NancyGormezano

Lots of compression should actually help in some cases - I've seen it act like sort of a pseudo anti-aliasing, blurring. And yeah I did notice it was 1 pass, shaded. I worked on real-time CIG systems for military flight simulators for over 12 years. The fidelity requirements for simulator imagery is different, but the one thing that is still the same is human factors. The human eye is particularly sensitive to any stray twinkle glitch (technical term). The attention of the pilots, like animation viewers, will be immediately distracted and disturbed by the phenomenon. Hopefully our audience is less critical (kids). Lawd knows, I try to get away with as much as I can. What twinkle? I didn't see anything twinkle? (my standard response during acceptance testing)

Perhaps a blue/grey haze or a haze color that fits the time of day, weather conditions and sky color AND YEAH - I forgot to say the motion dynamic does look very nice, very blowing in the wind nice

yup that thar is very scintillating. EDIT: I would think you would need different imagery for background plants, ie different representations for the further away - notice how the foreground grass blows nicely until it gets contrasted against the brown sand - the thinner the grass resolves to, the more problemos. the more contrast the more apparent twinkling. Some of the twinkling would be attenuated by more passes - but not all twinkling will go away probably. Double EDIT: I also just noticed its just a shaded render. Camera angle could also help horizon twinkles (where most imagery would be resolving to 1 pixel)

Fiddle is right. Many times I have tried this & I couldn't get it to work However, the trick is to use right click to copy a group of keyframes (rt click, choose copy or use ctrl c) and then when you move to the frame where you want to paste, also use right click, choose paste or ctrl v at that "empty frame". Using Copy/paste from the drop down edit menu doesn't seem to work in this situation (at least not for me).

Here's what I really think of your animation/video: I think the dialog/script is quite good, funny. I think your McCain voice, acting was very good, and the same with your Cindy voice - very impressive. Music was perfect for the situation and was used well, ie. inserted at the right spots, with the right empathsis. The little animation that was there (camera moves) actually detracted (IMO) from the good script and acting, except for the ending where he walks out. You could probably skip the pulling back from the house in the beginning and just have a static image of the house as the dialog is heard - until he walks out. Then pull back to show some kind of comical arrangement of houses, cars, servants? scene - as it stands now - the design, style of the houses doesn't add comedy. I thought the walking part was funny - I don't care if the walk cycle is stylistic, or rough - it adds to the comedy. The way I perceived the walking, was that he went to the wrong side of the car in a senior moment and then realized he needed to drive from the other side. If that was your gag - it worked - If there were other gags - ie with the number of cars - it wasn't clear if those were cars that McCain had, or what the joke was that you intended. I don't have a problem with it being a South Park style of animation. As it stands now, it seems more of a radio piece - except for the ending. I know you don't consider it done, but I think with a little more very simple polishing - it really could be stylistically good. The satire is already good. You could even add hand drawn background elements. And yeah - 'tube it as Robert said I even more so hope Obama/Biden wins, as I want to see you on Keith Obermann's show.

lovely & bucolic , nice peaceful feel

Has a wonderful feel to it, with very nice, interesting imagery for a heartfelt, moving story. I really enjoy seeing authentic personal style come thru.

OOOO....Brilliant as usual Vern I must say the arcs, the arcs! I've never seen such beautifully done arcs, so sublimely and perfectly done. The camera work was amazing - the anticipation, up the kazoo - magnificent holds, sophisticated, expert follow thru, with gobs and gobs of overlapping action. And need I mention the walk cycles? You need to patent? trademark? copyright? those walk cycles. There is one thing that I didn't quite get, and most likely because I am naive in the ways of symbolism, as I was a repressed math major, and thus sadly have no aptitude in that airy-fairy-grey-area-up-for-interpretation stuff - BUT just what was the meaning of those mysterious markings in the lower left hand corner. I could make out an "X", and I think there was a "Y", but the other symbol escapes me...Are you perhaps a scientologist? Oh wait ...I just got it...It's Tom Cruise's phone number coded in holographic Froot Loops. I'll have to go get my stereoscopic goggles. I repeat - BRILLIANT. ps. who is this McCain fellow?

I think the first half of your critique of Bruce critiquing Mike's critique was helpful but in the second half, you too allowed yourself to get pulled into the larger topic. Well Harumph...I believe I did say I wasn't that smart...Are we now going to dispute that indisputable and well documented fact ? C'mon, c'mon... Bring it on!

Martin constantly has deleted "free speech" on this forum. He owns it. He determines what is "free speech". If I see something HERE I don't like I can scream bloody murder about it the same as the person who posted it. The difference is there is no free speech on a corporate sponsored software forum and I just might get my way. Nanny nanny boo boo. That's so funny - I actually edited my last comment...it was originally: "Free speech" for everyone, except no one can say what I and Martin don't want to hear ... I felt I shouldn't speak for Martin. Nanny Nanny Boo Boo? OH yeah? Well...then...umm...er....Verny Werny Ca Ca Poo Poo... That's the best I got.

Because I am not smart enough to stay out of this, and love the ridiculous, I will critique your critique of Bruce critiquing your critique. I thought Bruce's critique was an insightful comment - giving you a complement - "I know 3DArtz knows how to critique animation in this forum, he is better than his comment. ", Mike's comment being "That is bad animation". I think Bruce's critique was spot on. I think my critique is "pot stirring". I wonder, of those who are objecting to this animation, if they also reject the very provocative, satirical, yet wildly aired animations produced by jib-jab? Time for campaigning -JibJab Aside from the style of this animation, Is it that those people objecting, disagree more with Bruce's political commentary and personal view ? Perhaps avoid viewing a topic that says "Political Cartoon" Ok. That was my cowardly "hit and run" for the day. Oh wait..."Free speech" for everyone, except no one can say what I don't want to hear ...

I've had that happen to me as well - in trying to render a qt mov - so I don't think this problem is related just to rendering jpgs, or stills - I can't figure out what causes it to happen, as it doesn't happen all the time. It would render all the sequence and then never write the .mov. If I repeated the render, it would then write the mov. I believe when I closed down A:M and restarted, that the problem then went away, for the time being.

oh groan - I definitely feel your pain. So very sorry to hear this. Try not to stress too much about it. It will work out. I hope it is very minimal effort to recover. (and now meself tries very hard to remember when I last did a backup - Yup, I've been playing chicken with the thin ice Gods)

Try it and see. Whatever you do, keep the aspect ratio the same as the resultant image you want to use for the final decal. You might want to make a proxy image (with same aspect ratio) that is simpler, and has "alignment marks" that are clearly defined and visible, to help you line up your decal before applying. After applying - you can then switch it over to the image that you really want to use.

That is incredibly beautiful, fabulous, imaginative artistic imagery. It has an intriguing "stop-motion" quality to it. May you win many, many awards.

How else did you do it?! Vern taught me to use 6 rotoscopes. I'll never believe him again. Love them tuts.

Aye aye Cap'n - I done my duty - Can I be having my parrot back now? My pleasure to vote for you!

No - it's a full version of PS - I don't even know if there was such a thing as PS Elements when I got it. The file dates on some of the files for my version are 2001.

I use PS 6 (6.01) - this is a version pre "CS" (creative suite) - plenty fine & dandy - I don't need anything more - hope you can find it. There might be lite versions of Photoshop as well - which might also fit your needs - but I don't have experience with them. There are free image editing programs floating around that others use - perhaps others can suggest what they like for image editing, creating. Everything will take time to learn. A:M especially, too. Unless you're 14. Then it should take a week-end or so.

In order for a model to work "automatically" with A:M's lipsync dopesheet - the model must have poses setup for some subset of the Preston Blair phonemes - ie FV, L, MBP, WQ, CDGKNRSTHYZ, etc If you take a look at Eddy and open up User Properties/Face/Lip Sync - you'll see the poses that have been setup Sir Nigel (or the one I have of Sir Nigel) does not have these poses - if you want him to use the dopesheet - then you will have to create the poses for him. For Sir Nigel - I opened up User properties and only saw Fingers, Hands, Rig folders - There was no folder containing the lipsync controls. Not all models come with lip sync poses.

Weird? Vern is calling me?... Moi?... WEIRD? Hmmm....I like it. Well, actually all my little...ahem..."voices"... like it. We took a vote. Except for EVIL wonder woman. She's still thinking....very very bad thoughts. Pssst, Gorfy Guy...I'm a fake...Vern is a true photoshop expert, and probably even that Eric "two forum named" Camden fella...Ask them any question...they are sure to make up something. I would make up something too...but I would only lead you down the path of laziness and imprecision ...They, on the other hand will lead you down the true path of compulsive perfection and will have you manipulating pixels with a microscope and tweezer in no time. BEWARE. But ask your question anyway.

You're not doing anything wrong - I've seen the same phenomenon - not to worry - it's a real-time display issue only (maybe also shaded render problem as well, I forget) - The surface will FINAL render correctly. Try it. And yeah it's disconcerting. One solution, if it bothers you - is to 1st apply a decal to the surface that is the color you want the surface to be after making the gradient image transparent. Then add the gradient image to your decal container, or apply a new decal. Then the surface will not go transparent in real-time, or shaded renders. EDIT - just saw your image - apply a "white" or final color to the tooth - then apply on top of that the gradient image or image that you will be making transparent.

Yes, has a very interesting look and sounds like an interesting story.

Bravo!

I didn't know that you could still buy 11.1? Maybe something really is wrong, sumthinwong ? Maybe that's why you don't have a CD with all the free models ? Or have you just not looked on the CD ?