 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It's quite good for modelling algorithmic things, or things having a
>> specific geometry. (E.g., it's much easier to put an engine block
>> together with POV-Ray than trying to exactly align stuff with a mouse.)
>
> Haha. Nobody aligns anything with a mouse alone the way you think,
> there are things called "constraints" in modelling packages. Just
> select two "things" and click constrain, the software will give you the
> valid options for the things you selected (eg mate, align, coincident
> axis, constrain to surface etc). I hate to think of the math involved
> in aligning conrods, pistons and a crankshaft in POV. In a modeller
> it's very easy, the software does the math for to rotate/translate once
> you tell it what you actually want.
Well, I know this is supposedly how CAD works, but I have yet to see any
readily available software that offers such power. (I did have a go at
writing such a thing myself once though...)
>> But yeah, sure, there are plenty of things that POV-Ray won't easily
>> do...
>
> AVIsynth is like POV. If you want to type in the exact start and end
> frames, exactly how long to fade, which files to load, exactly how to
> scale and move the picture at each frame, overlays etc then fine, it's
> possible, just like how modelling a room in POV is possible. It's not a
> fast process, and usually involves trial and error, but certainly
> possible...
I was thinking more that once you write a script to take a sequence at
250 frames per second, add motion blur, and convert down to 25 frames
per second, you can then process lots of videos quickly. With
VirtualDub, I keep having to re-enter those settings. (And not miss any
out...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:23:57 +0000 schrieb Invisible:
> Well, I know this is supposedly how CAD works, but I have yet to see any
> readily available software that offers such power. (I did have a go at
> writing such a thing myself once though...)
Well, try Blender, not exactly CAD but the mesh-based editing (and
aligning!) capabilities are quite impressive. Not to mention constraint-
based animation (FK and IK). Of course, it's not AutoCAD.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, I know this is supposedly how CAD works, but I have yet to see any
> readily available software that offers such power. (I did have a go at
> writing such a thing myself once though...)
As Michael mentioned, look at Blender, it is biased more towards animation
that actual design work, but still allows all the things I mentioned + lots
of animation features. Another example is modelling the suspension of a
car. For simplicity let's say the only input is the relative height of the
wheel compared to the body. In POV you would need to do the math to align
and rotate every component to fit together. In Blender (or another
CAD/modelling package) you can tell it which bits are "fixed" (using the
mouse) and then it automatically does all the transforms for you.
> I was thinking more that once you write a script to take a sequence at 250
> frames per second, add motion blur, and convert down to 25 frames per
> second, you can then process lots of videos quickly. With VirtualDub, I
> keep having to re-enter those settings. (And not miss any out...)
Yeh, AVIsynth would be perfect for that, actually it's what I mostly use it
for (converting POV output to video, and sometimes overlaying it on top of
real video).
The way I found AVIsynth is through the h264 codec, x264. It takes AVIsynth
files as an input, which is perfect to convert from POV output to .mp4 files
in one step, even including motion blur if you like.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> As Michael mentioned, look at Blender, it is biased more towards
> animation that actual design work, but still allows all the things I
> mentioned + lots of animation features. Another example is modelling
> the suspension of a car. For simplicity let's say the only input is the
> relative height of the wheel compared to the body. In POV you would
> need to do the math to align and rotate every component to fit
> together. In Blender (or another CAD/modelling package) you can tell it
> which bits are "fixed" (using the mouse) and then it automatically does
> all the transforms for you.
Well, there are physics simulations of various kinds for POV-Ray too.
(And this kind of thing would be much easier of SDL supported
reflection, proper control structures and data types, etc.)
IIRC I did look at Blender once (or was it Wings?). As far as I can
tell, it only edits triangles. And as we all know, that's a very hard
way to get anything done. (Just like editing individual pixels is a very
hard way to draw a realistic RSOCP.)
>> I was thinking more that once you write a script to take a sequence at
>> 250 frames per second, add motion blur, and convert down to 25 frames
>> per second, you can then process lots of videos quickly.
>
> Yeh, AVIsynth would be perfect for that, actually it's what I mostly use
> it for (converting POV output to video, and sometimes overlaying it on
> top of real video).
For fast-moving things, I often render at 2x or 4x the normal framerate,
add some motion blur, and then reduce the framerate back to normal. It's
meant to work as a time of temporal antialias. Seems to work moderately
well. (For good results, you probably need more than 4x. But it takes so
damn long.)
Similarly, if I'm generating frames from something that doesn't support
spatial AA, you can always render large and resize... ;-)
[Actually, POV-Ray's adaptive AA can twinkle annoyingly if you don't
turn the sensitivity up high enough.]
> The way I found AVIsynth is through the h264 codec, x264. It takes
> AVIsynth files as an input, which is perfect to convert from POV output
> to .mp4 files in one step, even including motion blur if you like.
I prefer to keep all my videos losslessly compressed until just before
they go onto the DVD, but yeah. ;-)
It's kinda frustrating that everything has to be at such a low
resolution to go onto a DVD. But then, when you watch it on TV... well
let me put it this way. I put a test render on there at half resolution
once. It looked horrid on my computer screen. But on the TV, I honestly
couldn't tell the difference...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's kinda frustrating that everything has to be at such a low resolution
> to go onto a DVD. But then, when you watch it on TV... well let me put it
> this way. I put a test render on there at half resolution once. It looked
> horrid on my computer screen.
Even if you sat the same distance from your computer screen as you did from
the TV?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:35:43 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Worship me for I can see the future :-P
>
> *oooooooooom*
>
>
> *oooooooooom*
>
>
> *oooooooooom*
I prefer *ommmmm* and an offering of blue tomatoes.
Oooooh, I see, I see a newsgroup posting from Andy, it's about the new
network routers he's just installed, and they don't work correctly as
they've been configured for the US network at HQ. Ooooh. :-)
Oooh, I see, I see a reply to someone from Warp, he's ignoring the content
of the post and complaining about the use of the phrase "cut and paste"
instead of "copy and paste". Ooooooh!
Oooh I see hailstones denting Gail's car again and the insurance company
asking dumb questions oooh
Oooh I see Sherry acquiring 10 new cats oooh.
Oooh I see me not making any friends with this post oooh!
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:29:06 +0000 schrieb Invisible:
>
> IIRC I did look at Blender once (or was it Wings?). As far as I can
> tell, it only edits triangles. And as we all know, that's a very hard
*sigh* .... *SIGH*
You may have a look at this:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.burke2/presision_modelling.html
very excellent tutorial for the blender newb (notice I didn't say "n00b",
see also some old Ctrl-Alt-Del comic explaining the difference).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:05:06 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>Oooh I see me not making any friends with this post oooh!
Wrong Mate
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:19:56 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:05:06 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Oooh I see me not making any friends with this post oooh!
>
> Wrong Mate
Oooh I see Stephen mentioning something Scottish in a reply to someone
oooh.
Oooh I see a cheap TV network offering me a show working with Yvette
Fielding oooh.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> It's kinda frustrating that everything has to be at such a low
>> resolution to go onto a DVD. But then, when you watch it on TV... well
>> let me put it this way. I put a test render on there at half
>> resolution once. It looked horrid on my computer screen.
>
> Even if you sat the same distance from your computer screen as you did
> from the TV?
ESPECIALLY if you sat at the same distance!!
But then, people usually don't, and presumably the TV screen is designed
with this in mind. (For example, the three phosphore bands are clearly
visible to the naked eye on a TV screen. On a computer monitor, you'd
need a lense of some kind to see them...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
