robcat2075

I don't think I've seen that version before. That turned out well!

Which nobody can deny! Keep cranking out those tunes!

You got at least until Oct 6. Which ever you think is the best of the two. No specific time limit. I was guessing most entries would be around 10 secs. Hold off on sending it. We may need to use some intermediary service like "drop box". And I need to get my new PC going.

Render settings update 8) Rendering In your Options Panel set rendering to "use camera Settings". That will load the settings stored with the camera when you go to render. The camera is set to render to a JPG series. An image series was chosen instead of Quicktime so you wouldn't have to render your animation frames all in one stretch. Resolution: The camera is set to render at 720x405. If you prefer you may up the resolution to 854x480 when you go to render. This is 40% more pixels and will take 40% more time to render. I'll edit the video at the larger size and upscale smaller renders to fit. Either size is acceptable and both look fine for most purposes.

Ok, i understand. Before you do a final render, find out what is making them appear so bright. i don't think they are supposed to look that way. They my have an ambiance setting on by mistake.

Welcome back! Turning on "Caustics" in an AO render is what you want I think. "Dispersion" can be simulated with a multipass technique "birefringence"? I just read the Wikipedia article on that... i thing some sort of compositing or multipass trick is in order there too. My experience is that things like refraction are best when adjusted for end result rather than a "correct" value.

If the bottle is constrained to something and you are animating it, the keyframes will be in the offset channels of the constraint.

Are there dots in the channels?

Well, you got two months. Keep thinking about it.

My first inclination is to go back to the last saved version of the PRJ that rendered right and start hunting for differences.

Don't do that unless you already have it. I don't' know that this will solve your problem, It would just be an easy experiment to try if you had it already. How big is the file?

JPGS because they're going to send them to me and it has to be feasible for them to upload and for me to down load. JPGs because the visible difference is negligible. JPGs because the final compression on Youtube or DVD will far surpass any damage that JPG will do. JPGS because the plan is to render the scene without need for further compositing. (I'm going to composite everyone's background, character and shadow pass? Nope) What are the chances of everyone getting that right? A character pass and a shadow pass. Besides, the set has to be there for the AO to work on the characters. The objects in the set are what "occludes" the "ambient" light. The hedge and sky are front projected already. Render time for their imagery is minimal. The ground plane has to be there to there to catch shadows (and cast occlusion) even if you were going to render the characters separately to composite on an image later. Total render time would not be significantly different. For most users, total frustration time would be hugely larger, particularly since most will not be able to test out any compositing. Those would be the items. But glad to see you back Bruce! I expect to see a fabulous entry from you. (Without any pee, of course)

Quat is the default. Are you sure you haven't turned the "A" key off?

For some reason that looks like Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to me. Why is so much of the set black?

Freaky! (I'm not sure I could follow the plot, but interesting none-the-less)

I think we'll make 480x854 an option. That matches YouTube and DVD res. I can edit at that res and I can up-res any that are at 720x405. Someone try a 480x854 render and see if the camera rotoscope is still matching the set.

One easy check in a basic walk... is the body moving forward at a consistent speed? Frame after frame after frame after frame... It almost always should. Is yours?

Is it possible you are exporting your wav file in some odd bit rate... bit depth... integer high low order... something? Do you have QT Pro? try re exporting your wav from QT Pro to another wav. You could always download the installer on one machine and carry the file over to the other machine.

Is there a reason not to be using the latest update? V15j+ free update. ??

Thought about it... it's 3X the render time and HD Youtubes take a long time to buffer. Maybe going up to 480p (854x480) could be optional. We can think about it.

In either case I think you'll need to edit the hair material to undo the incandescent white look it's getting.

In the objects folder expand "OneLight" until you get to "Light1" and increase the intensity to... 15% or 20% maybe.

Hey, Gerry... just as an experiment... import this chor into the chor you have ( on the chor>import>Choreography), turn "Global Ambiance type" to None in the chor properties, turn AO off when you go to render and render with 5 passes and see what the render time is. AODome.cho This is unofficial and unapproved... it's just to test.

My dad shot lots of Kodachrome slides in the 50's and 60's and 70's. And he'd set up the projector and we'd sit thru slide shows of our various trips. I'm impressed he got the exposure right so often since he was always shooting on the run with a manual camera and no light meter. He was a chemist for 3M and every now and then they'd come up with their own slide film but he was always disgusted with it when he tried it. He always said the brand name "Kodachrome", never just "slide film". When he made the jump to print film in the 70's he was always an unhappy customer, frequently bringing things back to be reprinted. I'm not sure if he's aware Kodachrome is being discontinued. I'll have to try that out on him next time he calls.

It's actually set in the PRJ properties, but double check to make sure.