very likely leave me and move back to Japan. So what to do about all this corporate progress and providing for the common good of the individual? Is it inevitable that the little guy will be crushed under the weight and force of the massive behometh? I confess I don't have the answers. Maybe we should ask Martin.

Darrin, I should have added a disclaimer stating that the heat I'm talking about would be completely simulated. This is almost accomplished already via light and shade in any given scene but types of light and surfaces/material conductivity aren't currently considered/ Most dynamic systems in A:M such as Newton Physics and SimCloth do have settings for friction and that setting might be a likely candidate for establishing baselines or multipliers for heat.

Wow! That's great news! An impressive turnaround of production. Don't forget to footstomp THAT in your PR. Looking forward to it.

Thanks for the info Nancy! It's always educational to see how creative minds work. I love your current take (the one first posted) but I also love the color of the fox and skunks in your last post (the original concept). That fox's pose and the color... exquisite. I"m glad the pose made it through to the final version. Ah, if only the fox was sill red and the bear was the one that was pink. hehe! I wasn't quite sure so I didn't guess. All I know is that someone needs to hire you to illustrate their stories but I must admit that it would have to be a very good writer to capture your level of imagination. If presented with options such as the two illustrations you've posted I certainly wouldn't envy the editors that had to decide on which stylistic path to take... Oh.. and... before I hit submit... The addition of the spray can... and your alteration of the story for that part... adds so much more to the mix. Inspired thinking. (The scaring away for the bears with the skunks is funny though!)

I just posted on Blackmagic's Davinci Resolve Beta release where more of Blackmagic's way forward is being revealed. I thought I should also provide more info related to Fusion because it's part of their long term plan too. If you look at the pricing model for Fusion Studio you'll see the studio version of Fusion runs $995 per unit. Their website now has added discounts for volume purchases to include the following: So what is the takeaway here? The takeaway is that there is considerable value to be found in the free release of Fusion. Blackmagic obviously hopes that users of their free release will graduate to paid use. If you do move to the studio tier due to collaborative project requirements, especially commercial work, it is likely your project will be able to establish a budget for it. In the meantime, those in the free tier will be mastering the Fusion workflow that enables them to take on commercial work.

Nice! Your unique style continues to shine. Someone needs to put you to work on illustrating an entire book (or series of books!) P.S. I can imagine more than a few folks wondering... how did she draw/paint all that hair... And added: You know I can't leave without adding my 2 cents. I think you could have gotten away with turning the bear around so he/she's facing us/the camera as the positioning of characters appears to allow for that. If looking at her back (I presume this is Lucy) then you could position her a lot closer to the camera (about where the stack of plates are located). The primary reason I'd turn her around however would be that if it is in fact Lucy then she is a primary consideration of the story cue. As such we want to see her. If Lucy is the character holding the skunks then i'd just try to add something to suggest that she and not some other character is Lucy. As it is there are two likely characters for that role... the pink one is currently getting my vote but the cue related to the magic box and presence of the hat in hand suggests that might be otherwise. An example of that might be to make the bear more masculine and the pink character more... um... Lucy. The hat in hand of the bear contributes to my sense that this character is Lucy but the brown color works against this (?). Ohoh... I'm falling into stereotypical mode here so I'll move on. In a series of images, as opposed to a single frame, this character identification wouldn't be an issue because we'd either already know without a doubt or very soon see who is who. Ill add one more. Initially I thought the bear was spraying the picture frame on the wall. It might be ideal to move that to the right to leave an open space and to help direct the eye of the viewer (clearly to the character's target... the skunk with minimal distraction). Anything that would help pop the skunks a little more into focus would help also as they are the BIG problem that is being resolved. As always, keep up the awesome work!

Disclaimer: I haven't warmed up to using Blackmagic Davinci Resolve mostly because I haven't taken the time to explore optimal workflow. It does appear to be well worth a look, especially for those that don't have a dedicated video editor. Blackmagic has recently released the latest Beta for Davinci Resolve which is now a full fledged video editor. The Beta reportedly contains over 250 new features. As with their other software (Fusion) the full studio release contains many features not available in the free release to include collaboration features and stereoscopic workflows. Blackmagic's strategic approach is finally getting to the field in that as a hardware maker they are packaging their software with their cameras. Cameras over the $2000 price range will have a copy of the studio release of Davinci Resolve included (with a dongle) while cameras of lower price will include the free release software. Their goal being to allow those that use their cameras to go from shooting film to editing to special effects and color correction all within their product ecosystem. The studio release is priced at $995. For those purchasing a Blackmagic camera the free software bundling should be taken into consideration. It goes without saying that I recommend Blackmagic's Fusion for compositing. I currently consider it my #2 software after Animation:Master. I don't have a dedicated video editor... still searching for the optimal one. Premiere is the most likely at this point but that's a long way from being locked down and I'm always on the look for software everyone can access. If you don't have a dedicated video editor then Resolve is well worth investigating. My primary critique would be that as with many video editors ingestion of footage it's not very intuitive to new users. I recommend shutting other programs down while using most video editors to free up resources as well. Davinci's new Beta lagged considerably when I had my usual stack of dozens of programs open at the same time. Check it out here: Davinci Resolve (a video should open on the website outlining new features but note that some of those on display are only in the studio release)

That sounds to me like it would fall into the realm of parody which will allow for usage. Not to mention the long line of uses prior that follow the same basic usage (sans hamster presumably). A troubling aspect of fair use for me appears to be that if we are making fun of something (i.e. combining the resource in question with some element of comedy) it may be considered fair use but a more serious use might run afoul of copyright law. This is one of those downward spirals that leads to a place we don't want to be. One aspect of copyright law should very likely consider what the usage has contributed to the resource so that if sued for infringement a portion or all of that sum would be due the new contributor at the expense of the copyright holder. In other words, if something I create is made more marketable by someone else's use I should have incentive to allow that use rather than to sue. This would still allow my right as original copyright owner to request the use be discontinued or the usage be removed. In cases where value diminishes and the parties do not compensate me for that loss I would retain my right to sue for the damage incurred. The first part of this we have seen repeated over and over on properties that have been set aside, mothballed, abandoned or even intentionally halted where fans have rallied and brought new life to the property. An open question then becomes how much of the profit is the copyright holder entitled to from revenues generated by the unsanctioned use. In the case of Spider-man on a Times Square screen that might equate to $5.... $10... $100... nothing... all depending on how much that element contributed to revenue in the usage. There are always going to be elements of 'proper' use to consider. One might be that of a basic test of whether the average person at that time and place would also have incorporated the resource. Advertisements in public spaces (in my estimation) are automatically fair use and in a perfect world companies that sue for trivial usage should be fined for being stupid. They can't have it both ways... in your face advertisement that cannot be avoided along with the ability to removed the same from the public record. Exceptions will always exist of course, especially in cases where established law prohibits use. And this is where the mess begins and ends. New laws are often based on established precedence and yet not all laws are valid for use as precedence.

My apology if the following linked resource has been posted before. There is a lot of misinformation about copyright and fair use out in the wild and I recently read an article that attempted to shed some light on the subject. I haven't vetted the article itself nor examined it for links more appropriate for 3D animation but the article did reference some publications that can and do speak for themselves. One of those publications primarily concerns itself with the plight of the documentary filmmaker, who navigates an increasingly difficult arena of copyright laws and limitations but many aspects of fair usage they claim as self evident cross pollinates into common areas of interest to us as well. Here's that primary reference: DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKERS' STATEMENT OF BEST PRACTICES IN FAIR USE (2005) The case of a 3D animator/filmmaker is a little different especially in that we don't tend to capture 'live' events that might inadvertently contain copyrighted material. Most if not all of what is seen in our product is placed there intentionally. This then is a key to understanding our own fair use within the realm of 3D animation; our intention.

I mentioned this briefly in the plugins topic but want to separate it because I think it is one of those 'features' anyone with time and patience can create. There also could be potential benefits in the realm of plausible/physical based rendering/lighting, etc. Furthering the initial questions I find myself wondering if a variant of the spinning light trick, used for global illumination might be shoehorned in such a way as as to create environmental data used for positioning, lighting and... more esoterically... heat. (This even harkens back to a very old posit on albedos... not taken seriously... which interestingly is now at the fore in physically based rendering. Who would have guessed.) But the first stage of this foray would logically be that of positioning. I won't go into detail here on what my initial thoughts are on setup because frankly I'd like to see A:M be the first program to have this feature set but as it can be set up in any program it might not be best to talk of specific implementations yet. For R&D purposes: The key to understanding VPS would likely follow that of the US GPS system in that measurements of time and spacing are critical to establishing reliable data on any position (in relative time and space). The trick (for me) would be to accomplish this more visually than mathematically and I believe my approach would cover that angle. That isn't to say that everything would all be drag/drop. Math certainly would be needed to optimize the system. I'd be interested in what others have seen or experienced related to positioning in virtual (read: imaginary) spaces. Any links to prior explorations would also be appreciated. For the brave and bold: An initial foray into this arena might be to set up a virtual replica of GPS satellites in A:M's virtual space, assuming A:M doesn't intrinsically have the equivalent of that under the hood already.

The take away for me appears to be that the program has not yet been created that can save me from myself. Although... technology is approaching that capability with versioning and such. But there is a trade off there as well. In a world were everything is 'versioned' even those things you don't care to see return can be recalled to the present. If and when we make a mistake it will always be there. A small consolation: at least we (and others) will be able to learn from it.

Point taken. But how deeply do we want to explore this? As the one to call BS you have certain responsibilities.