Stephen wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> 
>>        Anyway, this isn't the Stills group, this is the Animations group, so
>> all, what's the general consensus with 'sound' in animations?
>>
> 

> raytracing comp and adding sound adds another dimension. I seldom listen to
> sound on my machine, in fact I generally have it switched off completely.

Me too. Sound shouldn't be a deciding factor. It seems unfair - 
composing or mixing an additional soundtrack is something that favours 
things like audio clipart collections or software that doesn't come 
cheap, OR just slapping some MP3 to a video and risk getting into 
trouble with copyright. OR digging for hours through the Creative 
Commons file pools in search of something that fits the mood of the video.



> switched on.) 

<me waving hand in Jedi gesture>You do not at all want to watch my 
previous entries.</>
;)

 > So I think that since sound can improve or detract from the
> enjoyment of an animation it should have a separate category for marking
> which is not taken into account for the final placing but only for feedback
> for the authors. I think that the ratings should not take sound into
> account. I would be willing to be talked out of this.

I'm not exactly inclined to talk you out of this - sound or no sound is 
also a matter of having the tools and resources available, and this 
shouldn't be a deciding factor for an animation competition. Just 
because i've happened to be editing home videos for more than a decade, 
which means i've stacks of disks of background music that came with the 
software available, to use legally, doesn't mean i should be getting a 
higher rating for an animation because of the soundtrack.
Sound is extremely powerful in evoking emotions, i'd say much more so 
than visuals alone. Videos without sound are automatically at a 
disadvantage, no doubt about it.

> Another point is the Technical rating. How are we supposed to judge this?
> For me it is fine marking Pov-Ray created animations but how would I know
> what is hard or easy to do in Cinema 4D? Just a point for discussion.

You can't begin to imagine how hard it is. :)
Basically, anything that can be "script-controlled" or is 
procedural/recursive by nature is easier in POV than in Cinema. Pushing 
polygons or meshes around is easier in C4D than in 
POV-without-a-modeller. Particle effects are so-so. Setting them up and 
previewing is easier in C4D. Rule-based particles are a pain in each 
software. Setting up dynamic effects (clothing, hair) is easy in C4D, 
getting them to work as desired is unnerving, but i guess that's the 
same in every software.

It seems POV compares rather to the render module of Cinema alone than 
the whole C4D package, e.g. feeding said module the data by hand would 
be the equivalent of using POVray combined with a text editor.

I've played around with "plain" POV for a while (sadly, it doesn't 
launch any more on my new computer), and that's why i've got lots of 
respect for everyone doing computer animation that way...

-Markus

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
> If it's needed in the FAQ, I'll add it. Please let
> me know your thoughts.
>


First of all, apologies for nagging questions like mine here, but I was
starting to take ** my possible involvement** in the contest (not the
contest itself) more seriously, and so I went to look for info with a
"newbie" hat on.  I was just wondering if it were either now verbotten or
encouraged.

My idea:
If there is a polite, brotherly, non-consensus of differing views, than put
a FAQ which explicitly states the status of opinions.

Post a reply to this message

Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:


>
> Me too. Sound shouldn't be a deciding factor. It seems unfair -
> composing or mixing an additional soundtrack is something that favours
> things like audio clipart collections or software that doesn't come
> cheap, OR just slapping some MP3 to a video and risk getting into
> trouble with copyright. OR digging for hours through the Creative
> Commons file pools in search of something that fits the mood of the video.

Too much like hard work for my liking :)



> > switched on.)
>
> <me waving hand in Jedi gesture>You do not at all want to watch my
> previous entries.</>
> ;)

LOL


>
> I'm not exactly inclined to talk you out of this - sound or no sound is
> also a matter of having the tools and resources available, and this
> shouldn't be a deciding factor for an animation competition. Just
> because i've happened to be editing home videos for more than a decade,
> which means i've stacks of disks of background music that came with the
> software available, to use legally, doesn't mean i should be getting a
> higher rating for an animation because of the soundtrack.
> Sound is extremely powerful in evoking emotions, i'd say much more so
> than visuals alone. Videos without sound are automatically at a
> disadvantage, no doubt about it.



fills in the details.

for me to do :-)
I can imagine putting music to my shorts but then they would become full
length movies.



>
> You can't begin to imagine how hard it is. :)

How did I know that you would say that :)


> Basically, anything that can be "script-controlled" or is
> procedural/recursive by nature is easier in POV than in Cinema. Pushing
> polygons or meshes around is easier in C4D than in
> POV-without-a-modeller. Particle effects are so-so. Setting them up and
> previewing is easier in C4D. Rule-based particles are a pain in each
> software. Setting up dynamic effects (clothing, hair) is easy in C4D,
> getting them to work as desired is unnerving, but i guess that's the
> same in every software.

Thanks for the synopsis and yes I guess clothing is fun in any S/Ware :)


> It seems POV compares rather to the render module of Cinema alone than
> the whole C4D package, e.g. feeding said module the data by hand would
> be the equivalent of using POVray combined with a text editor.



controls in the modeller.


> I've played around with "plain" POV for a while (sadly, it doesn't
> launch any more on my new computer), and that's why i've got lots of
> respect for everyone doing computer animation that way...
>





Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:



As of July '07, it's the "middle model" MacPro (4x2.66 GHz).
Nice box :) though i've managed to safely dissipate the 
increase in CPU performance by excessive use of hair+cloth 
simulation...

:)

There's something odd with PoVray, on some machines, it's 
been reported to work, on some not. Mine is of the latter type.

-M

Post a reply to this message

Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] anthrosphinxde> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>

>
> As of July '07, it's the "middle model" MacPro (4x2.66 GHz).
> Nice box :) though i've managed to safely dissipate the
> increase in CPU performance by excessive use of hair+cloth
> simulation...
>
> :)
>
> There's something odd with PoVray, on some machines, it's
> been reported to work, on some not. Mine is of the latter type.
>
> -M


simulation, in Poser and you can never have a fast enough computer.
Unfortunately hair is a bit of a problem getting it into Pov-Ray so I use
short unmovable cuts.


these newsgroups do you really need it?

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:


> these newsgroups do you really need it?

Uh... no. That's why i'm only in the IRTC newsgroups, because they're 
supposed to be "for everyone" :)
Then again, i've got a collection of software that goes back to 1996 or 
something, and it's nice to look "across the fence" from time to time. 
Specular Infini-D 3 or something was the first one i had (bought at a 
local mac store when they cleared their inventory), followed by 3.1 and 
3.5 until Specular collapsed and ID3.5 was sold to Metacreations, only 
to later resurface as ... uh ... wasn't it called "Canoma" or something? 
Box cover had a marble gargoyle sitting at a pond. Been a long time... 
by then, i was already too comfortable with C4D to spend substantial 
money on a second lane of tools.
Cinema started with version 5 (from a magazine, one of those "discount 
for upgrade" things), and i've kept up with it to the day. Even had some 
misspent cash on add-ons like "Shave and a Haircut" (hair plugin) or the 
Ozone "Sky and Clouds" extensions, that years later got rolled into the 
master software and only then became usable for me.
Another software i met was in Macromedia's Studio package (they even hat 
xRes, which was sort of a Photoshop rival), it was included when i 
bought my DTP tools, but i never really got the hang of it. Same for 
Poser, though i tend to follow the updates to the legal free older 
versions that are occasionally offered for promotion.
Looking back, it's amazing what got bundled into those "Studio" packages 
then.
Then there's Blender, of course, but i just can't wrap my mind around 
the interface - or i'm just no trying hard enough. Has some nice tools 
and effects. So also checking out PoVray isn't all that off-base for me :)

-Markus

Post a reply to this message

Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
> Stephen wrote:


> > these newsgroups do you really need it?
>
> Uh... no. That's why i'm only in the IRTC newsgroups, because they're
> supposed to be "for everyone" :)




> Then again, i've got a collection of software that goes back to 1996 or
> something,
[snip]

> and effects. So also checking out PoVray isn't all that off-base for me :)
>
> -Markus

That is an impressive list of software, for me Pov-Ray was the first
graphics engine I tried and it stuck. It is probably more than what I need
of a renderer but the price was right. And the people who frequent these
news groups are OK, on the whole.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> That is an impressive list of software, for me Pov-Ray was the first
> graphics engine I tried and it stuck. It is probably more than what I need
> of a renderer but the price was right. And the people who frequent these
> news groups are OK, on the whole.


If i were to name the software i actually used on a larger 
scale, it'd be Specular InfiniD, at a time when the company 
i'm working for also did some experiments in multimedia and 
presentation videos - never really took off, we had one or 
two in-house examples and that was it - and then Cinema4D 
after Specular went under.

I just had a nostalgic glance at the Macromedia Graphics 
Studio boxing: that other 3D software i didn't recall was 
first called MacroModel, then "Extreme 3D" (and "E3D 2").

The "Extreme" is hinting at the render times on a 10-MHz 
68000 CPU, of course :)

-M

Post a reply to this message

It's funny you mentioned blender, I just installed it and have been messing
around with it for the last 2 weeks. While trying to produce a decent
animation "The Mother Hive" in pov. WIP `~~~>
http://www.eastsoundsuites.com/animations/test.bmp. I kinda like blender. I
spent 2 1/2 years off and on with pov, I think it might be time for a
change. But it's like starting all over. We will see how it
goes.............

Post a reply to this message

Some IRTC judges were under the mistaken impression that sound was
prohibited. That's not the case.

The rules say that sound should be "ignored" by judges, in that it shouldn't
effect the score because it's the *animation* that's being judged, not the
audio.

The rules point out that, (at the time they were written), most people would
not be able to hear the sound if it were included. That's just a statement
of fact, but it's no longer the case today. It would be the same as saying
most people at the time would only have VGA monitors. It would be silly for
a judge to take that as an instruction that the monitor would have to be set
to 256 color mode before watching videos.

However, I've had one judge do exactly that - he wrote that since the
instructions used the word "ignored", that meant that the animation should
be watched *with the sound turned off*.

Then he deducted points from the animation because he couldn't
understand what the animation was about. :(

(The irony here was the sound was mixed so badly, he wouldn't have
understood the animation *with* the sound. But that's another story).

I wrote to the person in charge at the time, but he sort of shrugged it off.
He thought he rules were clear, and if the judges couldn't understand them,
what could he do?

The upshot of this is that, because the judges wrongly assume that
animations should be silent, animations with sound have been submitted with
subtitles, so they wouldn't get judged negatively.

Again, there was *never* an intent to prohibit sound from the IRTC
animations. It's fine that some people choose to use subtitles, but that
doesn't mean that it should be forced on others if they want to use sound.

Post a reply to this message