robcat2075

I guess the problem is that expressions are continuously evaluated and not once per frame?

If i want to have an object decrement its Y position every frame I should be able to do a standard value reassignment like Y=Y-1, shouldn't I?

When I on that link in Firefox i get "Save link as" in the menu. "Save as source" sounds like something in the Quicktime viewer.

Great news!

Great ad!

What browser are you using?

The thing that's most not-clear is when the reflection comes to life. I know you're keeping the camera far away so we can see the guy after he gets hit but it may be too far away for everything else. His feet are sliding on the walk. That may be a stylistic choice but I wouldn't do it.

When I was little there was a commercial for a terrible Christmas movie that ran so much we got sick of seeing it. I don't recall the name of the movie but it had a long list of things you would SEE like "SEE Santa's magic reindeer!" and "SEE his magic workshop!" and the last one was "SEE Santa's magic telescope!" So nowadays whenever I make a movie I like to claim you will "SEE Santa's magic telescope!" I've also used that for party invitations and company department meetings.

- if you rip the DVD you should get 24fps files. - if you single frame in a DVD player you should get 24 frames for each second on the time counter.

I just think it's so small that the next frame looks like a sudden pop

I like those! My one practical suggestion would be to not do an "L" couch for the TV room.

I think that looks too much like a flash of light. Too bright and too solid. The first frame of dust is so small that it's getting missed, it needs to be closer to the full size. I think the dust falling back down needs to settle evenly. Right now it's settling a little then collapsing real fast. If anything, real dust is slowest at the end.

Long story short... everything about mine was ten times harder than i thought it was going to be.

Take a look at the settings in my sample PRJ and see how I varied the size and falloff softness to make the cloud expand quickly then dissipate slowly.

If you are going to just view something on your monitor, stick with square pixels, because the monitor has square pixels. 1900x1200 is not a 4:3 ratio but that almost certainly isn't framed in a 4:3 area rectangle. If you measured it you'd find it to be about 1.58 to 1 You can render at 1024x768 but that will take longer than 640x480. If you want to see a 640x480 movie larger, the easiest thing to do is full screen the player or use Quicktime's View>Present Movie option.

and "save link as"?

Wow, you're really cranking these out! So the bees didn't want his nectar, they wanted his petals...

Aw, come on... you really assembled that in 25 seconds? Looks great!

This is probably more what the makers intended for a dust effect DustB000.mov DustTest02.prj As with all CG, the more you consider what your goal looks like the more you can make the tool look like it.

Here's three dust objects all at their defaults except the falloff is set to 25%, 50% and 100% I bet the fall off could be animated also for added effect.

The actual "aspect ratio" parameter was to work with pixels that are not square. For example 640x480 would equal the 4x3 shape of old TV but they packed a bit more horizontal res into it by using about a .9 aspect ratio to make the pixels slightly skinny and rendered with 720x 480 pixels. Unless you are trying to do something for digital NTSC leave your aspect ratio at 1.0. As far as I know all modern HDTV uses square pixels.

I think there's also a "falloff" setting or something like that that to soften the edges of the volumetric effect. But congrats on getting your first model going and animated!

btw, I still haven't figured out the technological problem of creating a 24p DVD so i haven't made the DVD version of BUS STOP yet which means... You all still have time to do your commentary tracks! I want to make a DVD image if only for the learning experience of authoring such thing that includes menus and features so i encourage you all to plug in that mic, hit play and tell us about your segment!

Hey Tommy, i enjoyed your short. The music worked well and teh "smile" at the end was clever.

for example... to make a 16:9 rectangle that would play as 480p on Youtube... multiply 480 (vertical resolution) x 16 and divide by 9 to get the horizontal res. About 854 so you'd render to 854x 480 pixels