martin

Here's my experience... I can't trust the video output on my computer because that is controlled by the videocard and that's one of the things I'm checking! If I want trust, I use a home DVD player, burn a DVD from my computer, play the image from the DVD player on a flat screen TV (or tube), put the image right next to my computer monitor. Are they the same? Yay! Calibrated! Are they different? Hmmm? Is it my videocard that needs adjustment or my monitor. Because "brightness" and "contrast" on my monitor are so easy to adjust - I try those things first. Hmmm? Not fixing it - then that whole gamma curve thing comes into play. I'm quite technical and I could figure it out if I had to but it's actually easier to buy a new monitor or videocard than it is to screw with touchy technical settings.

One more thing: A monitor's "brightness" and "contrast" are the culprit much more often than the gamma. If you light a scene on a monitor with incorrect brightness/contrast, it will look bad on a correctly calibrated monitor.

Almost all videocards ALREADY display at 2.2 (or 1.8 or whatever the default display device is) - if you put a 2.2 adjustment on A:M images too, it will be doubled! ALMOST ALWAYS when we burn a DVD right from A:M - it looks fine on the TV. What happens is that people light their scene with bad gamma on their monitor (not 2.2, not 1.8 or whatever). When someone else looks at the same image on another monitor (that has correct 2.2 or 1.8 or whatever), it looks dark or bright - so the problem starts on the original artist's monitor. If you (the artist) burn your image to DVD then look at it on your TV, and it looks like you expect, then the gamma on your monitor is probably okay.

Here's what we did for TWO... Burn a test DVD of each sequence in question and look at it on the TV - adjust up/down accordingly. (Flat screen, tube type - it doesn't seem to make any difference.)

You got some skilz, boy.

Oh, yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Moving is much better than a still. p.s. I loved seeing this guy in the Image Contest - too much competition though - yikers!

Is there a "body" Bone for your scorpion and did it get offset from the Model Bone?

Looking very good! Yes, time for some music.

Good attitude. Here's my unsolicited opinion... There's a niche for everything. "Edgy" cartoons simply have a vocal niche - people who want to show how hip they are. "Ducktales" & "Little Lulu" types are, by nature, not well represented by any means except passive ones (like watching your hits). To sell to a 10-year old, you've got to remember what you liked at 10 - this is tough because you want to remember yourself more mature and hip than you really were. (At 10, my sensibilities foretold the kinds of things I like now: adventures, mystery, gadgets.) Once you've found your niche - work that baby. If you can get a loyal audience, you're in.

Repeating Rodney's suggestion: a closeup of a spike would help get the message across. Also, if you're a train guy: http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33158 http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25765 Also, Will Pickering (WillP) is a train engineer, and owns & runs a train. http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showuser=1 Plus, Rodger Reynolds (rodger_r) has an impressive A:M train project. http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showuser=358

A:M will correctly adjust for imported gamma-corrected images (used as decals) if the gamma is embedded in the file - like with Targas.

It depends on the kind of book. If this is a "how to farm" book then you'll need to pay attention to the color issues that have been raised. If this is a storybook for kids, then you're fine. Storybooks need their art to look "different" from normal things because the art is part of the interest. If you had a whole storybook filled with pictures of this "look," it would be fine - better than fine.

Try first.

Ahhh... Mark's back in the game. (I feel better now.)

That was filmmaking, Ed. (You succeeded.)

It sounds like you need to rig those molecules so that the electrons spin. Then you can animate their rotations in the Choreography, or make Actions, or for combinations of molecules, use Action Objects. Animating everything is the chor may seem easier in the short run but it bypasses most of the animating power of A:M.

Who let this Troll in here?! Off with you - back to the bowels of hell where you were spawned!

That's what I'm talking about! What a virtuoso performance! You're doing EVERYTHING yourself? When I was watching this, I was thinking, "this guy should do something really underground, like "The Boys." (We need to get you together with Garth Ennis.)

The grass motion is very nice. The twinkling is a phenomenon of CG. Film is so much blurrier than this. That grass in the background, it doesn't need to be changed - it needs to be blurred (DOF) and darkened (brown Haze?). Excellent experiment! Hopefully, SO will have plenty of blowing grass.

Oh, oh, ooooh... Make the grass blow in an animation using forces and your Dynamic Constraint SmartSkin rig.

Do you have these with the audio on them? yes, should i add them? I'd enjoy them.

Do you have these with the audio on them?

Impressed me. Did you put a rig in him? Do a quicky animation of him raising his gun, and perhaps have the lights on the side of the gun flash. That would really show off your work.

Cool...

Can't have that! (Good thing your Wannabe alarm went off, whew!)