 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Folks,
Well after some ideas from Jamie and Stephan here it is...
Rune's particle's are (from what I gathered) just vectors moving about,
when you attach an object to these vectors their sizes are not taken into
account when detecting collisions.
Therefore invisible barriers were added arround each peg to give us the
impression that the bearing's surfaces were colliding with the pegs.
Also there are invisible barriers behind, in front, on the left and right
of the set of pegs.
These animations had me do lots of searching for encoders and ended up
using VirtualDub, it's free, somewhat simple and seems pretty efficient.
If any of you have lots of experience with encoding, what would be general
guide lines, such as Codecs, bit rates, FPS or what-not to produce good,
small, compressed animations (without audio).
Thanks
--
Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca
Montreal, CANADA
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'bagatelle_14.avi.dat' (562 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7 Sep 2003 23:19:43 -0400, Marc Champagne <marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca> wrote:
>
>Well after some ideas from Jamie and Stephan here it is...
>
>Rune's particle's are (from what I gathered) just vectors moving about,
>when you attach an object to these vectors their sizes are not taken into
>account when detecting collisions.
>
>Therefore invisible barriers were added arround each peg to give us the
>impression that the bearing's surfaces were colliding with the pegs.
>
>Also there are invisible barriers behind, in front, on the left and right
>of the set of pegs.
>
>These animations had me do lots of searching for encoders and ended up
>using VirtualDub, it's free, somewhat simple and seems pretty efficient.
>
>If any of you have lots of experience with encoding, what would be general
>guide lines, such as Codecs, bit rates, FPS or what-not to produce good,
>small, compressed animations (without audio).
Nice, I like it. I reminds me of a "penny arcade" game from my youth, where you
had to catch the balls in a chute. It's not Bagatelle but it is a start. I might
try to make a Bagatelle board in Moray.
As for the codecs etc I await with interest.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice animation. I use VirtualDub too. These are my suggestions:
Anti-alias but without jittering.
If you use area_lights, then without jittering.
No strong color contrasts (will look bad, but filesize stays the same)
No fine details that are almost like noise, if the camera is moving.
Smooth movements.
Most mpeg codecs will do good when the above advices are followed. Standard
for this newsgroup is mpeg1 (not possible to encode with VirtualDub).
Otherwise DivX4 / DivX5 (they are actually mpeg4). Good framerates are 25.0
or 30.0 for smooth movements on most computers. Using more frames may
actually end up using less space because movements between each frame is
reduced. So a 15 fps animation may be larger than a 25 fps.
Motion-blur helps reduce filesizes as well, and often looks great, unless
overdone. But that's another story.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hugo Asm" <hua### [at] post3 teledk> wrote in news:3f5c5fc4$1@news.povray.org:
> Nice animation. I use VirtualDub too. These are my suggestions:
>
> Anti-alias but without jittering.
> If you use area_lights, then without jittering.
> No strong color contrasts (will look bad, but filesize stays the same)
> No fine details that are almost like noise, if the camera is moving.
> Smooth movements.
Makes sense...
> Most mpeg codecs will do good when the above advices are followed.
> Standard for this newsgroup is mpeg1 (not possible to encode with
> VirtualDub). Otherwise DivX4 / DivX5 (they are actually mpeg4).
DivX5.1 it will be then...
> Good framerates are 25.0 or 30.0 for smooth movements on most computers.
> Using more frames may actually end up using less space because movements
> between each frame is reduced. So a 15 fps animation may be larger than
> a 25 fps.
Interesting, I will expirement.
> Motion-blur helps reduce filesizes as well, and often looks great,
> unless overdone. But that's another story.
I tried the included motion-blur filter in VirtualDub, it looked to
cartoony.
From what I can see, one can install all sorts of filters for this prog, I
will be hunting for them soon enough.
Thanks
--
Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca
Montreal, CANADA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Motion-blur helps reduce filesizes as well, and often looks
> > great, unless overdone. But that's another story.
> I tried the included motion-blur filter in VirtualDub, it looked to
> cartoony.
It's probably just too strong, and it can only merge the already exsisting
images. A better way is to render your animation with double frame rate, and
apply the motion blur in VirtualDub. Then, cut out half the images (every
second frame; can be done automatically) to reach normal frame-rate. I
haven't tried myself but this idea sounds logical.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Champagne <marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca> wrote in
news:Xns### [at] 204213191226:
>
>> Most mpeg codecs will do good when the above advices are followed.
>> Standard for this newsgroup is mpeg1 (not possible to encode with
>> VirtualDub). Otherwise DivX4 / DivX5 (they are actually mpeg4).
>
> DivX5.1 it will be then...
>
>
I thought that Divx was for AVI files.
--
Tom
_________________________________
The Internet Movie Project
http://www.imp.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > DivX4 / DivX5 (they are actually mpeg4).
> I thought that Divx was for AVI files.
It is. AVI means "Audio Video Interleave" and can internally be any codec.
But I think there are some limits with AVI and streaming.. For example .MPG
is more forgiving to errors, but that's not because of the codec.
Regards
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:56:59 +0100, Stephen McAvoy <McA### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> Well, this is something like a bagatelle table as I remember it. I had trouble
> with collisions and invisible boundaries. So I will drop Rune a line later.
> Regards
Have you tried comparison with MechSim ? Should be possible.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:12:58 +0200, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
>
>Have you tried comparison with MechSim ? Should be possible.
No, I've not. I imagine it would be very possible. I wanted to use Rune's system
before I forget how to use it, as it has been sitting on my PC for ages.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Nikias v2 0
Subject: Re: Bagatelle type board - Rune's Particles - Bag4c_AA_2.mpg
Date: 11 Sep 2003 06:30:32
Message: <3f604ec8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thats a really large MPG for such a short
and eventless animation... Don't you think you've
could have cut it down a little? Maybe with less
contrast? And a zoom on the important part?
--
Tim Nikias v2.0
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights
Email: no_lights (@) digitaltwilight.de
>
> >Nice, I like it. I reminds me of a "penny arcade" game from my youth,
where you
> >had to catch the balls in a chute. It's not Bagatelle but it is a start.
I might
> >try to make a Bagatelle board in Moray.
>
> Well, this is something like a bagatelle table as I remember it. I had
trouble
> with collisions and invisible boundaries. So I will drop Rune a line
later.
> Regards
> Stephen
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01.09.2003
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
