POV-Ray : Newsgroups : irtc.animations : Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be? Server Time: 12 Dec 2018 10:06:44 GMT
  Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be? (Message 1 to 10 of 17)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 7 Messages >>>
From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:25:11
Message: <46d52d67@news.povray.org>
Hi, me again, sorry, ...

"...NOT!" ;)

Well, i'm almost ready to upload now (assuming the final video 
compression later today works out), but how long can/should the text 
description be? Checking my production notes and the writeup following 
the old IRTC form, I'm afraid i already got a bit of logorrhea there... 
;) (i.e.: you'll have to scroll the page... several times...)

Maybe, for the webpage, something like a "... more >" link that cuts in 
after ... 500? 1000? characters of a text would be a good idea?

-M


Post a reply to this message

From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:28:09
Message: <46d52e19$1@news.povray.org>
Markus Altendorff wrote:
> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
> 

and one more thing...

how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in 
shape and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old 
IRTC...

-M


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 08:55:01
Message: <web.46d533b3ed318b20c4e49fa40@news.povray.org>
Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
> Markus Altendorff wrote:
> > Hi, me again, sorry, ...
> >
>
> and one more thing...
>
> how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in
> shape and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old
> IRTC...
>
> -M

I had the problem the other way. How to make the preview intelligible but
obscuring the nudity. I think that I made it 200x150.
I wish that I had another couple of weeks because Iíve changed the materials
in the stage to metal which I like but the render time has gone through the
roof 20 mins + time for a memory leak, per frame.


Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: St 
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:16:23
Message: <46d53967$1@news.povray.org>
"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message 
news:46d52d67@news.povray.org...
> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
>
> "...NOT!" ;)

      Heh... :)

>
> Well, i'm almost ready to upload now (assuming the final video compression 
> later today works out), but how long can/should the text description be? 
> Checking my production notes and the writeup following the old IRTC form, 
> I'm afraid i already got a bit of logorrhea there... ;) (i.e.: you'll have 
> to scroll the page... several times...)
>
> Maybe, for the webpage, something like a "... more >" link that cuts in 
> after ... 500? 1000? characters of a text would be a good idea?

      Good idea Markus! Something like this? 
http://smartwebby.com/DHTML/textbox_characters_counter.asp#explanation

       ~Steve~


>
> -M


Post a reply to this message

From: St 
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:16:24
Message: <46d53968@news.povray.org>
"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message 
news:46d52e19$1@news.povray.org...
> Markus Altendorff wrote:
>> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
>>
>
> and one more thing...
>
> how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in shape 
> and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old IRTC...

       I think if you send a 320x240, it will still be automatically resized 
to 100x100, which is why some of them look a little distorted. I'll see if I 
can get the thumbs changed to at least 160x120.

      ~Steve~


>
> -M


Post a reply to this message

From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:23:04
Message: <46d53af8$1@news.povray.org>
Stephen wrote:
> Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
>> how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in
>> shape and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old
>> IRTC...
>>
>> -M
> 
> I had the problem the other way. How to make the preview intelligible but
> obscuring the nudity. I think that I made it 200x150.

Ah. Well, the server setup is to crop it down to 140x140 anyway, which 
is what bothers me - i'm used to putting the title etc. in it, like with 
the IRTC... it'll be unreadable and no use if it gets pressed into 140x140.

> I wish that I had another couple of weeks because Iíve changed the materials
> in the stage to metal which I like but the render time has gone through the
> roof 20 mins + time for a memory leak, per frame.

Yes, metal can do that... that's why i've got a "losing the shiny 
armour" scene at about the middle my clip :)  - metal + reflection of 
"media" material in it (if i'm using the povray term right? that 
half-transparent plasma stuff...?) isn't good for the render rate.

Textures going "boink" isn't, either, though for different reasons ... 
the last location i used is a walk back to daylight through an 
underground passage that had the occasional decorative doorway left and 
right, but the texture there was "hopping" between frames - i guess i've 
either messed up the texture space orientation when i declared the 
material or it wasn't properly fixed to the object. The render is 
running for the third time now, because i've kicked those objects from 
the scene to just get it over with... should be done about the time i 
get home from work today.

-M


Post a reply to this message

From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 09:33:33
Message: <46d53d6d$1@news.povray.org>
St. schrieb:
> "Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message 
> news:46d52d67@news.povray.org...
>> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
>>
>> "...NOT!" ;)
> 
>       Heh... :)
> 
>> Well, i'm almost ready to upload now (assuming the final video compression 
>> later today works out), but how long can/should the text description be? 
>> Checking my production notes and the writeup following the old IRTC form, 
>> I'm afraid i already got a bit of logorrhea there... ;) (i.e.: you'll have 
>> to scroll the page... several times...)
>>
>> Maybe, for the webpage, something like a "... more >" link that cuts in 
>> after ... 500? 1000? characters of a text would be a good idea?
> 
>       Good idea Markus! Something like this? 
> http://smartwebby.com/DHTML/textbox_characters_counter.asp#explanation

*shriek* No! Actually, the opposite - people can enter as much as they 
want, but the display in "viewing mode" starts with only the first one 
or two paragraphs or 200/300 characters, whatever happens first, and the 
remaining text is initially hidden, but "unfolds" when clicked upon. Like:

"Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the .... [more >]"

Clicking "more" turns it into:

"Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the scenery
for the second half of the video. Working time: about 6-8 hours today. 
[< less]"

i.e. Just initally hiding long texts, not discarding them entirely :)

like those (the tiny +/- below the headers would be the "more/less", and 
i'd start with at least part of the text visible instead of entirely 
hiding it)
http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/archives/blog_last_visited/

-M


Post a reply to this message

From: St 
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 10:07:08
Message: <46d5454c$1@news.povray.org>
"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message 
news:46d53d6d$1@news.povray.org...
> St. schrieb:

>>       Good idea Markus! Something like this? 
>> http://smartwebby.com/DHTML/textbox_characters_counter.asp#explanation
>
> *shriek* No! Actually, the opposite - people can enter as much as they 
> want, but the display in "viewing mode" starts with only the first one or 
> two paragraphs or 200/300 characters, whatever happens first, and the 
> remaining text is initially hidden, but "unfolds" when clicked upon. Like:
>
> "Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
> August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the .... [more >]"
>
> Clicking "more" turns it into:
>
> "Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
> August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the scenery
> for the second half of the video. Working time: about 6-8 hours today. [< 
> less]"
>
> i.e. Just initally hiding long texts, not discarding them entirely :)
>
> like those (the tiny +/- below the headers would be the "more/less", and 
> i'd start with at least part of the text visible instead of entirely 
> hiding it)
> http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/archives/blog_last_visited/


   Ah, I see. Ok, that's a good idea. I think we can get that implemented 
somehow. Thanks again for your input Markus! :)

       ~Steve~


>
> -M


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:15:01
Message: <web.46d554c3ed318b20c4e49fa40@news.povray.org>
Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
>
> Ah. Well, the server setup is to crop it down to 140x140 anyway, which
> is what bothers me - i'm used to putting the title etc. in it, like with
> the IRTC... it'll be unreadable and no use if it gets pressed into 140x140.

But do you really need a title in the thumbnail? If it is short it will
appear above the thumbnail. Mine was truncated, oh dear.

>
> Yes, metal can do that... that's why i've got a "losing the shiny
> armour" scene at about the middle my clip :)

LOL

> - metal + reflection of
> "media" material in it (if i'm using the povray term right? that
> half-transparent plasma stuff...?) isn't good for the render rate.


I think that Iíll have to put up with it, I like the scene so much more with
the metal.

> Textures going "boink" isn't, either, though for different reasons ...
> the last location i used is a walk back to daylight through an
> underground passage that had the occasional decorative doorway left and
> right, but the texture there was "hopping" between frames - i guess i've
> either messed up the texture space orientation when i declared the
> material or it wasn't properly fixed to the object. The render is
> running for the third time now, because i've kicked those objects from
> the scene to just get it over with... should be done about the time i
> get home from work today.

I generally do test animations of any materials I am going to use. Just to
see if there is any flicker. If that is what you mean? Recently I tried
changing turbulence to warp turbulence to se if it would help. But it made
things worse. I think this problem is one of the worst in making
animations.

Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 11:25:47
Message: <46d557bb$1@news.povray.org>
Stephen wrote:

> I generally do test animations of any materials I am going to use. Just to
> see if there is any flicker. If that is what you mean? Recently I tried
> changing turbulence to warp turbulence to se if it would help. But it made
> things worse. I think this problem is one of the worst in making
> animations.


Well, i did test it, sort of, uhm... but not this time - the whole 
object group is copied straight from the IRTC "Escape" ("Escape^2") 
short i did (2003? 2004?). And it's not so much "flickering" as in 
"in-texture antialiasing too weak", but it's actually "jumping around" 
on the object... weirdest thing i've seen so far. It's OK for a few 
frames, then it shifts a bit to the left/right, then it's back to where 
it started. At first i thought i had accidentally animated some mapping 
parameter in a loop, but there's nothing in the timeline that would 
indicate such a thing, and i'm out of production time... i'll look into 
converting the cubes that build the doorframe to polygon meshes, maybe 
this'll help.
The "usual" flicker of interpolation doesn't bother me as much because i 
compress the video to death anyway, so my problem is there's always 
worse MPEG artefacts than the grainy pulsing of texture edges :)

-M


Post a reply to this message

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 7 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.