"Peter Warren" <int### [at] halcyoncom> wrote
>
> Is not every Pov piece an animation?
> This for me is one of the great beauties
> of Pov. Every image can be animated,
> can it not?
>

    Well, for me... I don't see why some people make some of the stills they
do unless they also want to animate them. I mean, sure, some of the better
work would be hard to duplicate in a 2D paint program, but most of it would
be easier and faster in any of the better paint programs.

    In fact I find it much more satisfying to use a paint program sometimes.

    But when I want the object to be something that can interact with other
objects, or if I ever want to see the other side of the object, I go
straight to POV. I use POV instead of AutoCad for some of the work I am
doing. The accuracy is the same and the finished product is so much better.
Sometimes I will use AutoCad if I want a bunch of comments or dimensioning
in the image, but otherwise it is POV because I want to be able to show the
motion of my work.

    So for me, animatability is the main goal with POV. Every one of the
objects in my private Library is set up to animate. Even things that have
never been used in an animation have the parameters built in, just in case I
want to use them in an animation someday.

Post a reply to this message