Rodney

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.

There is an interesting trend going on in business these days and it appears to consist in large part of targeting the human element at it's weakest point to make the sale. (In a way there is nothing new here however. It's just being done on a global scale) The recent (I think classic) example of this might be of Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm. Lucas was recently reremarried... considering the path he should take with young child in the nest... where to focus in his old age... considering his mortality... his legacy. Disney strategically moved in and took full advantage of this and gave Lucas a timely solution to all of these needs. On a lesser scale the sale of Arnold to Autodesk echos a similar sale. (According to the article) The owners father was working well into his retirement. The owner was overworked and distracted by the business side of things... no time for his beloved R&D. The human element... mortality... waiting in the wings. Autodesk strategists stepped in with a solution that answered all of those needs. It's not hard to see where things are going based on current trajectories but considerably more difficult to chart paths that constantly change. The danger of corporations is that they don't (corporately) have the flaw of mortality flowing through their veins. As such those that aren't similarly incorporated eventually find they aren't playing at the same game. And it's all a bit like animation itself where timing is everything.

You may want to consider the source of that information as suspect. Somethings doesn't sound right. According to the guy in charge himself (from the article): Perhaps your source just stated Arnold wasn't sold publicly. There is that a lot of the high dollar products in the animation industry that have no set price (more in the past... still a few nowadays). With those all prices are negotiated on a case by case basis with the company deriving a majority of their income from consultation (service and support) fees. When we see 'contact us for a quote' as the only price listed we can be reasonably sure that the price is out of range from the average person of interest. But this isn't true across the board because the company gets to determine what that person can bring to the table. That quote might consist of a trial phase an educational offering a contract to demo the product... to wear a tshirt... whatever. But the purpose behind the process is clear... the company is in business and has to manage their products and services to stay in business. (If free) It would be a lot easier (for them) to say 'Arnold is still free but by invitation only' or whatever if that was the case. But instead they mention (without detailing specifics) about sales. This may be true to a large extent. Businesses can be ruthless but most strategic plans don't involve removing all competitors entirely from the field as that leads to an environment/industry that cant even sustain them. There is little doubt that they want to have freedom of movement in any domain they wish to reign. The bottom line here would be that Autodesk operates at the strategic level. They are in it to win it. Companies that don't have such strategic plans may find themselves in for the short gains. Not clueless but definitely biased. Mike Seymour does a good job of trying to look outward into the industry but one must remember that fxguide (and therefore Mike Seymour) has close ties with The Foundry. Most of what is reported there will come through that perspective. This is why Arnold's top dog takes extra time to reassure the articles's readers that 'nothing has changed' and that Arnold will still support other products to include Katana which is a premium product of The Foundry. In all cases bias must be considered. We tend to be biased toward A:M around here... we focus on the positive rather than the negative... same/same. Personal aside: I think Mike does an excellent job reporting for fxguide and Wired magazine online about the animation industry. He may be biased but he's also a smart guy. But regarding any real or potential PR BS... well, yeah... Mike Seymour is an industry spokesman; the consummate PR man. But clueless? I'd have a hard time buying that. (Disclaimer: I don't know what laws exist in the land down under concerning publicly traded companies but it might relate to 'insider information' that lets a select few individuals (usually those with shares) in on financial deals before the public gets access... thereby raking in the profits that would otherwise go to everyone... or mitigating/transferring losses by leaving everyone else holding the bag while getting out of the game. There are certainly laws against such in the United States). I'll note that that is not a law or anything, that's just some absurd PR BS the clueless reporter swallowed.

The first thing we might do is compare current import/export plugins with those of import/export available in FBX for other programs. It's a lot like animation itself... in point... out point... break it all down in the middle. Then refine the performance. I'm afraid I don't see a lot of folks lining up to take this on however.

I'm wondering what difference there might be between an averaging wizard and a circularize wizard. I would guess the circularize wizard would use all of the CPs center as the origin from which to average the spacing of CPs around the splne from the average distance away from that point. Whereas a simple averaging wizard would attempt to maintain the same spline but space the CPs out along that spline at the same distance (like the plugin Resample Spline does). This makes me wonder if the Resample Spline plugin (or at least some of it's code) could be used in furtherance of a Circularize plugin. Similarly, if the Resample Spline plugin could be enhanced so that it could leave a spline in place but move the CPs to a new location (average distance along the spline) that might work also. Regarding FBX import/export... I don't think we'll find anyone that doesn't want an FBX plugin so I'll third that one. Question is... how do we get it done? Who do we hire/kidnap/invoke? What does success look like? (I think I've asked this before) If moving in stages from success to success... as an initial FBX plugin, will import of a mesh (without textures) be sufficient? I ask this because if someone tries to tackle this that has to learn from scratch that would be a logical milestone. The next milestone being to reverse the process and export to FBX (also without textures and animation most likely). Milestone 3 then would be to get the import of textures to work. Milestone 4; textures exported. MIlestone 5, basic motion transfer (translate, scale and rotate) Milestone 6, complex motion from a known origin* etc. All of this assumes that an indirect path to FBX (i.e. OBJ and MDD to FBX and vice versa) might not be easier to code. Currently I'm not sure A:M can even reimport the MDD files it exports.... so that might be a logical first step to conquer. For reference here is some basic best practice FBX info from Unreal Engine to consider: https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Content/FBX/BestPractices/index.html and here's a link to the 2017 FBX SDK: This contains sample import export programs for Visual Studio. For someone well versed in Python it may be that the FBX Python bindings will prove useful. *The issue here being that FBX has only recently began to solidify rigging standards and so those are still evolving. We might therefore assume a basic motion capture format such as BVH as the norm although I see some standardization on HumanIK 2016.5.

I'm moving this topic up to the main Animation:Master forum because it's buried down deep in the SDK forum. We'll have to look at what other truly A:M-related forums are buried too deep and move them appropriately also. And to add another plugin idea... one that might relate more to being a feature... It could be useful to use GPS data to position objects/images in 3D space. I'm not sure how this would work relative to virtual space as well as imaginary spaces such as the city of Zarz on the planet Xeomopline. Perhaps there might be a variable preceding the lat/long values that are used to provide an origin, scale, or to suggest if the object is within a set of visible ranges from other UPS (Universal Positioning System) coordinates. How exactly does one use GPS in space or on Jupiter?

Autodesk has gobbled up yet another company. This time the makers of the Arnold renderer, Solid Angle. Here's an interview delving into the decision to sell to Autodesk (the owner and originator of the Arnold renderer) courtesy of MIke Seymour at FXguide: https://www.fxguide.com/featured/autodesk-buys-arnold-2/ Two primary takeaways: - This will be the first time Autodesk has an in house high end renderer (other renderers have been licensed. Ex: Mental Ray/NVidia) - According to the article "Rendering is certainly one of the hottest areas in 3D right now". This no doubt ties in with Autodesk's longer term plans for render in the cloud. Recent deals like the one with Google and ZYNC underscore this.