Subject: Re: Imagine and freelancing
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 20:37:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Halleen <halleen@Venus.mcs.com>

On Wed, 18 May 1994 djm2@isis.msstate.edu wrote:

> > Are any major network or syndicated shows being produced using Imagine?
> 
> None that I know of, however, I think the Toaster had more to do with their
> choice of 3D program than you believe.	Imagine is certainly as powerful as
> Lightwave.  Less on some features, much more powerful on others.

The Toaster?  They don't use any part of the Toaster except LW.  The
Toaster's output is nowhere near that level of quality (this is an old,
old argument, believe me on this, this is my job).  They ship image files
over a network to an Abekas still store or something and record on D1. 
Ask ASDG for the exact details, or read about it in industry magazines. 
They DO NOT take the Toaster video output right to tape.  If you meant
NewTek had more to do with it, as in public relations and special advance
updates, yes that's true.  Impulse would do well to follow that lead.

> Ok, lame.  However, it's not like there have been a ton of tiny updates to
> Imagine either.  1.0->1.1->2.0->2.9->3.0.  Not much different than LW, actuall
y,
> 1.0->2.0->3.0->3.1.

I thought I read that there had been minor updates that were never
announced or recognized as separate versions except as different size
files.  And there IS a *new* version 3.0 isn't there?

> > No Arexx?
> Ok, lame again, but what do you propose doing using AREXX inside of Imagine?
> As it is, a lot of AREXX-y things can be accomplished in Imagine due to it's
> very by-the-numbers interface.

What?  How can a by-the-numbers gui interface substitute for automation
and scripting?  You'd be surprised what Arexx can do.  It won't make a
difference in what the picture looks like in the end, but it will make a
difference in how fast you can make changes, avoiding pitfalls, innovating
and being flexible in how you spend your time.

> I've always thought that one click to the left was 30 fps, but if you timed
> it out, I may be wrong.  One thing that can easily be done, is render the
> frames as a pencil test or whatever, and play using something like ViewTek,
> where you can give it a parameter like fps=30.	Videotape that, and show it
> to your clients.

That's what I do.  And it takes longer than simply having the stage editor
run at the right speed.  More time wasted.

> > My appeals to this group is my last ditch effort to see if there's
> > something I'm missing.  I've asked, and no one answered, what are Forge
> > and Essence?	These seem popular, but I've never heard of them.  I just
> 
> Where have you been?  Just a couple of weeks ago, Steve Worley, author of both


I've got the info on these now, and they sound terrific.  I may just go
out and get them.  But why should I have to pay $175 extra to make Imagine
work the way it should?

> Quit your bitching about a program that is 3 years old or so (v 2.0).  Get the
 3.0
> upgrade, and take a look at what all Imagine offers currently.	You'll surely
> be surprised.

I have 3.0, but I haven't had time to test out everything.  Some nice
things have been added, but so far it seems they're just catching up. 
A lot of the same old troubles are still there.  Imagine 3.0 is hardly
revolutionary.

Are you guys all working for Impulse marketing?  There are serious
problems with both Imagine and the Amiga, and so many users spend so much
energy defending them.  I'm trying to make the most of my investments, not
prop up inferior products.  Hopefully, I'll find what I need with what
I've got.  If I can be convinced, I'll gladly recant.  I'll make that
decision rationally, based on the product's merits.






                           -=> RETURN TO CONTENTS!<=-