It was a dark and stormy night.

[Simon Edmondson]

The Spleen

Thank you very much for that. I shall try it this afternoon.

regards

Simon

[robcat2075]

Gerry

Thank you for your suggestions.

 

I was thinking about it overnight and here is a first stab at it this morning. I know lightening doesn't last two seconds (?) but it was just to make it more visible.

 

Lightening.mov

 

This is a single image using the same model and setting. Its all done with material settings and lights. A bit rough yet but, was this the type of thing you were suggesting ?

 

regards

simon

 

I like the "art" look of that lightning. It's not realistic lightning, it's like what you might see in a stop-mo film.

[robcat2075]

With a big thank you to Nancy and Rob for their help last week.

Here is the opening scene for a (very ) short I'm developing.

Any feedback is very welcome., as critical as you can. Theres no sound yet

regards

simonLightening.mov

 

 

I had to watch it several times to figure out what I was seeing.

 

It wasn't immediately obvious that he was looking out a window. I'd suggest having some visible, dark but visible, scenery on the outside to see get lit up when the lightning flares and then i'd reduce the reflection level on the window so that his image in the glass is perceptible but not the brightest thing in the scene. The reflection of the back wall in the room is too strong also.

[Simon Edmondson]

I like the "art" look of that lightning. It's not realistic lightning, it's like what you might see in a stop-mo film.

 

Rob

Thank you for that, it has clarified my thinking on it.

The Splene ( Gene ? ) very kindly provided a very impressive model of some lightening, far better than any I could do myself.

 

I did a little test with it ( Lightening.mov ) but, its actually too good for what I want.

As you can guess from the figure, I'm trying to keep it as simple as I can. The others in the series I hope to make might make that more obvious. I've mentioned it before but, the simplicity of the early Pink Panthers is what I aspire, to and I've been slightly diverted by the excitement of learning new techniques.

 

regards

simon

[NancyGormezano]

As you can guess from the figure, I'm trying to keep it as simple as I can. The others in the series I hope to make might make that more obvious. I've mentioned it before but, the simplicity of the early Pink Panthers is what I aspire, to

 

Maybe even more cartooney representation of lightning? (google lightning cartoon)

[Simon Edmondson]

Maybe even more cartooney representation of lightning? (google lightning cartoon)

 

 

Nancy.

Thanks for the link.

Its those sort of shapes I want to use but, for this one, the sort of lighting in the tests.

 

While the frames are rendering on this, I'm storyboarding an idea for that style of lightening.

Happiness is getting so involved and excited by what you are doing and learning you forget other things... like eating !

regards

simon

[TheSpleen]

The Spleen

Thank you very much for that. I shall try it this afternoon.

regards

Simon

turn (Glow) on

[Simon Edmondson]

Scene Two ( six seconds worth )

Any feedback welcome?

regards

simon

 

Scene_Two.mov

[Gerry]

First reaction is that it's all so flat and stick-like I can't tell what he's doing. Unfolding a chaise longue?

[Rodney]

Gerry is on to something here.

 

 

Unless you are going for humor here you may want to pursue a slightly different camera angle.

While not necessarily gospel there is something to the theory that straight on shots like this are ideal for comedy and lighthearted works.

 

That may be what you are going for here but I assume not because of the 'dark and stormy' theme.

 

Are you intentionally trying to lighten the mood or building up to the punchline of a joke?

If you are then the flatness may be an asset for you.

If not, consider a camera move.

 

I guess ultimately I'd have to say that at this point beyond the obvious that he is opening/adjusting something, I don't really know what is going on.

Take heart though... six isolated seconds does not give us a lot of time to figure out what is going on.

 

Rock on!

[Simon Edmondson]

It is building up to a punchline ( or thunderclap ) but the flatness is because I rendered the view rather than the camera by mistake. I'd spent so much time working in the left side view that I forgot. It is a chaise long being unfolded.

regards

simon

[Rodney]

Well, that makes sense then.

 

Carry on. Carry on!

 

We might need to see the camera view in order to refine our comments.

 

The action of the character is smooth enough.

My suggestion would be to break up the symmetry.

If one leg/knee goes down first and the body follows, that would accomplish that.

I would suggest trying this yourself but I know you can't.

Perhaps you could have someone else perform the action and you could video and study their action?

I can see that you are close but it's hard to tell from this angle.

[Gerry]

I rendered the view rather than the camera by mistake.

Well okay then!

[Simon Edmondson]

Thank you for your help.

I was hoping to edit my last post but, it didn't render in time so, just back from exercise, here's the camera view.

Sorry about the mixup.

 

I was trying to avoid twinning but, from memory, there is not a lot of difference when kneeling down and I tried to vary the pelvic position to get some variance, Perhaps not enough ? Also, think the right handposition after the top goes up might be a bit wrong too.. Just corrected that (?)

regards

simon

 

Scene_Two.mov

[Gerry]

It would be nice to see a little more weight when he gets back up. Two suggestions that I'm just pulling out of my ear: 1) Have him lean back on his hips a bit to shift his weight back, then stand; or 2) Stand up one foot at a time.

 

I think either one will help with that move.

[Simon Edmondson]

Gerry

Thank you for your help.

I did revise the stand up and the hand movements. It leans forward slightly to start, then back again as the centre of gravity changes.. Is that what you meant ?

 

regards

simon

 

Scene_Two_000.mov

[Rodney]

That camera angle works much better!

[Gerry]

That helps, Simon!

[Simon Edmondson]

Thank you Gerry and Rodney.

I'm working on the next stage and hope to have the whole thing done over the weekend...

But I've never been good at time management !

regards

simon

[Simon Edmondson]

Heres the next stage. Tried to incorporate earlier suggestions in this one too.

 

Regards

simon

 

Disc.mov

[Gerry]

Simon, I think at the very least you should video someone doing these exact moves and see how the feet work to turn and walk away. I don't think it's a complicated move, but I think you should analyze these moves more closely.

[Simon Edmondson]

Simon, I think at the very least you should video someone doing these exact moves and see how the feet work to turn and walk away. I don't think it's a complicated move, but I think you should analyze these moves more closely.

 

Gerry

 

I understand what you mean .I have some ref material elsewhere I think, I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.

I bought a DVD a few years ago that was a kind of update to Muybridge, I think I know where it is.

I don't wish to sound like I'm trying to duck the suggestion. I live in a fairly rural area and by myself. I'll see what I can sort out.

regards

simon

[Gerry]

You know I could video myself doing that and post it in case it will help.

[Simon Edmondson]

You know I could video myself doing that and post it in case it will help.

 

 

Gerry

Thats a very kind offer, for which thank you very much.

However, I went to bed last night thinking about ways to get the material needed. I had intended to build up a kind of reference library of poses using some actors that I know and more technical references to feet movements and general body movements could readily be a part of that.. If I make them for me, do you think they might be of use to others on the forum ? I'd be happy to share them if they could be of use.

 

regards

simon

[Gerry]

Hi Simon - Sorry for the delay but we were without internet, phone and sometimes TV for the last three days.

 

to answer your question, and this is just my opinion, I think video reference is so specific to individual needs, I'm not sure there's a need for "generic" movement and body reference. That's not to say you shouldn't, but get the shots that you yourself need, then decide if your specific shots are of some use to others.

[Simon Edmondson]

Gerry

Thank you for your reply ( no apology needed at all ).

 

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Figure-Motion-...M/dp/B001PPZ6BM

 

This is the ref work I mentioned. When I bought it some years ago it was a lot less than that but, I hunted it out in the dark recesses of the studio ( garden shed ) over the weekend, and it has a lot of useful files on it. In little 1 second clips. The only down side is that the mov files are a bit low in resolution. But I'll try it and post the results later.

Thank you for your help.

Regards

simon

[robcat2075]

Scene Two ( six seconds worth )

Any feedback welcome?

regards

simon

 

Scene_Two.mov

 

I agree with the comments that a different angle would help this substantially. Especially a person getting up from a kneel or sitting position. Best seen from the side or 3/4 view.

[robcat2075]

Thank you for your help.

I was hoping to edit my last post but, it didn't render in time so, just back from exercise, here's the camera view.

Sorry about the mixup.

 

I was trying to avoid twinning but, from memory, there is not a lot of difference when kneeling down and I tried to vary the pelvic position to get some variance, Perhaps not enough ? Also, think the right handposition after the top goes up might be a bit wrong too.. Just corrected that (?)

regards

simon

 

Scene_Two.mov

 

 

I'm just getting caught up on the new installments...

 

This new angle is better. Something about kneeling... you can't really leave a foot flat on the ground and kneel, your heel will have to come up and just leave the toe on the ground. Then to get up you typically slide one foot forward to get it under your weight and push up on that leg.

[robcat2075]

Gerry

Thank you for your help.

I did revise the stand up and the hand movements. It leans forward slightly to start, then back again as the centre of gravity changes.. Is that what you meant ?

 

regards

simon

 

Scene_Two_000.mov

 

 

Is there a reason this room needs to be so narrow? It seems to be an impediment to good staging. Also, why is it so dark?

[robcat2075]

Heres the next stage. Tried to incorporate earlier suggestions in this one too.

 

Regards

simon

 

Disc.mov

 

This one is so dark i can barely tell what's going on.

 

On turning... you have to have one foot firmly planted at all times. They can't both be sliding simultaneously.

 

I did a small reference for someone else. He was doing a mechanical monster but they need to keep one foot planted too.

 

http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?s=&am...st&p=351047

[NancyGormezano]

http://www.amazon.com/Human-Figure-Motion-...M/dp/B001PPZ6BM

 

This is the ref work I mentioned. When I bought it some years ago it was a lot less than that but, I hunted it out in the dark recesses of the studio ( garden shed ) over the weekend, and it has a lot of useful files on it. In little 1 second clips. The only down side is that the mov files are a bit low in resolution. But I'll try it and post the results later.

 

I was just browsing on Amazon and found this book: Action Analysis for Animators

 

I know nothing about it, but the pages in the mostly good reviews look interesting, and the author is a Brit! (so how bad could it be? )

 

What I did notice is that the paperback edition is approx $28.00, but the KINDLE edition is $44.00 ???? wha? Why would kindle edition be so much more? Now, that seems crazy.

[Simon Edmondson]

What I did notice is that the paperback edition is approx $28.00, but the KINDLE edition is $44.00 ???? wha? Why would kindle edition be so much more? Now, that seems crazy.

 

Nancy

Thank you for the tip. I've just hit the credit card for that and two other titles.

Almost as strange as the discrepancy on the Kindle edition is that there are people offering second hand copies for more than people offering new copies !

 

Plugging away.

simon

[Rodney]

I was just browsing on Amazon and found this book: Action Analysis for Animators

 

For some reason Yves Poissant's review of Chris Webster's earlier book on the mechanics of animation comes to mind wherein Yves ends his review with the following words, "I should not have bought this book'. That review is somewhere here in the forum and if anyone is interested I'll track it down for them.

 

I didn't have the same issues with that previous book as Yves did but considering that Yves is a genius his reviews hold serious weight with me. (Fortunately or unfortunately, I had purchased the book prior to reading Yves review of it)

 

I suspect that many of the drawing from this book are in his previous also. Repackaging of previously published information seems to be what many animators writing books are doing these days. Repackage, retitle and extend... repackage, retitle and extend...

 

 

For what it's worth, if I saw this new book in a bookstore I'd probably buy it.

There is an incredible lack of books about (the process of) animation in bookstores today.

[Simon Edmondson]

Not happy with the walking as yet. I had use four frames gaps to try to make it more languid but that didn't work. So converted to three frame gaps and think it looks a bit stiff. Any thoughts as to how to improve ?

Also.

When rendering the sequence some artefacts seem to appear at around 05:05 in the sun lamp area. can these be avoided ?

 

V15j. OSX 10:68.

 

regards

simon

 

Scene_Four.mov

 

I am having trouble with inconsistency of renders too. This is something Nancy pointed out a few weeks ago but, this might answer rob's observation about it being very dark ?

 

When I do a test render the results don't match the final output.

 

 

Is darker than the the test.

 

this is two pass

 

Three

 

Five

 

16

 

If I watch the render going through on screen the results vary enormously with some pass's lightening and others darkening the scene... ?

[Rodney]

Hi Simon,

I can't really comment on the darkness or the artifacts as it's not clear to me what is going on there.

I assume you refer to multipass rendering here. If so then how many passes do you have the renderer set to?

Those artifacts are interesting. I didn't see them until I read your text but now I surely do see them.

They appear to be a byproduct of the lighting.

 

Regarding the walk

I don't think the issue is with the timing there but rather in the spacing.

What you've got in the poses appears to approach a tip toeing (almost a sneak) rather than a standard walk with (I think) more of a need for movement/action in the knees. It is as if his concentration is on lifting his feet in order not to make noise on the floor/carpet rather than lifting and walking via his hips and his knees.

To my way of thinking no matter how you re-time that you will always see those poses in the final rendering (just sped up or slowed down).

What you could do is set up another camera that views him walking from the side and use that view to get the walk you want.

Then retime that walk to taste from the main camera view.

 

If you have the time to do it seeing a side view of him walking (from that second camera) should be very revealing.

 

Something else I note is that there doesn't appear to be any shadows as evidenced by the floor underneath the chair.

I don't think that has anything to do with the artifacts but with the strong light being emitted it seems those shadows should be there.

Perhaps shadows isn't turned on in the renderer?

[Simon Edmondson]

Rodney

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

I was referring to the multi pass option in the render settings.The examples were of each of the different results found with varied passes, from 1 -16. Nancy had mentioned a couple of weeks ago that she had found some differences between the test renders and final output and my observations confirm that. It also seems to vary on the render as the separate passes go through.

 

Its a bit disconcerting. The first one looks as you expect, the next goes darker, the next brighter, darker, brighter and so on. The final result looks like none of the passes as they went through ( I'm guessing because its an accumulative effect ? ).

 

This morning, as I was editing my last post, I noticed there was a difference between jpg's and TGA renders. Even though non of the other parameters have changed.

 

 

and

 

Scene_Four_16__pass130.tga

 

A puzzle ?

 

The shadows are turned on.

The sun ray lamp has no shadows and uses a rim light with volumetric on, and a fill light at 20% intensity, with no shadows. The other five in the scene do, four z buffer and one raytraced.

 

I'll try your suggestion re the walk this afternoon. I was thinking about it last night and wondered how I might do that.

regards

simon

[Rodney]

It also seems to vary on the render as the separate passes go through.

 

The final result looks like none of the passes as they went through ( I'm guessing because its an accumulative effect ? ).

 

I should know the process more exactly but yes it is accumulative. Each render within the multipass process being averaged back in to get anti-aliasing and smoother rendering. While there may be something to what you are saying about one pass being darker than the other I hesitate to say that isn't as it should be. For my part I wouldn't spend a lot of time examining individual passes but rather the end product of those passes. It is that end product that is important and the passes should be expected to vary. How much variation I cannot say. Much of that will depend on your settings and I suppose you could isolate some of those settings but you'd probably want to render out to one pass (or very few passes) in such cases. Otherwise you'll get that cumulative effect.

 

 

The sun ray lamp has no shadows and uses a rim light with volumetric on, and a fill light at 20% intensity, with no shadows. The other five in the scene do, four z buffer and one raytraced.

 

Since the other lights are pointed up and spread out that is likely why they have no shadowing effect on the chair.

It is that sun lamp that should be causing shadows to appear from the chair. Since you have that turned off... no shadows.

 

Edit: I don't know what is going on with the TGAs in your posts but you may want to either render out to JPG or PNG or convert the TGAs to those formats for posting. Webbrowsers don't generally display TGA images without plugins. This is true also with BMPs. There are a lot of image conversion utilities out there and you can also convert quickly in A:M via the Save As Animation option in the Project Workspace. Most people (rightfully so) will not take the time to download and convert/view your TGAs. I recommend rendering to PNG for the purpose of online posting.

[Rodney]

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two results.

I'm pretty sure I labeled them correctly.

 

Yes, there is an obvious difference there! (hopefully these are not extracted from the multipass rendering but are final renderings)

 

 

FWIW these two images were smashed together and labeled using the freeware program Irfanview (PC only).

[NancyGormezano]

1) Nancy had mentioned a couple of weeks ago that she had found some differences between the test renders and final output and my observations confirm that. It also seems to vary on the render as the separate passes go through.

 

2) Its a bit disconcerting. The first one looks as you expect, the next goes darker, the next brighter, darker, brighter and so on. The final result looks like none of the passes as they went through ( I'm guessing because its an accumulative effect ? ).

 

3) This morning, as I was editing my last post, I noticed there was a difference between jpg's and TGA renders. Even though non of the other parameters have changed.

 

1) What I meant by test renders being different from final is that using the GREEN icon (render lock) to get a test render will produce different results that using the BLUE icon, which should be the same, hopefully, in theory, as your final render to a file. Both on-screen test methods will use whatever render options you have chosen in your options panel (multipass on/off, number of passes, etc), but the quicker GREEN icon will NOT do all the same steps as the BLUE FINAL render. In particular transparency will look different, hair will look different, and probably many other things if you use the GREEN icon. So to do a test of your rendering set-up: use the BLUE icon, or else render 1 frame to a file.

 

2) yes when you use Multipass = ON, the passes are averaged together. Pick the number of passes that looks good for you, and go with that. In my experience it is overkill, for an animation to go beyond 9 pass. I usually go with 5 pass. having soften on will also add rendering time. You may or may not need it. You might also find in some situations that multipass OFF (ie A:M's other option which is 1 pass plus two antialisasing passes) is even faster and better looking. And YES, it will look different from multipass. So pick one method for your entire animation and stick with it.

 

3) I see very little difference, between your jpg & tga stills, but it is not surprising if there is. TGA is an uncompressed format. JPG is a compressed, lossy format. If you note the file sizes for your 2 stills, on my system, the jpg is 118kb, the tga is 741kb. The jpg must have compressed and lost some of the info. Yes the jpg looks blockier to me in the illuminated areas. The best bet is to stick with one format only - and uncompressed is always best up until, final compression of the video. But you might consider PNG format as well. I'm not sure how it's done, but I believe it is supposed to be a compressed but lossless format (how can that be? - I don't know)

[Simon Edmondson]

Nancy

Thank you once again for your help and apologies for my misunderstanding about the testing proceedure. I have never really used the render lock mode. Tend to test them by rendering the scene with the settings in the panel, scratching my head as they go through about what to do next.

 

I've not tried the PNG option but will give it a go. I have always used the Targa option because it was less compressed than the jpg's and, even so, I still get a lot of banding when assembling the stills in Final Cut Pro. Do you have a favoured codec when outputting your work in their final form ? I used Apple Prores but not having a lot of luck with that.

Regards

Simon

[Simon Edmondson]

Rodney

 

Thank you for your help. I will try your, and Nancy's, suggestion about the png format. Do you have a preferred codec and format for final output ?

regards

simon

[NancyGormezano]

I have always used the Targa option because it was less compressed than the jpg's and, even so, I still get a lot of banding when assembling the stills in Final Cut Pro. Do you have a favoured codec when outputting your work in their final form ? I used Apple Prores but not having a lot of luck with that.

 

I prefer h264 codec. And I use QT pro for compressing (PC). I find that quickest, easiest to get to a MOV format.

 

For me: I render A:M stills, and if additional post processing required I use Aftereffects to render to an uncompressed avi, then from QT Pro go from avi to h264 compressed mov, or if no post processing required, I import into QT pro the original sequence of A:M stills and compress to h264 mov.

 

To which banding are you referring? pre or post compression of video?

 

If pre: then it's probably something to do with lights? volumetrics? fog? DOF?

 

If post: then it's a compression artifact, and you would probably have to up your "quality" settings when compressing.

 

EDIT: uploaded graphic from wiki on png - showing artifact differences in solid background in jpg and png formats

Edited August 23, 2012 by NancyGormezano

[thejobe]

wow this has come a long way since i saw it last. awesome work so far!

[Rodney]

Rodney

 

Thank you for your help. I will try your, and Nancy's, suggestion about the png format. Do you have a preferred codec and format for final output ?

regards

simon

 

For images that I know are going to be uploaded to the web (for forum, blog posting and the like) I usually render to PNG format from A:M. PNG has the benefit of having an alpha channel so it can have a transparency whereas JPG cannot. Nancy has expertly outlined some of the other benefits. If grabbing a screenshot many programs/operating systems automatically default to JPG but the also have an option to save to .PNG.

 

I still prefer TGA for any serious rendering but have been leaning toward Open EXR for some time now. Old habits die hard and I find I have to consciously think about rendering to EXR however. EXR is an incredible format that allows for post processing manipulation (to include relighting an image without rerendering... if the image is rendered out with Light Buffers on). A:M can create image buffers of various types for the TGA format as well but that format cannot store all of the information inside the same image the way that EXR can. EXR has a few downsides, the most important of which is that few (low end/freeware) image viewing/editing programs support it and even fewer can take full advantage of the buffers stored the image. Of course neither TGA or EXR can be viewed in standard browsers so neither format is useful for sharing images online. Once rendered to EXR however, it is very easy to take the images and save/convert them to another format. EXR files are very useful for deep and robust image manipulation and (something few take advantage of) A:M's Compositor was specially designed to leverage EXR images.

 

My movie format of choice is still .MOV but that format is becoming more and more frustrating with each passing day due to Apple lack of continuing support of the format for 64bit applications. It is a very good habit to get into to render to still imagery (such as Open EXR) and then convert the resulting sequence of images to .MOV format for uploading to the forum or general sharing. (Note that the .MOV is currently the only film format the forum will accept). Just keep in mind that you'll have to use the 32 bit version of A:M to convert the files to .MOV because that format will not even appear as an option in 64bit A:M. With things going as they are I can't help but think the .MOV format is going the way of extinction and I don't have a format I personally prefer to it at the moment. There are certainly better formats that yield better quality, compression etc. than .MOV but none are directly supported by A:M. Lately I have been using the AVI format a lot more but only as a bridge between otherwise incompatible programs or those that don't natively speak .MOV.

 

 

So to summarize, all formats have their benefits but for posting to the forum .PNG and .MOV are ideal formats to work with. PNG is not as fullproof or robust as .TGA and .EXR and therefore it is best to use PNG mostly for images that will be uploaded to the forum and TGA/EXR for images that will be further manipulated and scrutinized in a production. The use of TGA is currenting waning while the use of EXR is increasing. The impressive things you can do with .EXR format makes it very hard to beat. There are far more programs that can convert a TGA image sequence to a movie format than there are for .EXR but if you are converting with A:M you can easily use both, either or neither. Once any sequence of images is created it can easily be converted to .MOV in 32 bit A:M. Utilize external converters (such as Quicktime Pro) to target and convert images sequences to specific formats needed.

 

Added: Due to variables in the amount of data and the compression the .EXR format is generally not the best format for realtime playback. .EXR format is therefore not best for final viewing but rather to gain maximum editing and manipulation capability during production. Upon completion of editing optimized images formats for playback as sequential images and movies should be generated.

[robcat2075]

Can you show a picture of an example of what you want the lighting in that room to look like? i can't imagine that you really want it so dark.

[Simon Edmondson]

Rodney

 

Thank you very much for that comprehensive explanation I shall try to implement it over the weekend with the next sequence to be rendered.

regards

simon

[Simon Edmondson]

Can you show a picture of an example of what you want the lighting in that room to look like? i can't imagine that you really want it so dark.

 

Rob

Thank you for your message.

I did a quick pasteup of some screen grabs and a render from yesterday.

 

Using PNG format, at Nancy and Rodney's suggestion.

 

I've put captions under to explain but,

Top left is a screen grab with single pass.

Top right is render in TGa at 16 pass

Bottom left is screen grab at five pass

Bottom right is screen grab at 16 pass

 

The screen grab @16 appears darker than the render @16, to me anyway, even though the light settings are the same ?

 

My preference would be for it to be quite dark but, as you suggest, not as dark as that. I am experimenting this afternoon with varying the intensity of the fill light that provides most of the illumination.

 

Regards

Simon

[Simon Edmondson]

wow this has come a long way since i saw it last. awesome work so far!

Thank you.

I've had a lot of, much needed, help.

I thought it would only take a week to get the whole thing done. The final scene is yet to come.

A lot has been learnt in the process though so, perhaps the next one will take less. Heres hoping.

regards

simon

[Simon Edmondson]

Trying to modify the lighting to get rid of the gloom

 

I've hit something that has me completely flummoxed.

 

I modified the overhead light position as in this screenshot

 

Went to camera view to do a test render and got almost complete gloom. So went back to check position in top view, to find this

 

 

The apparent position had changed completely, going by the highlighted section in the window BUT, the position numbers in the properties section show no change ?

 

I thought I'd made a mistake so tried to correct it, several times. Each time the place changed without me doing so and each time it went to different position, Top left, Bottom left, Bottom right... Am I missing something obvious here ?

 

I should add that, each time I go to correct the changed position. I click to move it and, the slightest change makes it appear in the correct place, even though the pointer has only moved maybe 1 cm or less. Tested that position in the camera view, only to get another, different, change !

 

Should I go for a fresh install from the CD ?

 

V15J OSX 10.68

 

regards

simon

 

 

Here is the project file with all except the wave sequence included.

Wet_Day_02.prj

[robcat2075]

Here are some notes on the lighting

 

SimonsLighting.mov

 

Search tags: Attenuation Intensity