martin

That is correct. Images imported into A:M are gamma corrected so they look right on a gamma 2.2 display. Their image data is not linear anymore and they must be linearized. This I do not agree. If the image data had a 2.2 gamma already on the pixels, the 2nd time the image was displayed in an A:M window would get an additional 2.2 gamma (from the monitor) and would not appear the same image as it originally was in the Photoshop window. No. I'm talking about any RGB color that are entered in the color properties. Those colors were selected in a gamma 2.2 display device so they must be considered as having been intrinsically gamma corrected and must be uncorrected. One very obvious case is picking a color from a photo. But picking a color from a color dialog is also the case. Think that the color dialog lives in a display color space that is made so gamma corrected photos look good. Thus any color that looks good on this device must be considered as gamma corrected when the user sees them and selects them. This I follow and agree.

My understanding of your understanding is that images imported into A:M are NOT gamma of 1.0. (When you mention "materials," you must be talking about image-based materials). Hmmm... I need to research that assertion some before I comment further.

Please expand on this statement... When would the reciprocal gamma (.45) be applied to an image unless it had a gamma (2.2) listed in its file format (Targa, PNG)? Applying "twice" would be if the "Gamma" Post Effect were applied to a final A:M image which ALSO had the regular 2.2 gamma applied by the display device. It MAY BE (only a guess - I'd need to look in the code) that when you hooked up the gamma adjustment in A:M, that you were assuming what the viewer was seeing on their monitor was a gamma of "1.0." It seems to me (once again I'm speculating until I look in the code), that your gamma type-in value should default to whatever the display device's gamma is because that's what the viewer is seeing, and if the user typed "1.0" into that gamma adjustment value, the reciprocal of the display device's gamma should be applied (1.0/2.2). Just guessing as to what's happening?

Yves, you might want to draw a "workflow" diagram that shows where the nonlinearities come in. My experience is that most raw images are stored with "0" gamma, (linear) - digital pictures included - and gamma isn't applied until display time using the display device's gamma. Years ago, I can remember importing images from digital cameras, screen capture devices, etc., that had not been de-gammaed but I have not witnessed one of those images recently? When Macs used 2.2 gamma & PCs used 1.8 gamma, that always caused consternation because people saw the same image differently. I've heard Macs don't do that anymore. In the end, it all depends on the intended final distribution method: film (different gamma needed), YouTube (yikes! we've experienced how difficult it is to get our animations to display "correctly" on YouTube), TV (my recommended method of burning a DVD is easy).

Yes. A gamma 2.2 monitor is a quite dark monitor BTW. I'm not quite sure Yves is answering the same thing Robert asked, or even if Robert asked the right thing, so I will state the obvious for clarification. A:M works in 1.0 gamma (none). The signal goes out of the videocard into the monitor - there are several possibilities where gamma (assume 2.2) is applied: 1) A:M puts on the gamma (normally this is not what people do) 2) The videocard puts on the gamma (an option) 3) The monitor puts on the gamma (quite common) You only want the gamma applied ONCE. I assume my new flatscreen TV with DVD player has correct gamma so that's why burning a DVD is a good way to check your computer monitor BUT there is still the possibility that your TV/DVD is not adjusted correctly, so that's why you would do that gamma adjustment scheme Robert doesn't trust. Yves may also be talking about the ultimate in gamma diligence - the "gamma curve." flatscreen TVs & computer monitors are made as cheaply as possible, which sometimes means that the gamma response suffers (plus, it's just difficult to match how your eye perceives gamma). Film projectors have a GREAT gamma curve because they use filtered light - so what you see on your monitor may not match how film would be projected even if you do the gamma adjustment scheme. My last statement on the issue: if the image on your monitor looks like the image on your TV, consider that good enough, (unless you work as a tech at a TV station.)

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.