Rodney

If you drop the 'insect' in there the same mold can be used for future contests.

Nice detail work Robert.

If you can share the file (or a similar file) I'd be glad to investigate. As always my email is: rodney.baker @ gmail

I'm sorry but this sentence makes no sense to me. What subscription page are you looking at? Installation should be as easy as: 1) Download and install program 2) Start program and enter activation code when prompted When a significant change occurs (usually hardware related... not software such as reformatting a harddrive) an updated activation code will usually be needed. You can contact Hash Inc for this activation code (launch an email at 'jason at hash .com' (properly formatted) and he'll send a new code. Note that in order to generate a code he'll need something from you so you can send that information in your email. The info is needed cab be obtained by downloading the program here: http://www.hash.com/try-it-16-en While the website is for trial users the program is the same and will generate the machine ID needed to generate your activation code. Once Jason has this machine ID he can generate a new activation code and sent it to you. (Fuchur/gerald can assist here too). No. Do not make an easy task hard. As Nancy suggests, on really old systems you likely will not be able to install and run the 64bit versions so make sure you download and install the 32bit release. BUT BEFORE trying anything else you should try the basic steps first: 1) Download and install A:M (try the 32 bit release first. Once it is working your can try the 64 bit release too to see if that also works... both can run at the same time) 2) (You previously had an activation code) Enter the activation code when prompted Some additional info: You do not need to have the license file in the A:M folder as a new one will be generated upon installation. Copy/pasting a bad/expired license into the folder will not work. Try the simple method first. Moving/copying a *curent/unexpired license file to this folder is simply an easy way to forego the process of entering/reentering an activation code on a computer you've already activated A:M on... assuming the software has been previously activated with that code. If it hasn't been activated or is expired then the subscription will not work. You have a license file but that means very little if its a bad license file or if it is expired. I say... throw this in the trash can and locate your activation code. That is what is important. Once A:M is installed, a proper activation code is all you need to make A:M work. Activating A:M will generate a new license file in the installation directory so you don't need to carry that around with you. It can be handy to have.... copy and paste it into a new installation folder and you won't have to reactivate the software... because it's already activated. For example: You can install v15, v16, v17 and v18 and copy that license file into each of the installation folders and all will be recognized as activated software. Then you can use them all... at the same time even. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I don't format my drive often I suspect that if I did I would only have to do the following (on the same computer hardware) to get A:M to work: 1) Install A:M 2) Enter activation code Trouble shooting an activation 1) Download Machine ID generator 2) Copy Machine ID and send to Jason at Hash Inc 3) Upon receipt of new activation code enter that to activate the software That would be most unfortunate. There is information we don't have here which I can only assume. For instance, I assume you have a current subscription to A:M. If not, it goes without saying that software activation will not work. I assume that in the process of formatting your harddrive you didn't install a new harddrive too. If any hardware/mechanics of your computer system have changed this will likely require a new machine ID to be generated. If all you've done is install/update software then a regular activation should work. I assume you have downloaded and installed the 32 bit release of A:M. On older versions of Windows it is less likely you'll be able to run the 64bit version. The rule of thumb here: If the operating system is 64bit you can run both 32/64bit versions. I assume you are reinstalling WinXP affer formatting your harddrive. WinXP is a really old operating system and it would be very good to update to a modern release of Windows if your system can handle it. All this to reiterate the basic steps of software activation: 1) Download and install 2) Activate 2a) (optional) For troubleshooting send an email to Jason that includes your current machine ID#. This will allow him to generate an activation code for that computer.

I just followed my own advice and cleared my browsers (image) cache. Chrome is running considerably more snappy now. Thanks for posing the question in the first place! For what it's worth, to date animation in the forum is gif format animation. I try to limit animation to only one animation per page on the forum. (so you might see one animated image while the rest of the images on the page are static... usually jpg). I've toyed with the idea of using flash but some folks can't see them so haven't even tested. If they've got gif animation turned off in their browser they should see the first frame of the gif animation. The main pages animated banner tends to change every two weeks or so or when someone posts something that is easily transferred to animation.

No flash that I'm aware of, definitely none on the front end, although I know the old forum allowed flash avatars linked externally. I think IP Board has flash fallbacks for some browsers but mostly for modules that aren't enabled for us (chat, downloading, marketplace, etc.) You might try browsing the forum in 'mobile' mode. (via the theme setting at the bottom left of the forum). That will forego any graphics. 2GB of RAM doesn't get us much these days especially if you have programs running in the background. Most modern OS's require more than that to run. As an alternative (on older machines_ you might consider setting up a Chromebook USB stick (or Linux) to run browsing... I installed the Chrome OS on a USB to facilitate browsing on a tiny mini-tablet with very little memory and it does pretty good (esp. with mobile theme toggled on). The Chrome OS is basically just a browser as an OS. I haven't looked into a Win10 USB/CD booting option. I'm not sure of RAM requirements. You might want to clear your broswer's cache as several graphics have changed recently any new gif animation has to load again from scratch.

Yes, I think it might be on Martin's site. 18 months to produce.... 30 minutes per frame... that was some serious production.

Apple has updated Bootcamp so that Mac users can use Win10: http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/14/you-can-now-run-windows-10-on-your-mac/ Full directions from the Apple site: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204990

Pixar has officially announced that USD will be open sourced. http://graphics.pixar.com/usd/docs/Open%2BSource%2BAnnouncement.html

It's great to see you back Rich. You have been missed! In case you forgot... you contributed some of your project files to the Extra CD so if you don't have those files... at least those are still retrievable.

I really like the one with a bug in it.

Nice find! I see the company behind anilyzer.com is aniref who has other applications related to animation/video analysis.

I believe the point might be getting missed... One could hope a new solution/technology is superior but again... that's not the (presumed) underlying point of the Thor codec. As a caviet I wouldn't suggest that an additional goal wouldn't also be to improve the technology (as I'm sure anyone solving the problem would desire that too) but the PRIMARY POINT of the Thor codec appears to be achieving a PATENT FREE codec that everyone can use without free of legal ramifications (i.e. no one can sue you because you've used the technology in your code).** This should better explain the reason... or necessity if you prefer... to LEGALLY define every minute detail of the codec. This also might explain why there are likely more legal consultants on the Thor codec project than programmers. To the end user that expects usage without concern for the patents involved this wont resonate very deeply but for those concerned that the code they are putting into their programs could have serious ramifications it might ease their minds a bit. And the technicalities in this realm will rule the day because those are the constraints that must be worked. A little more explanation (although almost as technical) can be found here: http://recordings.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF93_NETVC_II&chapter=chapter_1 (Non-technical types should probably avoid this as it won't serve much of a useful purpose) I believe the entire part of the presentation that relates directly to Thor codec ends about 34 minutes into the presentation although following presentations do relate to video/codecs. Note: It takes a little while for the show to get started. For Matt: This does get into technicalaiies and comparisons of other comparable codecs (VP9/H265) and at about 25 minutes into the video there is a compression comparison chart. I'm not suggesting you actually give this a look... only that the information you suggest would be most useful is starting to appear and the codec is developed. **This doesn't mean Cisco doesn't have other longer term goals that make development/support of the patent free video codec advantageous to them financially. I assume there they have carefully calculated their ROI. Added: It's interesting to note who the questioners are in the audience and what they offer to bring to the project.

This topic was previously titled: Thor - a new (open) video codec championed by Cisco For those with an interest in such things... https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fuldseth-netvc-thor-00 The primary impetus for bringing it into existence appears to be to ensure the codec is free from patents. The linked document goes into detail of how the codec processes data.

Woo Hoo. Nothing like success. There is only one program that I've experienced problems with and... 1) I'm not sure it's related to Win 10 2) I'm not sure it's a permanent-type problem (maybe I had something pressing on my keyboard by mistake... like the other day when I was wondering why my screen was scrolling without my input only to find I'd placed a book down on my space key. Doh! The program in question is Camtasia so if anyone has that they might be able to confirm. The issue was that when I went to edit a track the edit would show up at another location. Closing down and restarting I haven't seen similar activity.

Very interesting. I like! One of the downsides of particle fluids is that it tends to create same size droplets. Assuming you don't already have such a plan... if the shot allows for it I'd suggest running that same simulation about three times at different particle sizes and then composite all three together. In that way you'' get a layered effect of different sized water droplets. You can then stagger the timing and placement of those to get further differentiation.

Abstractly I'd say yes but perhaps you are digging deeper than what I immediately consider. Focus seems to be a primary way we filter objects/areas of interest. The general approach here appears to be like our eyes which will filter out things that are directly in front of our face mostly because we are seeing from two perspectives simultaneously. The classic example being our nose, which we tend to perceive as not inside our field of view but when one eye is closed... there it is. If we take that vision to include many more origins of perspective then we begin to be able to map the space in front of us with a sense of depth. The areas that move the most are temporally nearer to us while those that move less are farther away. This part of the equation could easily be tested by having objects in the 'distance' move faster. But there is more going on here then just that. The tech related to this appears to be at a pixel or even sub-pixel level. A key to this technology then appears to be that the source is said to be 'a short sequential image'. I'll guess that other techiques must be used for achieving similar results with static/still/single frames of imagery. (i.e. best guesses based on available data to reconstruct missing elements for further processing. Ex: similar photographs, known dates and times, weather conditions, camera/lens types, etc.) There are animation-related principles at play here (perhaps more appropriately labeled motion-related principles) in that a start, a stop and an inbetween 'frame' (literally frame of reference) is established for purpose of analysis. Then a bit of data is sampled from the start and stop frames in order to project an external/linear inbetween. Now determine the differences between the linear (sourced) inbetween and the projected inbetween (i.e. is it the same?). Establish the source as the starting point and the projection and the other end of the spectrum and reiterate again. Contrast and compare. Where the data approaches zero/no change (or trivial differentiation) record that data and pick two more frames of reference and run through the process all over again. In short order we'll have a map of the flow of every pixel in every frame of every image in the sequence (assuming we want that many, which is only required if we want to fully process our maps without biased interpretation/interpolation). We've all heard of reverse engineering. This is a bit more like... reverse rendering. Added: I should have at least mentioned the concept of motion parallax as that appears to be at the root of the technology as well as a useful construct in animation (ala multiplane camera effects). Also, I should add that one of the first things that came to mind upon seeing this technology was that it (as well as related technology) might make for excellent analysis tools to extract/locate/identify keyframes/extremes from sequential imagery. I'm not sure why that came to mind but it did. This relates to finding that proverbial needle in a haystack... especially those that prefer to be hid. And yet another addition: Regarding still imagery it occurs to me that after a bazillion alpha mattes are generated those found to be most useful would then be used as filters on still imagery. The narrowing down of useful filters being affected by a few human participants that validate the usefulness of the filters. To put it another way, the distance of the camera lens to a reflection in an image is not infinite so filters that work well on many images could reasonably be expected to work on a random (i.e. similarly obstructed) image.

Yes, it seemed odd that they emphasized that a smartphone be used and made no mention of standard cameras. I noted that peculiarity but wasn't sure what to make of it (assuming it means anything).

This is pretty neat technology that will have many applications. In a way it's not unlike a very different technology 'seam stitching' but from a very different approach with different applications. Article: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/05/429720274/obstructions-vanish-from-images-treated-with-new-software-from-mit-google Video: xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoyNiatRIh4 Of specific interest (and a bit scary... although sure to be useful to reveal who took a picture/video) is the ability to pull the obstruction out of the image as a separate Alpha Matte. For those that recall the movie's look at technology.... shades of Bladerunner. Here's a paper that goes into some of the math/details: http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/papers/ObstructionFreePhotograpy_SIGGRAPH2015.pdf

Rather than start a new topic I'll add to this one... Aaron Blaise isn't standing around and letting his skills atrophy. He's already got another set of videos out. This time he is focusing on large cats; lions, tigers, cheetahs cougars etc. While this series s primarily one for drawing and anatomy, I believe the benefit to this series for all animators will be Aaron's insight into how anatomy makes animated movement possible. Think of it in roughly the same way as you viewed that 'Model a giraffe' tutorial in the TaoA:M manual. You said, "Heck, I don' wanna model no giraffe!' and yet those who take on that challenge inevitably gain experience in the process of modeling that giraffe. Similarly, studying with Aaron whose experience includes animating on Disney's 'Lion King' is going to be beneficial for those that want to thoroughly explore animation. The going rate appears to be $35 (reg. $75) and includes the following: *emphasis on areas specifically focusing on animation added I've enjoyed Aaron's past offerings and will very likely grab this one as well. (serious car repairs have me strapped so I may have to pass for now!) For those with the extra cash to spare it may be worth a look so check it out at: https://creatureartteacher.com/product/how-to-draw-animals-course-big-cats/ Note that the site says: sale ends soon.

Nice! I hope you can share a video of the final projection.

We have a verbose community don't we. I've really been enjoying your short and have been developing even more appreciation for what you put into it (in an almost accidental way). I thought I might try to see what it might look like tinted more toward the black and white and failed there rather miserably. More on that later... In the process of watching the short over and over again I kept noticing the nice touches you added throughout. There is a lot of physicality... movement through real space... innovative camera cutting... movement that complements and suggest that props are useful objects (i.e. real). And this doesn't even get into the excellent sound work, dialogue, lip sync etc. Which I gained even more appreciation for when I tried to resync the sound to the imagery that I'd recolored and discovered it didn't quite sync. You sure now how to put on a show in the course of one minute! With regard to my failure in my color study... my theory is that two elements might make the transition easier. I don't know if this is actually the case but I'll add it to the mix. Firstly, it seems to me that the title 'Flash Gordon in "Frozen"' could have been in a different color (yellow is what comes to mind but perhaps red or Red for his name and yellow for the subtitle). The reason being to differentiate that (currently) white text from the white of the clouds. This might have been a conscious decision (to blend the title into the clouds) but I'd say it mostly just makes the title harder to read. Another way of looking at it would be; if the film were in black and white the clouds would be white and the title black. The second color change I would suggest would be the robots. If they were silver (rather than gold) that would help differentiate Flashes yellow/golden hair and (if colored) would focus more attention on him. Don't get me wrong... I love the golden tint on the robots but in the process of color studying I found I kept losing the differentiation (presence?) of Flash's hair. In black and white film the audience often 'felt' the presence of color even though it wasn't there. I suppose one could argue that making the robots silver and enhancing the yellow of Flash's hair might draw more attention to the robots but I'd have to test that out to be sure. My sense is that with Flash's darker contrast in the midst of two brighter robots the focus would be drawn to him. I do have a side by side view of a slightly more saturated version where I decided it was about the best I could muster with color. I can post that if there is interest. If pushing toward black and white some additional contrast would need to be brought to bear (such as in the titling). Remind me to pick your brain for audio suggestions. IMO your layering of animation and sound approaches perfection. For instance, I can almost hear Ming's knuckles pop as he adjusts and tightens his grip on his ice gun. You've got a lot of nice touches that most folks would think of as unnecessary but they sell the whole thing and bring the characters into reality. And I love the turning of Ming's lift as it launches upward... nice touch there! Shall I go on? I can.(and if no one else does) probably will. Disclaimer: In case it's not obvious I'm not suggesting anything actually be changed. I'm just studying/analysing what is there. There is a reason the root world of analyse is 'anal'.

Thanks William, I always enjoy the insight into the making of just as much as I do the finished product. I'm looking forward to seeing more of the Cinematic Submarine Shot! I'm sure it would be put to use. I know over the years similar things have been posted but we having kept those resources in view. We should probably add a 'tools and utilities' category to the A:M Exchange area of the forum to collect some of the useful tools that can be made with A:M. I suppose that is what the 3rd Party area is often used for. Composition (and the rule of thirds) is one of those things where we rightly deem it important... then set it aside and forget too reference when we need it most. I do think there is a natural tendency toward balanced composition and with experience folks tend to incorporate those 'rules' into their work. I often think of the camera rig that Jason Hampton created and wonder if creating an all purpose (customizable) camera setup with such things as rule of thirds overlays might be useful. I suppose in the end everything can be useful.... if/when it is used. So, short answer, yes most definitely the community could use it! Thanks for the additional info... I'm may not be commenting on it all but read all of it with interest. For instance, I've found that A:M's motion blur often works best in specific conditions but haven't set down to formulate/document my own approach. There have been times where I've wanted to proclaim that motion blur works best using rendered imagery BUT I know that would be an oversimplification and (also) just isn't quite so. Specifically, when Z depth is taken into account. Motion blurring a series of 2D images can't get at that third dimension. A general theme of this discussion seems to revolve around 'planning' projects/shots and you've definitely got that going on!

Very impressive. I really enjoyed that. That bring back memories of when I watched the Flash Gordon reruns as a kid and every episode ended with an impossible scenerio for our hero to escape from... which conveniently the shows creators just totally ignored in the next episode. That was part of its charm of course but oh so frustratng to me as I wanted to know how Flash had managed to escape. Your animation is smooth as silk and the audio compliments it nicely. Entertaining it is! Perhaps best of all, you have lots of nice character moments throughout to savor on repeated viewings. A lot is going on there yet it all serves to support the charcters' performances and story. Nicely done. Please tell me you have the next episode waiting in the wings! I do have one question regarding the general color. It appears to me that you made a conscious decision to mute the color a little but I'm curious as to your thought process specifically related to dialing that back even more (pushing more toward toward the classic's black and white/greytones). Any insight you can share on that aspect will be appreciated.

Nice! Love the style. Sounds very interesting. Do you mean projection as in projecting on the side of a building?