Amiga Tools 3/Amiga Tools 3.iso/grafik/raytracing/imagine/tips/arc45.txt

Text File | 1994-01-27 | 298.0 KB | 8,406 lines

This is the Imagine Mailing List ([e-mail]) Archive #45
covering messages from Dec. 01. 1993 to Jan. 4. 1994.
If you have any questions or problems with this file, E-mail Nik Vukovljak
at [e-mail]



Note: each message separated by '##'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject: IML DIRECTORY
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 14:08:44 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Wickard)

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Texture Generator
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 93 23:22:05 PST
From: [e-mail] (Michel J. Brown)

Anybody know where I can find M. Vitolini's program of the subject heading?
Any help would be most appreciated, especially an ftp site/path :)
Virtually yours,
Michel

                                  ||
                                __||__ The opinions expressed by this author
[e-mail] __  __ are mine, and mine alone, and anybody
                                  ||   claiming any resemblance to ideations
                                  ||   on my part should be ashamed to admit
                                  ||   it publicly! God Bless, and BCNU!



##

Subject: Is there a ttddd2geo?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 10:33:11 GMT
From: gowdy%glphv8.dnet@d1..sp.paramax.com (Stephen J.Gowdy)

I think the subject says it all. I'm looking for a program to convert
my Imagine objects to geo format for Scenery Animator to use. Anyone
got one?

                    regards,

                    Stephen.



##

Subject: C-source that repairs uncomplete IFF24's
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 13:20:20 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Goeran Ehrsson)

Hi, I sent this mail last week but I don't think it made it out
to the public, so I'll send in again.

I was rendering ONE 1024x768 frame in trace mode and after FOUR
DAYS of rendering the power distributor switched off the power for
an hour or so. Arghhh!!!   The frame was only 75% complete and could
not be loaded into ADPro since the chunk sizes in the IFF24 file was
not correct. With a little reverse engineering I wrote the
following program that repairs an incomplete IFF24 file generated
by Imagine 2.0. It's a quick hack but it works (at least for me).

- Goran

PS. If I reduce the frame size to 320x256 I still need 50days for
    this 100frames christmas animation, and it's December 2nd today.
    Do you think we can move christmas till the end of January?  :-)

--
[e-mail], Goran Ehrsson, Abalon AB, Box 11129, 161 11 BROMMA, SWEDEN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/**********************************************************************
** fixIFF24.c
**
** A very quick hack that fixes an uncompleted IFF24 file  generated
** by Imagine 2.0.  I wrote this when my 7days rendering was
** interrupted by powerfail on day 5, 75% was complete!
** I didn't want to wait another 7days, so instead this little
** program fixed the chunksize values that where incorrect.
** The FORM-size is 00000000 and so is the BODY-size, so they must be
** calculated and replaced.
**
** Usage: fixIFF24 infile outfile
**
** Feel free to use it, it "may" work for you too.
**
** November 25 1993, Goran Ehrsson, Animal Island, Sweden.
**
** BTW: The picture looked awful, it was not worth to write this program. :-)
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>

main(int argc, char** argv)
{
    FILE* ifp;
    FILE* ofp;
    struct stat st;
    long size, pos, chunkID;
    long buf;

    if(argc < 3)
    {
        fprintf(stderr,
            "usage: %s <uncomplete IFF24 file> <new file>\n", argv[0]);
        exit(20);
    }

    if(stat(argv[1], &st) != 0)
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "%s: cannot stat <%s>\n", argv[0], argv[1]);
        exit(20);
    }

    size = st.st_size - (sizeof(long) * 2);

    if((ifp = fopen(argv[1], "r")) == NULL)
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "%s: cannot open file <%s>\n", argv[0], argv[1]);
        exit(20);
    }

    if((ofp = fopen(argv[2], "w")) == NULL)
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "%s: cannot open file <%s>\n", argv[0], argv[1]);
        fclose(ifp);
        exit(20);
    }

    fprintf(ofp, "FORM");
    fwrite(&size, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);    /* FORM size */
    fprintf(ofp, "ILBM");

    fseek(ifp, 3 * sizeof(long), 0);
    fread(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ifp);
    if(buf != 0x494D5254)    /* IMRT */
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "%s: %s is not an Imagine 2.0 generated IFF24 file\n",
            argv[0], argv[1]);
        exit(20);
    }
    fwrite(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);    /* IMRT */

    fread(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ifp);    /* size */
    pos = ftell(ifp) + buf;
    fwrite(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);
    fread(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ifp);    /* creation/start time */
    fwrite(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);
    buf += 86400;
    fwrite(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);    /* faked stop time 24hours later */
    fread(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ifp);

    for(;;)
    {
        if(ftell(ifp) >= pos)
        {
            if(fread(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ifp) == 0)    /* Chunk ID */
                break;
            fwrite(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);
            chunkID = buf;
            fread(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ifp);    /* Chunk size */
            pos = ftell(ifp);

            if(chunkID == 0x424F4459)    /* BODY */
            {
                printf("Found the BODY, copying data...\n");
                size = st.st_size - pos;
                fwrite(&size, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);
                pos = pos + size;
            }
            else
            {
                pos = pos + buf;
                fwrite(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);
            }
        }
        else
        {
            if(fread(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ifp) == 0)    /* data */
                break;
            fwrite(&buf, sizeof(long), 1, ofp);
        }
    }

    fclose(ofp);
    fclose(ifp);
    exit(0);
}



##

Subject: Re: C-source that repairs uncomplete IFF24's
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1993 14:04:22 +0100
From: <[e-mail]>

On Dec 2,  1:20pm, Goeran Ehrsson wrote:
> Subject: C-source that repairs uncomplete IFF24's
>
> I was rendering ONE 1024x768 frame in trace mode and after FOUR
> DAYS of rendering the power distributor switched off the power for
> an hour or so. Arghhh!!!   The frame was only 75% complete and could
> not be loaded into ADPro since the chunk sizes in the IFF24 file was
> not correct. With a little reverse engineering I wrote the
> following program that repairs an incomplete IFF24 file generated
> by Imagine 2.0. It's a quick hack but it works (at least for me).
>
> - Goran
>

FYI, as this kind of things may happen (especially when the machine crashes
after 80% of the rendering), I use to load the image in TVPaint. It returns
"Bad EOF", but loads the image !

Robin
--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]






##

Subject: C-source that repairs uncomplete IFF24's
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 07:01:23 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> an hour or so. Arghhh!!!   The frame was only 75% complete and could
> not be loaded into ADPro since the chunk sizes in the IFF24 file was
[program to repair incomplete IFF file ]

Is there any way to get Imagine to restart without rendering the entire
frame again?  I've had times where I was running a long render and
managed to crash my computer while doing something else.  (Usually
program development.  Never do this while rendering :-) ).  Repairing
the file is one thing, but you've still got an incomplete file after you
do it.  Is there any support in 2.9 for starting the render at a certain
point?

  - steve


##

Subject: Imagine29 - COOL textures and other junk
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 17:23:13 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

Hey!

Has anyone else out ther started messing around with Imagine 29 textures?  I
just starting printing the docs out right now. (41 pages for the font size
I chose).

    It sounds like there are some really nice ones in there.  There area
couple that are based on creating windows....ie:  Instead of having to make
all these tiny rectangles etc....for spaceships, buildings you just use
this ..

    It works pretty well!  All it does is make part of your object
transparent.  So, for a building, you would make your grey bldg, then add
this texture.  Then you would duplicate the shape of the building, but make
it a little smaller and stick it just inside.  Make the smaller building
bright white(no texture) and you're done.

    I am also working on this cool robot (mech warrior anim).  I
started the project a while ago...but was unable to use the cycle editor
due to its habit of liking axis all messed up.  Thank god for the new
states thing!  Now...you just group you object as you want.  It handles any
change in group including moving around parts, etc.....no constraints!

    I'll upload some pics soon.

    Mike C.

--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail] - CWRU, Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
| "It's not how many hours you work, but how much work you put in an hour" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Brain object?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 20:41:49 EST
From: [e-mail] (Phil Martin u)

Hi. I'm in need of some pictures of the human brain for a project I'm
doing at school. Ideally, I'd like to get an object I can render in
Imagine (I got 2.0 on the coverdisk, yeah...) so that I can do whatever
I want with it.

If anyone out there knows the whereabouts of a half-decent (or I'm
willing to go as low as one-third-decent) brain object, I'd really
appreciate hearing about it as soon as possible (The project's due
on Monday)

Thanks in advance,

Phil Martin.


##

Subject: picture u/l'ed
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 93 19:44:08 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

Hi,

I u/l'ed these to aminet:

  M_Castle1.lha  M_Castle1.readme
  M_Castle2.lha  M_Castle2.readme

(They'll appear under pix/trace.  There is a JPEG and a HAM8 version of
each, in 1280x1024 and 896x628 respectively).

These was some discussion on the IML a while back about techniques for
getting terrain objects into Imagine.  The above pictures do this, to, I
think, a reasonable effect.  (Not a half bad castle either, IMHO).

  - steve


##

Subject: Sanyo VCR
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 00:51:00 MST
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

  I think this one got mulched, so I'll repost:

   Does anyone have any more information about that sanyo VCR
mentioned in the Impulse newsletter awhile ago? The one that Imagine
3.0 is supposed to be able to control, allowing single frame recording?

   (does Imagine 2.9 support it yet?)


  Greg


##

Subject: Re: C-source that repairs uncomplete IFF24's
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 00:48:22 MST
From: [e-mail] (Greg Pringle)

> > an hour or so. Arghhh!!!   The frame was only 75% complete and could
> > not be loaded into ADPro since the chunk sizes in the IFF24 file was
> [program to repair incomplete IFF file ]
>
>  Is there any way to get Imagine to restart without rendering the entire
>  frame again?  I've had times where I was running a long render and
>
>     - steve

  Time to dig out understanding Imagine! You can tilt the camera 180 degrees
and render the missing bottom portion. Then load into your favourite image
processor to flip and join with the top.

  Greg



##

Subject: Re: Particle Questions
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 09:30:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

I don't think this made it to the list the first time, so...


On Thu, 25 Nov 1993, Daniel T. Edwards wrote:

> I just want the particles to fall to a z plane then disappear.
    Can be done

> I also (at the same time) want them to move in x.
    They do that too

> Is it true that this thing (giant requestor) doesn't do parabolas?

    The way the particles disperse is very artificial.  They have a
tendancy to form up into regular rows that look like Lisajous(sp?) curves
if used on a sphere.

> I guess it would be easier to have a new effect: "Launch"
> ... where you set the Z(direction of launch) and POWER(apparent
> power of launch) and LANDINGZ(a Global,or local, Z parameter for
> a plane at which the particles stop)  it would be nice if this
> dream F/X had some dispersion and some bouncing too.

    You can orient the object axis to point upwards so that the
particles disperse up and out before falling back down and bouncing.

    While not nearly as powerful as Real 3D, the new particles are
still relatively diverse and usefull.  The randomizing of how the
particles disperse really needs to be fixed, or a work-around found.  If
particles simply fall and bounce, without wind, it looks similar to waves
of sand in the desert, or a Japanes rock garden.





##

Subject: Particles?
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1993 14:52:04 -0500 (EST)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Hi everyone!

Hope everyone had a wonderful thanksgiving... Mine was nice, considering the
fact that my wife filed for divorce just 8 days before! :-(

At any rate, was thinking about the PARTICLE effects in Im 2.9. I think they're
a GREAT start, but we need wind that can be controlled (StartFrame, Accel,
Speed, Decel, Direction), and more random-ness in the dispursion of the
particles... Ah well... None of that sounds TOO hard. Perhaps for 3.0?

What about that SPARKS (is that the right name) program? I saw some animations
for it on WUARCHIVE a while ago - flames and a motorcycle zooming through
some leaves. Is SPARKS for Imagine? If not, what?

I'm liking the SPLINE editor more and more... Don't remember if this is in that
editor or not, but wouldn't it be neat to import an IFF into SPLINE and have it
auto-trace it? Of course, you'd be able to edit the splines later... I think
that could be really neat, if it isn't already!

Looking forward to seeing some more great examples/samples/tutorials/etc for
3.0!

Does anyone else hope that Impulse will release even _MORE_ textures with 3.0?
How about a Marble texture? Or a better LensFlare?

BTW, we're taking bets on the release date for 3.0. Contact me for odds! :-)



##

Subject:      Imagine PC???
Date:         Fri, 03 Dec 93 16:39:15 EDT
From: "Breno A. Silva" <[e-mail]>

I asked a bunch of questions about Imagine PC 2.9 regarding its video
drivers, resolution, quick render output modes, etc, and nobody answered
that... is everybody here Amiga Imagineers or the PC version is so bad
no one wants to talk about it??

Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: Rotation in Img 2.0
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 15:44:11 -0600
From: christopher arthur <[e-mail]>

   I posted this once before, but my subscription didn't kick in yet.  I
don't know if anyone responded.  So here goes again:



    Does anyone know how to rotate an object in Imagine 2.0
without having that annoying flip of the camera?  It happens when I track
object(1) orbiting object(2) with the alignment of object(2).. As soon as
object(2) rotates more than 90 degrees, the camera flips.  What's another
way to rotate without this phenomenon?
   I want to be able to give object some angular acceleration, so the
rotate 2.0 effect is no good.  I know I could make a cycle object, but I
assume that the interpolation between key frames in linear, so I would have
to make every frame a key frame...yuck.   Any suggestions?

chris

[e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: Particle Questions
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1993 11:25:23 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1993, Kent Kalnasy wrote:

> At  9:28 AM 11/25/93 -0800, Daniel T. Edwards wrote:
> >Happily using Imagine 2.9 on a 700x462 screen without special hardware...
> >Email me for details on how you can too.
>
> This would be a great thing to post to the general Imagine mailing list.
> Please do.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Kent Kalnasy                                     [e-mail]
>  Loral Advanced Distributed Simulation, Inc.
>  Bellevue, Washington                                          [phone]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Even better. How about incuding this in the Imagine FAQ if it isn't there ?
Also, can info for PAL users be posted too ?

Nik.



##

Subject: A couple of questions
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1993 18:41:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

Well, it seems the servers didn't like my letter, so they sent it back
to me.  Here goes again.

1. Am I blind, or do other people not see a difference whether Auto
Dither is on or off?  I can't tell the difference on 320X400 HAM6.
Any ideas?


2. How is working with States compared to the cycle editor?  I really
like the skeletonal control (sorta) that the cycle editor allows.  Is
States easier, harder, different?  Is it kinda like setting up
different poses for the cycle editor?  Could someone please explain
states a little more?

Thanks for any help

Peter Garza
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: A couple of questions
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 22:28:00 EST
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

>
> 1. Am I blind, or do other people not see a difference whether Auto
> Dither is on or off?  I can't tell the difference on 320X400 HAM6.
> Any ideas?


Never used it. can't comment.
>
>
> 2. How is working with States compared to the cycle editor?  I really
> like the skeletonal control (sorta) that the cycle editor allows.  Is
> States easier, harder, different?  Is it kinda like setting up
> different poses for the cycle editor?  Could someone please explain
> states a little more?

STATES are infinitely better than the cycle. I always hated twisting those
diamonds and trying to set up an object. very counter intuitive! in all
of the years I worked with imagine I was only able to create a handful of
good cycles.

States are created in the detail editor. in a nutshell: group all of the
objects that will make up the actor. Position and size them. call that
the first state. Now move the pieces of the actor, resize them as needed
and give them new attributes if you wish. assign this as state 2. when all
of the poses are created save the object. load it into the stage. in the
action editor morph the poses in any order you like.

A NOTE TO IMPULSE ON THE SUBJECT OF STATES, SHOULD YOU EVER READ
THIS MESSAGE:
the only apparent advantage the cycle editor has over states is the ability
to preview the motion of the cycle. with states I have to load into the stage
to preview the motion of a cycle. A mechanism to wireframe a state object
in the detail editor would be most welcome.

                    |
steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
[e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


##

Subject: IML files [repost]
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 93 23:50:55 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Who's in charge of the IML file section on wuarchive.wustl.edu?

Some files I tried to upload unsuccesfully months ago are still there
and need to be deleted.  Also looks like the /incoming dir needs to be
flushed (files put in the proper /imagine dir.)


Speaking of files, I'd like to see more examples of the particle system.
Can you really make convincing smoke/clouds/fire/plasma/exploding pasta?

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: MPEGs, please.
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 93 14:16:03 EST
From: [e-mail] (Phil Martin u)

Hi. I've been having some fun with mp1.03 on my A4000, but I'm getting
tired of the Vista animations on aminet (Don't get me wrong, they look
great, but I'm ready for something else). So please forgive me if this
isn't really Imagine-related, but I figured there must be people out
there who could direct me to an FTP site with some more interesting
MPEGs to view.

I'd be particularly interested in seeing something from the people
here (always reading about your renderings makes me really curious)
but I'd also like to find some MPEGs of old B&W silent scenes if
there are any out there.

Thanks in advance for your help in this matter,

Phil Martin.


##

Subject: Essence?
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 93 14:01:02 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Saffold)

So, is the new Essence for 2.9 going to be ready soon?  And if so, how
much will the upgrade to it cost, or will (Since its the Christmas
season.:) Be sent for free to registered Essence owners?

     // Jeff Saffold
   \X/   Amiga User

___
 X MsgView V1.13 [R029] X He who hesitates looses the parking spot.
--
*   Cuerna Verde BBS FidoNet Gateway  *     Data/Fax: [phone]      *
*   Pueblo, Colorado USA              *     FidoNet:  1:307/18            *


##

Subject: re: imagine 3.0 offer in Amiga Format
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 16:11:38 GMT
From: Waland J F <[e-mail]>

>Who told you you have to pay #95 instead of the #75 as stated? I want to buy
>Imagine3.0 through the Amiga Format offer, too. I think this is not very fair
>- printing #75 and requesting #95 - (sure, 95 pounds is quite cheap for it, too
apparently they made a printing error (strange - three times), and a few days
after sending off my order I got a letter in the post explaining they had
made this error and if I still wanted the package could i orgainise the extra
20 pounds (which I did).

jon.



##

Subject: Object Scaling Problems
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 16:26 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

Greetings to you all,
    this is my first post to the IML so excuse any extremely dim
questions.

    I am having problems with scaling an object that I have in
Imagine2.0. It is a grouped object consisting of 3 seperate objects. In
the detail editor it seems fine. When i load it into the stage editor
its also ok *BUT* as soon as i try to size it down to a reasonable size
it goes haywire. when i scale it down and save it its ok but then if i
go to the detail editor and back again to the stage editor it doesnt
keep the same size. it is distorted (in this case way too tall). i am
scaling it in all three directions (x/y/z) so its not that. is there a
bug i should know about or is it something that I'm doing thats really
dim? any help/advice would be greatly received.... ta!

    steve



##

Subject: Nice deal
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 10:16:45 MST
From: [e-mail] (Ben Scott)

>  if I still wanted the package could i orgainise the extra
> 20 pounds (which I did).

In this country we call that bait-and-switch...

.                              <<<<Infinite K>>>>

--
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Ben Scott, video animation dilettante and consultant at The Raster Image. |
| [e-mail], 24 hours a day!/\-----------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------.\ Powered by the mighty Amiga 4000 |
| "Brought to you by 'White Beer'...    `-----------------------------------|
| there's a trailer park of flavor in every bottle!" -  Tom Servo, MST3000  |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'


##

Subject: Re: Object Scaling Problems
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 09:47:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

Scaling an object in the Stage editor doesn't affect the size as it's
saved from the Detail editor.

Also, substituting a modified object into an existing line in the Stage
editor will use the ORIGINAL object's scaling information.

You're better off making sure your object is the right size BEFORE putting
it into the Stage.  If you have to modify it, you're better off deleting
the entire object timeline and starting over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




##

Subject: Imagine Screen Size Modifications
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 11:30:16 PST
From: [e-mail] (Daniel T. Edwards)

Ok.  Many people mailed me suggesting I post this list to
the whole IML.  When Imagine 3.0 is available I'll repost
an updated list.


If you have any problems with this modification:
1) Don't Blame me for your Guru.
2) Send me E-mail with your config (a2000,040,Retina,etc..)
   I'm curoius to see what causes Imagine to fail
   with this modification.



Ok, here's how it works...

Get a filezapper type program. (NewZap DPU FileZap Hex etc...)

Look up your version of Imagine on the chart below.
(If your version is not listed, Email me and I'll see if I can
make one for it.)

Edit the executeable at the bytes indicated in the chart. The block #s and
byte #s are shown in decimal.  The hex numbers in parenthesis are the hex
versions of the block numbers.  The bytes to modify are, of course, in hex.
Replace the resolution you  find there with the resolution you want.  Then
save the new file. (I don't have to remind you to keep a backup of Imagine
on hand!)

Notice that Imagine automaticly doubles the vertical resolution for use in
interlace mode.  So, if you want vertical resolution of 462 then you must
tell it to give you 231.  (231 = 00E7 in hex)

 Imagine Version # Horizontal                   Vertical

FP       1.1     Block 393 ($189)             Block 83 ($053)
                 Bytes 220 & 221              Bytes 162 & 163
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8
       (Example: To    02    BC = 700 in dec)(To    00    E7 = 231 dec)

FP       2.0     Block 497 ($1F1)             Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 328 & 329              Bytes 250 & 251
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8

INT PAL  2.0     Block 500 ($1F4)             Block 94 ($05E)
                 Bytes 124 & 125              Bytes 42 & 43
                 From  02   80                From  01   00

FP  PAL  2.0     Block 497 ($1F1)             Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 388 & 389              Bytes 244 & 245
                 From  02    80               From  01   0

INT      2.9     Block 1561 ($619)            Block 119 ($077)
                 Bytes 486 & 487              Bytes 480 & 481
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8

FP       2.9     Block 1529 ($5F9)            Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 82  & 83               Bytes 168 & 169
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8

FP  PAL  2.9     Block 1529 ($5F9)            Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 146 & 147              Bytes 162 & 163
                 From  02    80               From  01    00

Impulse told me, in the past, that Imagine is made to run ONLY on a
640 x 400 screen.  I was told that if I changed it, I would do so at my own
peril.  I pass this information on  to you.

One Final Note:  Imagine PC users have a whole different program than Amiga
users.  This modification will not work on the PC version.  I would guess
that a simmilar modification for the PC version would be more  complicated,
given that VGA modes are more complicated than Amiga modes. I would be very
interested to see someone try though.   Imagine Imagineering on a 486DX2/66
with a 1024 x 768 editor screen. Now imagine Impulse telling you it will
never happen.

Thanks to Juha Kallioinen of Finland for the PAL numbers.

 ____________________________________________________________
/                                                            \
| Amiga 2000                James R. Walker                  |
| 2MB Chip             [e-mail]           |
| 18MB Fast    ______________________________________________|
| 130 MB Hard /                                              |
| 68040 33Mhz |Heinlein,Rand,Clarke,Adams,Asimov,Niven,Worley|
\____________________________________________________________/


##

Subject: Size of imagine....
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 13:58:48 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>On Mon, 29 Nov 1993, Kent Kalnasy wrote:
>
>> At  9:28 AM 11/25/93 -0800, Daniel T. Edwards wrote:
>> >Happily using Imagine 2.9 on a 700x462 screen without special hardware...
>> >Email me for details on how you can too.
>>
>> This would be a great thing to post to the general Imagine mailing list.
>> Please do.
>
>Even better. How about incuding this in the Imagine FAQ if it isn't there ?
>Also, can info for PAL users be posted too ?
>
>Nik.
>
>
>

    Okay...I had the info at one point...but decided not to put it in
the FAQ.  Basically, I wasn't sure if putting info on how to hex edit the
program was a good idea/politically correct.

    However, as sooo many people seem to want this...if someone emails
me the info, I will add it to the FAQ.  Just give me the byte positions,
the new values, and the name of a program you can use to do this...or write
up a full para. if you wish.

    Thanks.

    Mike C.

--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail] - CWRU, Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
| "It's not how many hours you work, but how much work you put in an hour" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Re: Imagine Screen Size Modifications
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 14:13:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 5 Dec 1993, Daniel T. Edwards wrote:

> Notice that Imagine automaticly doubles the vertical resolution for use in
> interlace mode.  So, if you want vertical resolution of 462 then you must
> tell it to give you 231.  (231 = 00E7 in hex)
>
>  Imagine Version # Horizontal                   Vertical
>
> FP       2.9     Block 1529 ($5F9)            Block 95 ($05F)
>                  Bytes 82  & 83               Bytes 168 & 169
>                  From  02    80               From  00    C8

    Two things:

    1).  I already made these modifications (Thanks Dan!), but I
wasn't too adept at translating Hex.  So here are the translations Dan
sent to me for FP version 2.9.

Horizontal            Vertical
block $05F9            Block $005F
Bytes $0052 & $0053        Bytes $00A8 & 00A9

    Remember this is for the Floating Point version of Imagine 2.9
NTSC only!

    2)  On my A4000 it won't open up to the full width of the screen.
I am using Double NTSC overscanned to the max (720x454), and the screen is
still dragable about 15 to 16 pixels left and right.  Despite rearranging
the numbers, it still has this same "girth".


    But I DOES WORK!  No strange ghosting or system crashes (yet).
The only anomaly is that preview anims in the stage editor are slightly
skewed. but entirely functional.


    One last thing.  Has anyone experienced fringing in the
perspective view when set to solid?  horizontal lines seem to jut out to
the right just like in HAM.  It only happens occasionally, but often
enough to make it a recurring problem.

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel Graphics




##

Subject: 1200 recomendations
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 22:00:14 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (William V. Swartz)

Hey all,
A friend of mine has decided to ditch the old peecee in order to buy an
A1200 and an accelerator to get back into Amiga usage.  He indicates to me
that he'd like to get into Imagine modelling and rendering although this
won't be his major use.  So I solicit your input as to what accelerator to
recommend to him.  Bang for the buck is important, scsi would be nice but
not neccessary.  Also needed are monitor suggestions, and why, as I don't
grok all the AGA modes/needs.  He has an SVGA monitor that is decent and
wonders if that could be used.  Thanks for any and all input.

  //
\X/ -BiL-
    [e-mail]             (See my 'Imagine'-ary signature below)


##

Subject: Re(2): Object Scaling Problems
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 09:05 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

Jeff Walkup writes:

>Scaling in Stage is relative to the object's original size - that is,
>the size that you save it out of the Detail.

     yep, i know that... thats why i cant work out what its doing. let
me explain a bit more in depth.
    I have a grouped object consisting of three objects. two of the are
extruded font objects (one conformed to cyclinder) and a disk. in the
detail editor it appears correct and in the correct perpective. i then
load it into the stage editor and its correct but way too large. so i
scale it down to a reasonable size so that the camera can see it all (i
size in all three axis at the same time.  I've had no problem with this
before...  am i doing something wrong here?).  i then save changes, go
out of the stage editor and come back again and the object is deformed
in one axis (in this case its too tall..  both the other axis are fine)
but when i go back to the detail editor its correct. the only way i can
get a decent render is to move the camera so far away that doing it in
trace mode takes longer than usual as the global size is now much
bigger than it needs to be. I'l shut up about this now... :(

    steve



##

Subject: Re: Essence?
Date: 6 Dec 1993 12:38:03 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

On Sun, Dec 5, 1993 8:53 am, Jeff Saffold wrote:

>So, is the new Essence for 2.9 going to be ready soon?  And if so, how
>much will the upgrade to it cost, or will (Since its the Christmas
>season.:) Be sent for free to registered Essence owners?

I doubt it'll be free, seeing as Steve and Glenn will have to put a fair amount
of effort into altering and testing the 100-200 (I can't remember, there's sooo
many :) textures.  Even if the actual change is a simple "global replacement"
type thing, there's still duplication and distribution costs to cover (and
maybe some profit?).  I'd hope for something in the region of $25 to registered
users.  Am I being a bit too hopeful?

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>


##

Subject: Lens flare (was RE: 3DS Vs. Imagine speed)
Date: 6 Dec 1993 11:13:50 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

I sent this a short while ago, but I don't think it got through...
_______________________________________________________________________________
To: IML
From: Oxley David on Mon, Nov 29, 1993 11:19 am
Subject: Re: Lens flare (was RE: 3DS Vs. Imagine speed)

On Sun, Nov 28, 1993 3:48 am, Steve Koren wote:

>[deleted]  Since lens flare happens inside the
>"camera" it can't appear in back of another object, so you don't have to
>worry about that.  Seems like you could just point out the light sources
>to some sort of post-processor and let it put the lens flare effect in
>for you.  Getting the post processor to do a reasonable job might take
>some effort, though.  But I bet it can be done.

But the effect I'd like to be able to (ab)use is the appearance of two sets of
overlapping coloured hexagons that seem to emanate from the light source along
a diagonal axis.  As the camera viewpoint changes, the hexagons move in/out or
around the source (I can't quite remember which).  I think that achieving this
sort of effect in post-processing would entail more work than if it were
available during 3D rendering.

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>



##

Subject: HEX???
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1993 10:59:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Where, oh where, do I find HEX? I cannot find this util ANYWHERE on AmiNet!

If it's PD, someone please direct me to where I can find this thing!

Thanks! Posting here since I want to use it for Imagine 2.9...




##

Subject: How Do They Do That?
Date:     Mon, 29 Nov 1993 11:35:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Rosario Salfi)

What I'd like to see is some kind of compilation of techniques put out
by all these people now using the Amiga in Hollywood.  For example, how
does Ron Thornton create such realistic textures and plate coloration on
the Babylon 5 series?  Or how do they get realistic looking lights with
diminishing cone effects on Sea Quest?  Things like that...the real
"meat".


##

Subject: Re: Essence?
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 09:49:49 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Steve Worley)

Jeff Saffold writes:

> So, is the new Essence for 2.9 going to be ready soon?  And if so,
> how much will the upgrade to it cost, or will (Since its the
> Christmas season.:) Be sent for free to registered Essence owners?

It's hard to say. I've spoken with Mike Halvorson of Impulse several
times about Imagine 3.0 and compatability, and has he promised several
times to send us any information about textures, etc, when they have
written it up. I cannot speak for Impulse in any way, so I have no
idea when this will actually happen.

We certainly won't release any updates to Essence until Imagine 3.0
ships. Ideally it will be a simple matter to fool Imagine into loading
our textures, and a simple patch disk will make Imagine 3.0 compatable
with Essence.

Since we still haven't even received our copy of Imagine 2.9, it is
very difficult indeed for us to make any plans or decisions. Meanwhile
we have been working furioiusly on several other projects, including
LightWave and Real3D ports as well as a standalone material designer.

More later, of course.

-Steve
The Official Apex Guy


##

Subject: Re: Lens flare (was RE: 3DS Vs. Imagine speed)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 11:38:33 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

> >[deleted]  Since lens flare happens inside the
> >"camera" it can't appear in back of another object, so you don't have to
> >worry about that.  Seems like you could just point out the light sources
> >to some sort of post-processor and let it put the lens flare effect in
> >for you.  Getting the post processor to do a reasonable job might take
> >some effort, though.  But I bet it can be done.
>
> But the effect I'd like to be able to (ab)use is the appearance of two sets of
> overlapping coloured hexagons that seem to emanate from the light source along
> a diagonal axis.  As the camera viewpoint changes, the hexagons move in/out or
> around the source (I can't quite remember which).  I think that achieving this
> sort of effect in post-processing would entail more work than if it were
> available during 3D rendering.
>
But the flair, including those hexagons, is only dependent on several things:
How bright is the lightsource,
The size of the lightsource(maybe, not sure about this one),
and the location of the lightsource in the window(viewport, whatever)

As the camera viewpoint changes, so would the variables, so the flair would
work accordingly.  It was my impression that Lightwave does this as a post-
rendering thing.  It may use information from the scene, such as location and
brightness, and size, but it is still, atleast in part, a post-rendering thing.

Ofcourse, I guess this means that you have to have visible lightsources if you
don't incorporate Imagine scene information into your postprocessing.

This is an uninformed post, just guess work at best, so if I'm way off...
I'm way off.



Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: Re: How Do They Do That?
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 93 15:39:12 EST
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> What I'd like to see is some kind of compilation of techniques put out
> by all these people now using the Amiga in Hollywood.  For example, how
> does Ron Thornton create such realistic textures and plate coloration on
> the Babylon 5 series?  Or how do they get realistic looking lights with
> diminishing cone effects on Sea Quest?

These are the sorts of things that are being covered in the new publication,
"LightWave Pro" put out by Avid Publications.
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject: Re: HEX???
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 13:57:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 6 Dec 1993, Andrew P. Vogel wrote:

> Where, oh where, do I find HEX? I cannot find this util ANYWHERE on AmiNet!
>
> If it's PD, someone please direct me to where I can find this thing!
>
> Thanks! Posting here since I want to use it for Imagine 2.9...

    Waht you need to look for is AZap or NewZap.  They are Hex
editors.  Hex is a way of interpreting the data using a number system
based on 0 and 16 as opposed to 0 and 10.  The letters A-F represent 10-15.

    Plaese don't flame me if I have this all screwed up.  This is how
I learned it.  I am ceratinly no pro, but it won't help people to look for
Hex.lha or something like that.


    Cyrus J. Kalbrener





##

Subject: Hey! It worked!
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 19:22 GMT0
From: Stephen Loughran <[e-mail]>

Doug Kelly wrote:

>Strange.  Just for grins, why don't you try making a copy of the object
>in question, and in the Detail editor set ALL the axes to the default
>size of 32,32,32.  Load it into Stage and try the same operations
>again.  Maybe it's some thing about the axis values you're using.

    I tried this and it now works just fine... thanks to everyone who
took the time to reply... i'll leave you all in peace (until my next
mind numbing problem)

    steve



##

Subject: Imagine 2.9 BUGS?? NAWH.....
Date:     Sun, 5 Dec 1993 01:16:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (David Wyand)

Hi All!

Well, I think that I have found a couple of bugs in Imagine 2.9 (am
about to send Impulse a FAX on these).

Recently I was doing a project where I needed to use paths a lot.
Unfortunately, when editting a path using the transformation requester,
the changes don't take effect.  Example: go to transform requester.
Rotate 90 degrees.  Click OK.  The Knot of the path has indeed rotated.
Now try to move the knot with the mouse.  The point will snap back to
the position (or alignment) that it had before the transformation
requester was used.  This also happens if you exit from path editting
right after using the transformation requester.  Very anoying.  This
happens in both the Stage and Detail Editors.  I had to use Imagine 2.0
for my project....

Another Problem (although not as major).  When viewing only the top view
(or anyother view) in the stage editor, and having the camera view
selected, try moving the camera.  The top right quarter of the screen
(where the perspective view is in the four view mode) clears!  Also,
when you move the camera, it clears any area underneath it!!

If anyone else has these problems let me know...

david wyand
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Object Scaling Problems
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 18:21:10 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

I dug this one out.

------begin include ------
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

> For some reason, I just can't get the stage editor to save my objects rescled.
> I resize them in the stage editor and "save changes".  Selecting size bar
> doesn't help either.  It does save all positions etc. Any help?

I almost pulled my hair out over this one night when I couldn't get
the *#$! object to stay rescaled.  But you know that feeling already :)
In order to rescale something in the stage editor and KEEP it rescaled, I
had to click on the LOC button at the bottom.  Basically, you have to
scale along the object's axes.  Hope this helps.

> Fred
>
>
>

Peter Garza
[e-mail]

-----end include--------

Haven't tried it, but it sounds good:)

Is this fixed in 2.9?  What about slice?  Any better?


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Imagine2.9 Particles
Date: Tue,  7 Dec 93 04:25:00 BST
From: [e-mail]

Fellow Imagineers....

     Has anyone out there figured out Imagine 2.9's "Particle"
effect, yet??  The more I fool around with it the more confused I
get.  The "explanations" of the various parameters in the requester
are not very thoroughly explained in the materials that came with
2.9, so if anyone has a more detailed explanation about what each one
does and how they interact, I'd love to hear it (and I imagine so
would others).
     Specifically, how do you get the effect to begin gradually?
Whenever I set it up the first frame of the effect already has a
number of particles a long distance from the original source.  They
just seem to jump there in the space of one frame.
     Lots of other things don't seem to work as I would expect, but
I'm probably just not thinking like the Impulse guys, yet, so I'll
wait (and continue experimenting) until someone comes up with a
better description of how to use the effect to ask any more questions.
     Thanks in advance.....
                           Steve Langguth ([e-mail])




##

Subject: Re: How Do They Do That?
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 23:22:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Lopez <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 29 Nov 1993, Rosario Salfi wrote:

> What I'd like to see is some kind of compilation of techniques put out
> by all these people now using the Amiga in Hollywood.  For example, how
> does Ron Thornton create such realistic textures and plate coloration on
> the Babylon 5 series?  Or how do they get realistic looking lights with
> diminishing cone effects on Sea Quest?  Things like that...the real
> "meat".

I saw an article on Babylon 5 somewhere and I'll be buggered if I can
figure out what I did with it!  It talked in great detail about the
effects they did.  One thing I do remember tho, If models had been used to
shoot the ships (like on Star Trek)  The 'Stage' would be something like 5
kilometers across.  They use a HUGE virtual universe!

     /----------------------------------------------\
    /    ///  Steve Lopez -> [e-mail]    \
   /    ///    Student at -> Art Institute of Seattle \
  / \\\///        Program -> Audio & Video Production  \
  \  \XX/ `040'  Computer -> Amiga 2000 GVP040'33 DCTV /
   \                       : DSS8+ 9megs Flicker fxr  /
    \ "I can do that..."   : Midi DJ500c Supra 14.4k /
     \----------------------------------------------/





##

Subject: Imagine 3.0 from Amiga Format
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 11:58:04 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Stephen J.Gowdy)

Hi All,
    I've also ordered Imagine 3.0 from Amiga Format. I ordered it at
the price of 75 pounds also. I've read that some have received work from AF
that the price should be 95 pounds. As yet I have received nothing. However,
I may be wrong, but isn't selling something at a different price that what
you say it is agaist the law? I should phone CAB to find out.
    Has anyone got Imagine 3.0 yet? What are the major differences between
Imagine 2.0 and 3.0? I've read about bones and things, but I mean it the
structure basically the same?

                        many thanks,

                        Stephen.

****************************************************************************
*Stephen J Gowdy                *A4000/040* High Energy Physics Group,     *
*Bitnet: GOWDY AT GWIA          *120 MB HD* Dept Of Physics & Astronomy,   *
*DecNet: 20075::GOWDY           *6MEG RAM!* University of Glasgow.         *
*InterNet: [e-mail]*It moves!* Tel: [phone] E:5894 *
****************************************************************************



##

Subject: Re: How Do They Do That?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 06:49:43 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> I saw an article on Babylon 5 somewhere and I'll be buggered if I can

There was one in Computer Graphics World a few months ago.

  - steve


##

Subject: Imagine3.0 latest (release date)
Date: 7 Dec 1993 10:48:45 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

Hi all,

I called Impulse last night and talked to Mike H.  I was actually checking
they'd received a fax of a couple of bugs I'd found, plus a list of suggestions
for 3.0.  I asked him about 3.0 and he said its release was likely to be 'end
of January' (1994 I think, though I didn't ask ;)  He said that the user
interface was being made much more usable, and they wanted to get some other
features right first time.  Sorry I didn't ask him more, but it's not cheap
phoning from this side of the pond :)

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>


##

Subject: Understanding Imagine 2.0
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 16:45:45 GMT
From: James "W." Armstrong <[e-mail]>

Hi all,
    I am having great difficulty in purchasing a copy of "Understanding
Imagine 2.0" anywhere in the UK. Does anyone know a UK outlet for the
above mentioned?
                Thanks in advance
                    J.W.Armstrong


##

Subject:      Re: Re: Imagine PC??
Date:         Tue, 07 Dec 93 17:39:47 EDT
From: "Breno A. Silva" <[e-mail]>

Oh, well, I haven't found the original message I posted, but what I
want to know is:

Does Imagine PC's quickrender (and even normal render "show") is limited
to 8-bit VGA mode, or can it take advantage of the popular high-color
SVGA modes (16-bit and 24-bit up to 800X600). That's very important for
viewing purposes, you know. Which video boards does it support, in that
case, or is there any board that already have a video driver for it?
Is its interface limited to 640X400 or can it use 800X600-1280X1024 modes
for editing? ATI Graphics Pro comes bundled with a 3DS driver that ena-
bles editing at up to 1280X1024, I've seen that and it's great (although
slow-down it's noticeable, but that's understandable).
What about composite video output? How's that done in the PC world? Since
it has no "overscan" screen mode, I guess it enlarges the 640X400 mode
to fill the video screen, but that would alias the image too much, I guess.
What boards do you use? Anybody have the PC Personal Animation Recorder?
How much is that, and how does it work?
Anybody already tested Imagine PC in a Pentium? Is that Faster? :)

Phew... hope this get to you now.

Anxiously waiting for answers,
Breno A. Silva ([e-mail])


##

Subject: Lens Flare
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 22:34:59 GMT
From: Tony Jones <[e-mail]>

Posted for Paul Rance:

 CJK> On Thu, 25 Nov 1993, Daniel Jr Murrell wrote:

 >> Ok, a question:
 >> Has anyone tried that lens flare texture with 2.9 yet?  How does it look,
 >> render
 >> etc.?  Do you have to trace to get the right effect?  And do you attach
 >> the
 >> texture to a light?  Does it look cheesy, like the example I saw in an ad
 >> for
 >> Aladdin?  Could someone upload a few example pictures?  Just wondering,
 >> and thanks.


 CJK>  I have put a copy of "flare.default.jpg" in the Imagine section of
 CJK> wuarchive.  It is the default lense flare settings placed on a flat,
 CJK> white
 CJK> disk.  I'm not too impressed myself.

Yeah not too good are they, they may look good in a star field, Impulse did
write in the pre-release about the next version will have new lightsources
so perhaps they will produce effects similar to lightwaves?

Paul



##

Subject: RE: Imagine 2.9 PC
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 22:29:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Cliff Lee <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 7 Dec 1993, Breno A. Silva wrote:

> Does Imagine PC's quickrender (and even normal render "show") is limited
> to 8-bit VGA mode, or can it take advantage of the popular high-color
> SVGA modes (16-bit and 24-bit up to 800X600).  That's very important for
> viewing purposes, you know. Which video boards does it support, in that
> case, or is there any board that already have a video driver for it?

>From what I can tell, there is a setting in the config file wehre you tell
it what resolution you want to Qucikrender to.  Normal rendering is chosen
in the project editor.  The key is the Imagine PC supports VESA video
modes.  That is a "so called" video specification that is somewhat of a
standard.  So there is no video drivers per se.  You use the VESA drivers
for you VGA cards as a tsr  (if the board does not support them straight
out).  There are VESA modes that support the 15-bit hicolor modes, and the
S3 16-bit modes.

> Is its interface limited to 640X400 or can it use 800X600-1280X1024 modes
> for editing?

I've only used the 640x480 screen mode and have not tried any other.  An
obvious way to do this did not leap forward.

> ATI Graphics Pro comes bundled with a 3DS driver that ena-
> bles editing at up to 1280X1024, I've seen that and it's great (although
> slow-down it's noticeable, but that's understandable).

Not used as mentioned above, but if your card has software VESA drivers,
those are used.  I use a STB Powergraph at home and a Diamond Stealth 24
VLB at work.  THe Diamond supports the VESA screen modes internally, the
STB needs drivers.  So instead of using the drivers, I render to a TGA
file, then quit the program and use Image Alchemy to convert the image to
8 bit and view it with VPIC.  That yields best result for me.

> What about composite video output? How's that done in the PC world? Since
> it has no "overscan" screen mode, I guess it enlarges the 640X400 mode
> to fill the video screen, but that would alias the image too much, I guess.
> What boards do you use? Anybody have the PC Personal Animation Recorder?
> How much is that, and how does it work?

No composite video out of "normal" VGA cards on PC's.  This done by buying
special card for such purposes.  They way I've seen it done, one renders
the 24-bit image at 640x486, and then use a single frame recorder to dump
it to tape.  Thats not the only way, just the way I've seen it done.

> Anybody already tested Imagine PC in a Pentium? Is that Faster? :)

I've seen only one and the saleman wouldn't let me touch it because he was
afraid I would crash it.  I have run it on a 486-33 and a 486/66-DX2 with
no problems other than its TOTAL disdain for EMM386.EXE.  THis sucks
because it makes it difficult to maximize free ram.  Forces you to use
multiple configs (Nicer under DOS 6.x than previous)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Cliff Lee
 [e-mail]
 "Everything will work out if you let it!" Cheap Truck





##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.9 BUGS?? NAWH.....
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 19:00:02 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 5 Dec 1993, David Wyand wrote:

> Hi All!
>
> Well, I think that I have found a couple of bugs in Imagine 2.9 (am
> about to send Impulse a FAX on these).
> Another Problem (although not as major).  When viewing only the top view
> (or anyother view) in the stage editor, and having the camera view
> selected, try moving the camera.  The top right quarter of the screen
> (where the perspective view is in the four view mode) clears!  Also,
> when you move the camera, it clears any area underneath it!!

>
> If anyone else has these problems let me know...
>

Yeah, I found that what you describe happens when obects are in quick
draw mode. I had lots of 'fun' trying to redisplay them, but then found
that if the New mode is selected, the objects re-appeared. Still, this is
only with objects in bounding boxes, I  haven't tried it with other things.

Nik.



##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.9 BUGS?? NAWH.....
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 09:41:05 +0100
From: <[e-mail]>

On Dec 5,  1:16am, David Wyand wrote:
> Subject: Imagine 2.9 BUGS?? NAWH.....

> Unfortunately, when editting a path using the transformation requester,
> the changes don't take effect.  Example: go to transform requester.
> Rotate 90 degrees.  Click OK.  The Knot of the path has indeed rotated.
> Now try to move the knot with the mouse.  The point will snap back to
> the position (or alignment) that it had before the transformation
> requester was used.  This also happens if you exit from path editting
> right after using the transformation requester.  Very anoying.  This
> happens in both the Stage and Detail Editors.  I had to use Imagine 2.0
> for my project....

A friend of mine, who has much more time to try Imagine 2.9 than me, has asked
me to send the same question in the IML. Exactly this bug.
He talked to me about another bug :
You cannot apply a color brush map *and* an altitude brush map to an object.
One of them (sorry but I don't know which one, I didn't try it) doesn't apply.
Has anybody noticed that ?

Robin

--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]







##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 10:35:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 7 Dec 1993, Tony Jones wrote:

>  CJK>  I have put a copy of "flare.default.jpg" in the Imagine section of
>  CJK> wuarchive.  It is the default lense flare settings placed on a flat,
>  CJK> white
>  CJK> disk.  I'm not too impressed myself.
>
> Yeah not too good are they, they may look good in a star field, Impulse did
> write in the pre-release about the next version will have new lightsources
> so perhaps they will produce effects similar to lightwaves?
>
> Paul

    I ahve spoken to a couple of guys at Impulse face to face, and
they think that the idea if lense flare is rediculus.  They see what
LightWave can do as just being flashy.  I agree that rings and lense
reflections can be easily abused and are not what the eye sees when
looking at a light.  But you DO see a haze with many faint, tiny streaks
eminating from the center of the light source.  They think that even this
is unnecessary.

    Perhapse our texture guru Steve Worley might be able to improve
upon Impulses work?...

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cell Graphics






##

Subject: Re: How Do They Do That?
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 17:16:56 GMT
From: Jason Jack <[e-mail]>

Mark Thompson wrote :
> These are the sorts of things that are being covered in the new publication,
> "LightWave Pro" put out by Avid Publications.

Could someone please post or mail me details on overseas subscriptions for
"LightWave Pro".  Nobody in the UK is carrying it.

Any responses appreciated - this is my first post to the IML...  A big hello
to all fellow renderers (imagineers?)  :-))))

(Actually I did reply-to something a while back - boy did I get a huge error
message :-) anybody else see it???)

Thanks in advance,
Jay


|  Jason Jack  <<< TNG Co. >>>  |  Amiga2000-MMR38SP-38MHz030-50MHz882  |
|  [e-mail]       |  512KBSRAM-8MB32bit-2MB16bit-1MBchip  |
|  Will render for : PAL PAR,   |  Trifecta-4HDDs=1080MB+CT600Streamer  |
|   more PoWeR, SCSI2 bits...   |  PicassoII-FlickerFixer-VLAB-Sampler  |


##

Subject: Re: HEX???
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 21:06:41 -0400 (EST)
From: ecorbin <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 6 Dec 1993, Andrew P. Vogel wrote:

> Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1993 10:59:14 -0500 (EST)
> From: Andrew P. Vogel <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: HEX???
>
> Where, oh where, do I find HEX? I cannot find this util ANYWHERE on AmiNet!
>
> If it's PD, someone please direct me to where I can find this thing!
>
> Thanks! Posting here since I want to use it for Imagine 2.9...
>
>

Hex.lzh is on Fred Fish 517.  Hope that helps.

By the way, I joined this group after I got Imagine2.0 off the cover of
Amiga Format.  Since it's PAL only and I have a mere 512k chip, I'm
stuck without an Imagination. :(  Someone posted on comp.sys.amiga.graphics
that there was posted here a description of changes one would have to
make with a hex editor to make it run in NTSC.  Were they correct?  I'm
waiting for the latest archive to appear on wuarchive, but I'm curious
as to whether or not I'll be searching in vain.

Earl Corbin
[e-mail]





##

Subject: Particles
Date: Thu,  9 Dec 93 02:34:00 BST
From: [e-mail]

Thanks for the suggestions about "particles" that have been relayed,
so far.  I had already figured out how to use "delayed" to have the
triangles "peel off" from the front to the back of a sphere.  (Looked
pretty neat, too).  But I can't seem to get any farther than that.
Here's what I'd like to do now.....

I have a small plane, made up of 400 faces (with z axis turned to
point up and down).  It's suspended 200 units above a larger plane
(at z=0).  I have the animation set up for 60 frames and the
"Particle" effect to work on the small plane for frames 2 to 60.
I would like the triangular "particles" to fall randomly from the
small plane toward the larger one, so I chose the "RAIN" setting.
No matter what settings I use, by frame 2 of the animation (the first
frame the effect is supposed to work upon) a large number of
particles have already fallen from the small plane and many are
already below the level of the ground plane.  In other words it goes
from no particles moving in frame 1 (because the effect has not yet
begun) to almost all of the particles being greatly affected by frame
2.  What settings do I need to use to have the effect work gradually
and randomly?????

Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

(And tomorrow class we'll move on to "emission".....)

                                       Steve Langguth
                                       ([e-mail])



##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 03:03:23 PST
From: 09-Dec-1993 0552 <[e-mail]>

>    I ahve spoken to a couple of guys at Impulse face to face, and
>they think that the idea if lense flare is rediculus.  They see what
>LightWave can do as just being flashy.  I agree that rings and lense
>reflections can be easily abused and are not what the eye sees when

    Funny thing this lense flair. For as long as I can remember
    the video, photo industries have been trying to eliminate
    it. Now here we are trying to produce it. Now If I do an
    animation and the pretense it you are viewing it real time
    (no vcr's,cameras ect) then I don't expect to see it.
    Think about this! All these REAL animations that are
    being made should not have any flair, unless were supposed
    to be viewing it thru a camcorder or such. I think Impulse
    is right on this. It should be available for the times
    you need to simulate a photo shoot exct but to have it
    in a anim of a space battle that you assume you are
    viewing in person as it happens is kind of self defeating.
    Maybe we watch to much TV and have a problem sorting out
    reality.
                        bill


##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: 9 Dec 1993 11:30:27 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

Cyrus J Kalbrener on Wed, Dec 8, 1993 8:28 pm wrote:

>    I ahve spoken to a couple of guys at Impulse face to face, and
>they think that the idea if lense flare is rediculus.  They see what
>LightWave can do as just being flashy.  I agree that rings and lense
>reflections can be easily abused and are not what the eye sees when
>looking at a light.  But you DO see a haze with many faint, tiny streaks
>eminating from the center of the light source.  They think that even this
>is unnecessary.

IMHO that is defeatest talk from the Impulse guys. I interpret it as either "we
can't be bothered to implement it", or "it would take too long to implement",
or even "we don't know how to implement it".

I want to be able to create photorealistic images, meaning either images as
seen through the lens of a camera, or images as seen by a human bean, sorry,
human being :)  The advent of textures that add a "real-world" worn or
roughened look to objects, soft shadows, motion blur, blurred reflections and
so on, has contributed to the look of a realistic image.  Lens flare, either as
Cyrus describes it, or as Lightwave generates it, is another feature to help
blur the distinction between real and computer generated images and animations.

>    Perhapse our texture guru Steve Worley might be able to improve
>upon Impulses work?...

If Impulse can't or won't implement it, let's hope they at least give Apex the
texture spec so Glenn and Steve can work on a better version ;)

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>



##

Subject: Archive #44
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 02:34:39 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Well, I've had huge problems getting onto wuarchive to put the archive
#44 on since I always seem to be the person 1 above the limit! Anyway, I
maaged to get on once, and started uploading the file, but my dmn phone
line from home to the Uni computer got funny and I lost carrier!
So, what has happened is that an incomplete archive #44 is on wuarchive
right now. Don't download it since you won't get much out of it. :-)

I am trying to get the whole thing on, just give me time...

BTW, the corrupt archive is around 50K long. The real thing will be about
140K long.

Does anyone know who do I send mail to to remove the corrupt archive ?

Nik.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

IML archives live on! Compiled for you right here in Sydney, Australia

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 10:28:20 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Tom Smith)

>        I ahve spoken to a couple of guys at Impulse face to face, and
>they think that the idea if lense flare is rediculus.  They see what
>LightWave can do as just being flashy.  I agree that rings and lense
>reflections can be easily abused and are not what the eye sees when
>looking at a light.  But you DO see a haze with many faint, tiny streaks
>eminating from the center of the light source.  They think that even this
>is unnecessary.
>
>        Perhapse our texture guru Steve Worley might be able to improve
>upon Impulses work?...
>
>        Cyrus J. Kalbrener

Now now, don't you know that Impulse knows what we want, whether we know it
or not.

                                                  Tom Smith


##

Subject: Use Genlock in Brush requester ?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 16:57:59 +0100
From: <[e-mail]>

Hi Imagineers (I like that name) !

Recently I read somewhere that you can use a brush map, specify "Use genlock"
in its brush requester (where you choose between filter, colo, altitude and
reflection) and the black (R0G0B0) parts of this image will be transparent. Is
it right ? Can you do it? I was used to use a second brush, black and white,
with the white part corresponding to what I want to be transparent, and applied
it as a filter brush map. This works, but to specify color 0 to be transparent
in the color brush map would be much easier. Can you do that, and then, how ?
Anybody ?

Robin

(Sorry to not speak about 2.9 or lense flare :-)...first one is not reliable
enough and the second one is unuseful IMHO.

--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]






##

Subject: GRRRRR LET'S GET HIM
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 11:19:19 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dave Wickard)

Howdy HI Imagineers!   :-)


Who's the idiot who isn't keeping things orderly in the
Imagine Landfill on wuarchive?!

huh?   me?


Oh!  <harumph>  Yes....of course. ME!


Well, I will be going thru the Imagine Landfill this weekend.
All bad files will be deleted, all good files will be moved
to their rightful spots.

Sorry about letting it get out of hand. It will never happen
again.

Honest.

I swear.


Dave Wickard  [phone]     "Darth Vader CAN'T be Luke Skywalker's
[e-mail]          father. They don't even have the
[e-mail]         same last name!"
[e-mail]             -Woody on CHEERS
[e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 11:04:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

> Lens flare, either as Cyrus describes it, or as Lightwave generates it,
> is another feature to help blur the distinction between real and
> computer generated images and animations.

Agreed.  Lens reflections in particular _are_ usually supposed to be
avoided, yet I think we do need some way to make lights look more
realistic  - haze and glowing halos such as LW can do helps a lot.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject:  Re: Lense Flare
Date:  Thu, 9 Dec 1993 13:39:25 -0500
From: "rob (r.d.) hounsell" <[e-mail]>

David,

> I want to be able to create photorealistic images, meaning either images as
> seen through the lens of a camera, or images as seen by a human bean, sorry,
> human being :)  The advent of textures that add a "real-world" worn or
> roughened look to objects, soft shadows, motion blur, blurred reflections and
> so on, has contributed to the look of a realistic image.  Lens flare, either as
> Cyrus describes it, or as Lightwave generates it, is another feature to help
> blur the distinction between real and computer generated images and animations.
>

  For the sake of arguement, why are we trying to recreate a digital camera? At
first, I too thought it was a neato effect. But then I thought, "other than the
fun of modelling a real world effect, why are we bothering?" What I mean is, in
our animations it is possible to mimic the view as a camera would see it, but
if we can do it as a human bean (e.g.  no lens flare) would see a scene if he
or she were actually there, isn't that better?

  I suppose it is in deference to existing cultural sterotypes and beliefs. For
instance, a telephone our company once produced actually has a lead weight in it
because the average consumer equates heaviness with quality, even though that
is no longer a valid paradigm.

Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| System Performance:                    PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: Imagine - Real3D Upgrade info.
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 17:54:09 GMT
From: John Shiali <[e-mail]>

No flames please - I'm just posting for a friend contracted to Activa
who does not have net access, primarily for those interested in changing
software. Any abuse *WILL* be bounced back to your service provider or
System Administrator.

For more info, please contact Andy at the numbers at the bottom,
rather than email to me.




 * This message forwarded from area 'IMAGINE' (Imagine)
 * Original message dated 24 Nov 93, from Andy Jones

REALISE YOUR DREAMS - JUST IMAGINE AND YOU'RE HALFWAY THERE.

Imagine 2.0 users, you can now upgrade to Real 3D v2.40.


Summary of new features and improvements:
----------------------------------------

- Highly increased rendering speed:
    - Render time material handling speed doubled
    - B-spline shading speed 2-3 times higher
    - Maximally 4 times higher shading speed for example
      in the environment mode

- Built-in 3D font loader tool

- New material features
    - Fractal noise mapping handler
    - Fractal noise scope handler
    - Fractal noise bump handler
    - Fractal noise color handler
    - Marble color handler
    - Granite color handler

- New tool window features:
    - Wider collection of built-in icons available
    - New dialog-based icon selection window
    - No gadgets option available

- Built-in conical spotlights
- Built-in cylindrical spotlights
- New light source attributes:
    - Distance intensity fading control
    - Spot-axis intensity fading control
    - Spot angle/radius control
    - Brightness control

- Freeform extrusion tool:
    - Automatic beveling with four bevel profile options
    - Adjustable Beveling radius and extrusion depth
    - Both bevelling inwards and outwards supported
    - Fully automatic: generates holes, adjusts beveling radius etc.
      correctly
    - Uses B-splines for the best quality

- Q-splines, a new shading option for meshes, which is usually faster
  than normal Cubic B-spline shading, but still without edges in
  the profile.

- Advanced tool for creating complex skeletonal particle systems
- Volume filling particle tool

- New improved skeletons:
    - A new special skeleton primitive for better control and
      visual appearance
    - Joint friction enables natural motions
    - Editing of any skeleton point using inverse kinematics is now
      possible. For example, it is possible to animate a skeleton
      using several inverse kinematics methods, each affecting the
      desired skeleton point.

- New object attributes:
    - 'No shadows' eliminates shadows from the surface of an object,
      increasing rendering speed
    - 'Bump shadows' generates distorted shadow edges on bump mapped
      surfaces

- Freeform curves can be used as trim curves to cut objects

- Circular bending, which e.g. can be used to bend a straight tube
  into a ring.

- Twist modification which twists objects around a given axis

- Shrink wrapping functions:
   - Parallel shrink wrap
   - Cylindrical shrink wrap
   - Spherical shrink wrap
   - 'Natural' shrink wrap to surface normal direction
   - These functions can be used to generate a mesh surface from
     geometric primitives, or to simulating Boolean operations with
     freeforms.

- A function for changing the start point of closed freeform objects

- A function for automatically generating triple end points/curves
  for freeform objects

- New and improved functions for View window's internal camera
  controlling. In the below, most important ones are listed:

- A new, intuitive mouse-based camera MOTION controlling mode for
  view Windows, enabling easy, interactive scene viewing

- A new, intuitive mouse-based camera POSITION controlling mode for
  view Windows, enabling accurate interactive camera positioning

- A new asynchronous window type for controlling Views' camera
  attributes and camera object interaction:
    - Scale control and lens angle control by slides and numerically
    - Aimpoint and viewpoint coordinate control & reset
    - Heading/Pitching/Bankink angle control by sliders and numerical
      gadgets
    - Distance control
    - Depth of field control

- A new camera object creation function, introducing a view cone
  based camera definition.

- A new camera wireframe shape, showing the camera orientation
  and the lens angle.

- New accurate input plane control system separately from View
  camera direction control, enabling accurate perspective editing:
    - Editing in absolute space coordinate dirctions
    - Editing in object space coordinate directions
    - Horizontal/vertical locking
    - Hot-point position control also in depth direction while editing

- A new, handy asynchronous control window for handling View windows.
  It includes the most frequently needed grid control, scale control,
  drawing setting control, camera control and input plane control
  functions as quickly accessible icons.

- Numerical, accurate window size control

- Easy-to-use interfaces for creating key frame animations and
  for editing them:
    - Possiblity to adjust key frame positions in the animation
      using sliders.
    - Key visibility control
    - Linear/B-spline interpolation

- New fractal noise based motion/spin method for generating irregular
  motions

- A time line interface for animation editing. It allows easy editing
  of animation event timing.

  especially handy in combination with the new Freeform extrude tool.

Alltogether, about 100 new features and improvements, of which most
are intended to make the user interface easier and the features of the
software more accessible.

The upgrade price from Imagine 2.0 is 230 pounds sterling.

For more information and an order form contact Andric at Activa
International
on [phone] voice,
   [phone] fax,
   or netmail me at 2:254/516.1@fidonet.

Andy





##

Subject: re:lens flares
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 13:51:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kodama)

Cyrus writes:
>        I ahve spoken to a couple of guys at Impulse face to face, and
>they think that the idea if lense flare is rediculus.  They see what
>LightWave can do as just being flashy.  I agree that rings and lense
>reflections can be easily abused and are not what the eye sees when
>looking at a light.  But you DO see a haze with many faint, tiny streaks
>eminating from the center of the light source.  They think that even this
>is unnecessary.

well, it *IS* their software :-) :-)
seriously though, Lightwave's lens flare can be controlled in a variety of ways,
from the ubiquitous edge glowing, anamorphic squeezing, red ringed, hexagons
flying toward the camera effect, to a subtle white starburst or haze-
and is a feature WELL worth including, IMHO- all this talk about whether
"we" should be imitating a bad cameraman is ridiculous, if you don't want
lens flare, you don't need to use it-but for the rest of us... :-)

kevin


##

Subject: Re[2]: Lense Flare
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 93 14:18:33 PDT
From: [e-mail]

>...What I mean is, in our animations it is possible to mimic the view as a
>camera would see it, but if we can do it as a human bean (e.g.  no lens flare)
>would see a scene if he or she were actually there, isn't that better?


     This argument against lens flare makes a lot of intuitive sense.
     However, like a camera, the human eye also has the lens flare
     effect. It is not a camera-only artifact. Human vision also
     exhibits motion blur.


     Marshall


##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 14:40:51 PST
From: Byrt Martinez <[e-mail]>

content-type:text/plain;charset=us-ascii
mime-version:1.0


> I want to be able to create photorealistic images, meaning either images as
> seen through the lens of a camera, or images as seen by a human bean, sorry,
> human being :)  The advent of textures that add a "real-world" worn or
> roughened look to objects, soft shadows, motion blur, blurred reflections and
> so on, has contributed to the look of a realistic image.  Lens flare, either as
> Cyrus describes it, or as Lightwave generates it, is another feature to help
> blur the distinction between real and computer generated images and animations.

Oh please. How many times in your life have you seen lens flare from your own
human eyes? Lens flare on film means the cinematography was bad. Anybody doing
photography tries to avoid this at all costs. Look at it this way, do you think
Impulse should come out with a texture to simulate HAM fringing?

Just my $.02.

I feel much better now.

--
@******************************************************************************@
*                                      "When you point your finger 'cause your *
*  Byrt Martinez                        plan fell through, you've got 3 more   *
*  - Non-Christian  8^P                 fingers pointing back at you."         *
*    (Fred 12:45)                       - Dire Straits                         *
*                                             *
*  [e-mail], [e-mail]                           *
@******************************************************************************@



##

Subject: Lens Flare
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 23:00 GMT0
From: Craig Donaldson <[e-mail]>

Hi,
        This is my first mailing here, so Hi to all fellow imagineers
:)
        Re. Lensflare, although I agree that Lens Flare is an
artifact of Optical equipment, and therefore for realism we should be
avoiding it, it was high on my wish list for the new imagine release.
 Too Often I have tried to emulate an intense light source and find
that my efforts are sadly lacking, the light lacks visual impact.
However I see an image rendered in LW and i think WOW, I love the
diffuse light glow and it would be nice to have those optical
artifacts for the occasional use.
        I hereby second the motion for an Improved Lens Flare :).

Craig



##

Subject: RE: GRRRRR LET'S GET HIM
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 93 15:25:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

He lives!  There actually is a living, breathing person in charge of
amiga-boing/incoming/imagine?!!?   Glad to see you returning to the land of
the living! (Of course, this may be open to debate!)
 ----------
From: imagine-relay
To: imagine
Subject: GRRRRR LET'S GET HIM
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1993 11:19AM

Howdy HI Imagineers!   :-)

Who's the idiot who isn't keeping things orderly in the
Imagine Landfill on wuarchive?!

huh?   me?

Oh!  <harumph>  Yes....of course. ME!

Well, I will be going thru the Imagine Landfill this weekend.
All bad files will be deleted, all good files will be moved
to their rightful spots.

Sorry about letting it get out of hand. It will never happen
again.

Honest.

I swear.


Dave Wickard  [phone]     "Darth Vader CAN'T be Luke Skywalker's
[e-mail]          father. They don't even have the
[e-mail]         same last name!"
[e-mail]             -Woody on CHEERS
[e-mail]



##

Subject: RE: Imagine - Real3D Upgrade info.
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 93 17:21:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

And don't forget:

   DONGLE PROTECTION!!!!  With no pass-through!!! So you will have to
disconnect your joystick everytime you want to use Real-3D!

   Limited object import capability!!!  There are hundreds of PD Imagine
objects.  How many PD Real 3D objects have you seen lately?

   And what about algorithmic textures?  Seen any mention of those?  Maybe
you just don't need them?

   And so cheap!!!  230 pounds sterling, that's about $470 US!!!  Cheap at
twice the price!!!

   And you thought Forms Editor was tough!   Wait until you see the modeler
in Real3D!



##

Subject: RE: GRRRRR LET'S GET HIM
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 93 21:28:29 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>He lives!  There actually is a living, breathing person in charge of
>amiga-boing/incoming/imagine?!!?   Glad to see you returning to the land of
>the living! (Of course, this may be open to debate!)
>

Careful!  This dude also can kick people off the list!  Better watch what
you say about him!   :)

Big brother is watching.


--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail] - CWRU, Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
| "It's not how many hours you work, but how much work you put in an hour" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: RE: Lense Flare
Date: 10 Dec 1993 12:36:46 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

In message <"20762 Thu Dec  9 13:44:13 1993"@bnr.ca>, "rob (r.d.) hounsell"
wrote:

>  For the sake of arguement, why are we trying to recreate a digital camera?
At
>first, I too thought it was a neato effect. But then I thought, "other than
the
>fun of modelling a real world effect, why are we bothering?" What I mean is,
in
>our animations it is possible to mimic the view as a camera would see it, but
>if we can do it as a human bean (e.g.  no lens flare) would see a scene if he
>or she were actually there, isn't that better?

Yes, I agree...except for maybe when you're actually looking through a
computer-generated lens :)

One 'real world effect' that I find really useful is motion blur, which helps
prevent the 'strobing' you usually get with computer-generated (and stop-motion
for that matter) animations.  I wonder if one could construe lens flare as
useful?  Hmm...probably not.  I'd still like to have it, though :)

Walking home in the rain last night (sunny England ;) I looked up at a street
lamp, and observed the tiny radial light lines that Cyrus described in an
earlier post.  I agree with Jeff Walkup, that we "need some way to make lights
look more realistic  - haze and glowing halos such as LW can do helps a lot".
If the human eye can perceive this effect, maybe we should twist Impulse's arm
to get them to implement it.

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>


##

Subject: RE: Lense Flare
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 09:57:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 9 Dec 1993, Jeff Walkup wrote:

> Agreed.  Lens reflections in particular _are_ usually supposed to be
> avoided, yet I think we do need some way to make lights look more
> realistic  - haze and glowing halos such as LW can do helps a lot.
>
> --
> Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer

    Perhapse lense "glare"?....

        Cyrus J. Kalbrener

            Digital_Cel






##

Subject: Starfield
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 10:14:27
From: [e-mail]

Ok fellow Imagineers, we all know that Imagine's starfield is very cheesy at
best.  Here's a great solution for Imagine 2.9 users.

Create a sphere that is as large as your world, minimum size should be
at least 1000 units along each axis.

Set the sphere's filter values to 255 for each R,G,B component.

Apply the CONFETTI texture and make these adjustments to the default values:
  SIZE - .25
  V1   - .53
  V2   - .55
  COLOR 1 - R,G,B values to 255 each
  COLOR 2 - R,G,B values to 100 each

Make sure the camera is somewhere in the center, and render.  Voila!  a great
Starfield!  As Impressive as FractInt's starfield, BUT this one is in 3D and
takes up very little valuable RAM.
  Refer to the docs on the confetti texture to make any adjustments that you
like.
  Also, try making a short anim with just the sphere, and just change the
Camera's perspective, you can get a nice space warp effect.

As you all guessed I've been playing with all the textures and have created
some stunning effects.  I should be uploading something real soon now thats
chock full of texture use. I'll try to get somone to get it up here, since I
don't have that capability.

Enjoy the Starfield!

GreG



##

Subject: Those understanding guys at Impulse
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 09:58:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 9 Dec 1993, Tom Smith wrote:

> >looking at a light.  But you DO see a haze with many faint, tiny streaks
> >eminating from the center of the light source.  They think that even this
> >is unnecessary.
> >
> >        Perhapse our texture guru Steve Worley might be able to improve
> >upon Impulses work?...
> >
> >        Cyrus J. Kalbrener
>
> Now now, don't you know that Impulse knows what we want, whether we know it
> or not.
>
>                                                   Tom Smith

    Not only do they know what we want, they know just what we do and
do not need...

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel Graphics






##

Subject: RE: Imagine - Real3D Upgrade info.
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 10:30:00 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
>
> And don't forget:
>
>    DONGLE PROTECTION!!!!  With no pass-through!!! So you will have to
> disconnect your joystick everytime you want to use Real-3D!
>
Yeah, this sucks.

>    Limited object import capability!!!  There are hundreds of PD Imagine
> objects.  How many PD Real 3D objects have you seen lately?

Yeah this sucks too.  I would hope someone (Pixel 3d or Interchange) is working
on this.
>
>    And what about algorithmic textures?  Seen any mention of those?  Maybe
> you just don't need them?
>
I think Glenn and Steve are working on this one.

>    And so cheap!!!  230 pounds sterling, that's about $470 US!!!  Cheap at
> twice the price!!!

Whoa, what kinda exchange rate are you getting?  Are pounds sterling the same
as pounds(ignorant American here:)?  Pounds was about .66 of US, or 1.52 the
other way, which makes 230 pounds = $349 US.  I could have sworn that mail order
was right around that price anyway.
>
>    And you thought Forms Editor was tough!   Wait until you see the modeler
> in Real3D!
>
>
I'm not sure if this is a *GREAT* offer, but I thought it was a nice Christmas
spirited one.  ie don't look a gift horse in the mouth.  The guy wasn't flaming
Imagine, or saying Real is better than Imagine.  He was just offering it
at a discounted rate.


Tom Setzer - self appointed critic
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Err, umm
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 10:47:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

    Without thinking, I just sent off a compilation of the discussion
on lens flare that has taken place over the past 24hours here on the list.
 I didn't stop to ask.  I'm sorry.  I did remove everyones name, including
my own, so no ones registration should myteriously disappear.  I felt that
Impulse needed to be aware that there are some strong feelings that users
have about their company and Imagine itself.

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Flames accepted, but not welcomed.




##

Subject: Archive #44
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 03:49:13 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Ok, guys I've just uploaded the proper version of the IML archive #44
onto the wuarchive.

The archive is in /pub/amiga-boing/incoming/imagine

The name of the file is arc_44.lha and the size is 143K.

There is also a file there called arc-44.lha. Do not download it since it
is the corrupt one! It is around 50K in size.

Nik Vukovljak

(Your friendly archivist)



##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 10:57:43 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
>     I ahve spoken to a couple of guys at Impulse face to face, and
> they think that the idea if lense flare is rediculus.  They see what
> LightWave can do as just being flashy.  I agree that rings and lense
> reflections can be easily abused and are not what the eye sees when
> looking at a light.  But you DO see a haze with many faint, tiny streaks
> eminating from the center of the light source.  They think that even this
> is unnecessary.
>
Perhapes it is flashy, but...Last night when watching some more space walks
on CSPAN(great stuff, BTW), a lens flair(or whatever) came across the camera.
There were well over 100 hexagons(polygons, I think they were hexagons) of all
sizes and colors, scattered across the screen in a line defined by the angle
of the sun(or reflective surface) which was off screen(much to my surprise).

Now wouldn't it be nice to have lens flair, if you were modeling a scene as
shot from a camera on the Endeavor.  Flashy, yes.  But it would add to the
realism.  BTW, isn't realism one of the goals.  So what if it is "bad" to have
lens flair in a shot, it happens.  Thats real.

Sounds to me that Impulse is just making excuses.  And if its ridiculous,
then why did they put one in?  I'd be satified with, "we're working on it"
or even "its not one of our priorities right now."

BTW, I like flashy:)

Also, Dave@flipping, why the double email in the address?
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[e-mail], is that correct?

Tom Setzer - self appointed critic
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: Re: Lense Flare
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 11:51:28 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Tom Smith)

I think the big appeal of lens flare is that it makes bright lights really
seem bright. The monitor can only get so bright, so it's not possible to
show bright objects (i.e. the Sun) as we would actually see it, so lens
lares give you the next best thing by showing how real-world cameras would
see it.

Am I on the right track here?

                                                   Tom Smith


##

Subject: RE: Lense Flare
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 11:12:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

    Has anybody looked into doing all this stuff, motion-blur, lens flare,
haze, etc. with something like ImageMaster?  I know ImageMaster does a
really good job with motion blur.  ADPro does a good job with twirl,
collapse and some other effects.  I think it is a little over-demanding to
try to achieve all these effects strictly within a 3D modeling/rendering
program.  It seems like it wouldn't be too hard to create a lens flare
transparency map and overlay it on the frames where you want it, using one
of the picture processing programs out there.  Haven't done this myself yet
but might give it a try, just to see how feasible it is.
 ----------
From: imagine-relay
To: rob (r.d.) hounsell
Cc: IML
Subject: RE: Lense Flare
Date: Friday, December 10, 1993 12:36PM

In message <"20762 Thu Dec  9 13:44:13 1993"@bnr.ca>, "rob (r.d.) hounsell"
wrote:

>  For the sake of arguement, why are we trying to recreate a digital
camera?
At
>first, I too thought it was a neato effect. But then I thought, "other than
the
>fun of modelling a real world effect, why are we bothering?" What I mean
is,
in
>our animations it is possible to mimic the view as a camera would see it,
but
>if we can do it as a human bean (e.g.  no lens flare) would see a scene if
he
>or she were actually there, isn't that better?

Yes, I agree...except for maybe when you're actually looking through a
computer-generated lens :)

One 'real world effect' that I find really useful is motion blur, which
helps
prevent the 'strobing' you usually get with computer-generated (and
stop-motion
for that matter) animations.  I wonder if one could construe lens flare as
useful?  Hmm...probably not.  I'd still like to have it, though :)

Walking home in the rain last night (sunny England ;) I looked up at a
street
lamp, and observed the tiny radial light lines that Cyrus described in an
earlier post.  I agree with Jeff Walkup, that we "need some way to make
lights
look more realistic  - haze and glowing halos such as LW can do helps a
lot".
If the human eye can perceive this effect, maybe we should twist Impulse's
arm
to get them to implement it.

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>


##

Subject: Re: Starfield
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 14:49:41 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>Ok fellow Imagineers, we all know that Imagine's starfield is very cheesy at
>best.  Here's a great solution for Imagine 2.9 users.
>
>Apply the CONFETTI texture and make these adjustments to the default values:
>


    Thanks for uploading this!  Finally a good starfield in 3D!!!
I had tried tons o things from drawing them to making huge bitmaps with
dots, but that took too much ram plus the dots were too big etc..

    This actually gives a good looking starfield with almost no RAM
consumption.  Plus, you can easily set the colors and frequency.

    As a suggestion,
        1] Make the sphere bright to make sure the stars show up
        2] Make a copy of the sphere and scale it slightly smaller
            or bigger and rotate it so it's at a diff angle.
            Then, you'll get a cool rotate effect when you
            move the camera.


--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail] - CWRU, Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
| "It's not how many hours you work, but how much work you put in an hour" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: NTSC limits
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 14:14:59 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

    I just finished hooking up my Amiga, via the DPS PAR, to the Video
    Services scopes here at Intergraph.  The engineer was very impressed
    with the quality of the output.  I was playing an animation I
    created using Imagine.  He said that some of my color levels were a
    bit "hot".  Not too bad but they might give them a problem.  I assured
    him I can tweek the colors using the NTSC operator in ADPro.  So
    that's not a problem.  He was very happy with the quality.

    My question:

    Is there a way to get Imagine to only use NTSC safe colors while
    it's rendering the frames?  Or do I need to run the frames through
    ADPro after Imagine is finished?

    Dale



##

Subject: Flare again...
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 15:11:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

    I think the basic point about lens flare is that some of us do
indeed have uses for it, while others do not.  One of Impulses newest
excuses is that if it increses rendering time too much, then they won't
put it in.  If we want the effect, then we would most likely be willing to
wait.  If we don't want to wait for 18 lights with flare and lense
reflections to render, then we can TURN THE DAMN OPTION OFF.  Jeez.  We are
willing
to pay for a product that meets our needs.  Right now, LightWave is
meeting some of mine, more than Imagine 2.9.


    End spouting off

        Cyrus J. Kalbrener

            Digital_Cel




##

Subject: Imagine<-->LightWave
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 00:41:28 MET
From: [e-mail] (Christian Gottschling)

Hello out there around the world,

Do   you  know  something  about  an  object-converter  LightWave
(Toaster) to Imagine?

 MfG, Christian

MfG, Christian

|         _  Z-NETZ      [e-mail]            |
|      _ //  FiDOclassic 2:241/5203.10                |PublicKey via
|      \X/   UUCP        [e-mail]      |SendPubKey

... Hast Du`n Hemd unter? (Dietmar D. zu einer Mitschuelerin)


##

Subject: Lens Flare again
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 16:07:06 MST
From: [e-mail] (Ben Scott)

>   Flashy, yes.  But it would add to the
> realism.  BTW, isn't realism one of the goals.

I've said this to others in private, but I guess I should post it here again:
IMO, realism is NOT one of the goals.  Lens flare makes sense because with
a computer animation you're not simulating reality; you're simulating a camera.
It's a subtle point, but consider - a video or film camera can reproduce things
that you can theoretically go and view with your naked eyes.  In other words,
you can see it on a TV screen, or in real life.  A computer animation is never
seen with the naked eye - it's always on a screen, or on paper, or whatever.
You're not trying to simulate naked-eye reality, in other words - not really.
So lens flare, flashy and overused as it may be, DOES make sense in its way.

.                              <<<<Infinite K>>>>

--
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Ben Scott, video animation dilettante and consultant at The Raster Image. |
| [e-mail], Denver Colorado  /\---------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------'  \  Amiga 4000 - simply the best. |
| "My country, right or wrong, is that it?" `-------------------------------|
| "There are worse philosophies." "Most of them begin with that." -Starcops |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'


##

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 00:33:00 BST
From: [e-mail]


Question: Is there a way to have some colors of a texture be transparent so
 that I could see through the faces of the object?

I would like to simulate some trees the same way Pacific Data did in
 "Locomotion" animation where you just have some 2d planes and apply a green
 texture that has some random "holes/blotches" in it.  Can I do this with any
 of the textures included in V2.9?  Or should I be using an brushmap (with
 some special color for the holes)?  I fooled around with some of the texures
 of 2.9 where they have "filter/transparent" colors , but still can't seem to
 get the "see thru" effect.

Can this be done?

Thanks in advance.
 Dave.


##

Subject: Amazing Computing Tutorial Lens Flare
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 20:08:31 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Cedric Georges Chang)

With all this discussion about lens flare, some of you might be intesested in
knowing that the Jan 94 issue of Amazing Computing has an article on how to
create lens flares with Opalvision/ARexx or DCTV.

Cedric

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Chang                Mechanical Engineer               // Commodore
[e-mail]       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute      \X/  Amiga 3000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


##

Subject: Re: Lens Flare
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 18:44:23 PST
From: [e-mail]

>Oh please. How many times in your life have you seen lens flare from your o
>human eyes? Lens flare on film means the cinematography was bad. Anybody doing
>photography tries to avoid this at all costs. Look at it this way, do you think
>Impulse should come out with a texture to simulate HAM fringing?
>
>I feel much better now.

   Nice that you feel better, Byrt. Lens flare is a consequence of an
imperfect optical system. The human eyes are an imperfect optical system.
You won't see lens flare as manifested by multiple hexagons in a row, but
you can indeed see lens flare from your eyes. If you have ever seen rings
around headlights or streetlights at night you have seen it. Mostly you
avoid seeing other forms of lens flare because you will avoid looking
directly at bright lights, which is where the flare occurs.


     <ELF> - Eric J Fleischer,MD - Dr Gandalf
     Ophthalmologist and Amiga Animator
     [e-mail]


##

Subject: Filters and Imagine 2.9
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 22:07:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Sat, 11 Dec 1993 [e-mail] wrote:

>
> Question: Is there a way to have some colors of a texture be transparent so
>  that I could see through the faces of the object?
>
> I would like to simulate some trees the same way Pacific Data did in
>  "Locomotion" animation where you just have some 2d planes and apply a green
>  texture that has some random "holes/blotches" in it.  Can I do this with any
>  of the textures included in V2.9?  Or should I be using an brushmap (with
>  some special color for the holes)?  I fooled around with some of the texures
>  of 2.9 where they have "filter/transparent" colors , but still can't seem to
>  get the "see thru" effect.

    There is a bug in 2.9 that inhibits using filter and colormaps at
the same time on the same surface.  I'm not sure of the details, but
someone else posted a coment on this earlier.  Fall back to 2.0 and try it
there.






##

Subject: Re: Starfield
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 0:38:18 CST
From: [e-mail]

Michael B. Comet says:
>
>     As a suggestion,
>         1] Make the sphere bright to make sure the stars show up
>         2] Make a copy of the sphere and scale it slightly smaller
>             or bigger and rotate it so it's at a diff angle.
>             Then, you'll get a cool rotate effect when you
>             move the camera.

Now, suggestion [2] is _really_ fake, even though it may look "right" (ie.
Star Trek does it a lot, I think).  This is called "stellar parallax", and
it will never happen in real life, simply because all the stars are so far
away that you basically can't move fast and far enough to make their
relative alignments change in this kind of obvious way.  If I remember my
history of science correctly, this was actually part of an early "proof"
for why the earth could't possibly be moving -- if it was, surely we would
see this parallax effect in the sky all the time.  The only other
alternative was the earth was moving, but the stars were insanely far
away.  (Today we know that the earth moves and the stars _are_ insanely
far away :)  So this effect bugs me, but I do see the point in doing
whatever looks most "real" to the general audience.

--
Evan Kirchhoff, [e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: Lens Flare
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 0:56:24 CST
From: [e-mail]

Someone I previously deleted says:
>
> >Oh please. How many times in your life have you seen lens flare from your o
> >human eyes? Lens flare on film means the cinematography was bad. Anybody doing
> >photography tries to avoid this at all costs.

Lens flare on film means the cinematography was bad _only_ if you're
watching a movie or tv program.  If you're watching "real life" footage on
the news, or any kind of "spontaneous" shot, lens flare, camera-wobble,
etc. are perfectly normal and expected.  For example, what was your first
reaction to the Rodney King video?

 1. "Oh, what bad cinematography.  The camera keeps moving in and out of
focus and wobbling all over the place.  The lighting is terrible."

 2. "Yikes!  They're really pounding that guy!  Somebody actually got this
on film?"

Computer animation is generally too "perfect", so any trick that can
reduce this is possibly useful.  Not only do we need lens flare, I think
we need some kind of automated macro to simulate that camera-vibration you
get when filming airplanes from other airplanes (for more realistic
fly-throughs), an effect that simulates rain beading on the camera lens
and dribbling off, a "dirt" texture to apply to everything in sight, and
so on.

--
Evan Kirchhoff, [e-mail]



##

Subject: re:2D trees
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 22:52:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kodama)

to create realistic looking 2d trees, you need:

a realistic image map of a tree (see below)
a b/w or alpha channel image of above tree
a rectangular plane

map the b/w or alpha channel image as a transparency map
map the realistic image map using the same coordinates

The most realistic trees i have used come from a company called
Imagetects. They market a CD with over a thousand images, in
a variety of formats, including Amiga IFF.
They also maintain a file library on the American Society of
Landscape Architects (ASLA) BBS, so you can download individual
files.

The d/l procedure is somewhat tedious, you need to call Imagetects,
and fax them a registration form, then call the BBS, get a list
of files you want, then call or fax Imagetects again with your order,
and they will supply you with passwords. The files are password protected
twice, once to download, and once to unzip (unzip has an encrypt
option :-( )
The files on the BBS are TGA format, so you also need to convert them.

It sounds (and is) tedious, especially if you d/l a lot of files
(like me) so why do it ?
The tree images are realistic-and are listed by botanical name,
i.e. Juniperus chinensis, a large shrub, etc. The trees also
have those all important "holes" in them, so you can see "through"
them if you map them properly.

Well worth the hassle IMHO

Imagetects
1-408-252-5487, ask for Verdonna or Alan Reed, very nice folks

i'm not an employee etc....just a satisfied user.
kevin


##

Subject: more flare
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 02:33:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Lopez <[e-mail]>

> imperfect optical system. The human eyes are an imperfect optical system.
>      <ELF> - Eric J Fleischer,MD - Dr Gandalf
>
  >>>>Ophthalmologist and Amiga Animator<<<<
>      [e-mail]

Isn't it amazing how many overlapping fields you find on the net?  I dont
think it matters what issue you bring up, somewhere out there is a person
who is a qualified expert in that very thing!

Anyway, to the point.  I think lens flare has it's place, as does ANY
effect that we can create in real life.  We are talking about Art here
folks, and art is whatever it means to each individual.  I never use the
boing FX in 2.0.  That doesn't mean someone else won't.  Put it in! ItDelete
doesn't hurt me to NOT use it.  Obviously, there are people interested ine
it, or they wouldn't have started the discussion of how poor an emulation
it was in the first place.  Besides, who are we to say whether flare is
bad camerawork or not.  I have seen several times when it was used in a
desert scene delibarately to show intense heat.  Or in an interrogation
scene to emphasize the brightness of the light as it was swung into the
eyes of the poor sod being questioned.  Whether or not you should include
it is a matter of personal preference.  What are you trying to convey?
It's your art!  I suppose those who say that you shouldnt use it because
it's something you are supposed to avoid, might also tell Picasso that he
shouldn't put both of those eyes on the same side of her nose.

My Art, My Opinions, My Life.  (My Imagine)

     /----------------------------------------------\
    /    ///  Steve Lopez -> [e-mail]    \
   /    ///    Student at -> Art Institute of Seattle \
  / \\\///        Program -> Audio & Video Production  \
  \  \XX/ `040'  Computer -> Amiga 2000 GVP040'33 DCTV /
   \                       : DSS8+ 9megs Flicker fxr  /
    \ "I can do that..."   : Midi DJ500c Supra 14.4k /
     \----------------------------------------------/





##

Subject: Imagine 2.9 - findings of interest
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 00:53:00 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Well, today while using Imagine 2.9 I found a couple of intersting things.

Imagine will sometimes hang during Quickrender for no apparent reason. I
have not seen this happen with 2.0 and it hasn't happened on my A4000,
but today I was at a friend's place and Imagine crashed a couple of times
on his A3000. The only thing I could think of that could cause a problem
would be his Retina... Hmm, still Imagine looks dan good in 1280*1024 on
a 20 " screen.

I've found out an interesting 'feature' with the Font requester. I
originally put my PS 1 fonts on a drive different to that on which
Imagine is. I properly set the default path for the fonts and yet, when I
would try and load them, nothing would come up until I did a Read and
even then nothing would come up on the requester even though I was in the
right directory. So, I would have to go through choosing the drive, drawer,etc
Well, I've found out that if you put your Fonts drawer into the Imagine
drawer, Imagine finds the fonts straight away! Unfortunately I can't keep
my fonts there, so this needs to be fixed!!! :-) Well, I think that this
is a bug anyway...

Anyway, that is all for now.

Nik.
[e-mail]



##

Subject: DAVE W. -HELP! /3.0 states query
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 13:40:57 EST
From: [e-mail] (Steve J. Lombardi)

Sorry to all about sending this administrative type post to the list,
but my usual system has died, and with it has passed all of the IML admin.
addresses. This is the only one I can remember!!

Dave- my former address was   [e-mail]
      currently find me at    [e-mail]

I look forward to rejoining the list!!

While I'm here, a few Imagine things. Has Impulse rejoined the IML??
If so I'd like to know if when 3.0 ships, individual objects of a group
will be accessible in the stage/action editors. The more I
use states, the more I realize that this is necessary.  Also, while
I was away has there been any talk about the release of 3.0. I know
that the 2.9 docs said December sometime, but I have my
personal doubts based on Impulses past string of promised release dates.
3.0 would be nice but the reason I ask is that I would
really like the MANUAL.

steve lombardi
[e-mail]

P.S. Has the C=/HP hype made it here yet? I was pleasantly surprised
to return to Usenet to find that C= mngmnt. may have done something right
for a change!


##

Subject: Re: NTSC limits
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 10:51:14 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Dale R Rogers writes:
>
>     Is there a way to get Imagine to only use NTSC safe colors while
>     it's rendering the frames?  Or do I need to run the frames through
>     ADPro after Imagine is finished?

Yes and no.  You can assign colors in Attributes that are less
saturated.  But depending on your lighting, some may come out brighter
than that anyway.  In general, try avoiding pushing any color value
(R,G, or B) above 220.  The exception is white - usually 255,255,255 is
safe.

The other option is turning on the PAR's filter when converting.  I
don't know exactly what that filter does, except that it noticibly blurs
sharp contrasting details.  It might also bring your color saturation
back down to safe levels.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: Imagine 2.9 - findings of interest
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 13:38:56 CST
From: [e-mail]

Nikola Vukovljak says:
>
> Well, today while using Imagine 2.9 I found a couple of intersting things.
>
> Imagine will sometimes hang during Quickrender for no apparent reason. I
> have not seen this happen with 2.0 and it hasn't happened on my A4000,
> but today I was at a friend's place and Imagine crashed a couple of times
> on his A3000. The only thing I could think of that could cause a problem
> would be his Retina...

Imagine 2.9 crashed on the first Quickrender I did, but I blamed my memory
configuraion (which seems to work perfectly well for almost everything
else, including IM2.0) -- 16-bit Zorro II fast RAM on an A4000/030 with
burst turned on :)

I found a more interesting problem a couple of days ago.  I was trying to
print from within ProWrite, and rather than printing normally, my printer
started printing bursts of gibberish and beeping randomly and continuously
(it sounded like it was actually in pain).  No error registered on the
printer's LCD readout, but ProWrite would eventually say (incorrectly)
"printer out of paper".  Cycling the power on the printer to restore all
the settings didn't help at all.  However, resetting the Amiga made the
problem vanish immediately.  Therefore, something in the Amiga's RAM (the
printer driver?) had become corrupted.  I have never seen anything like
this before, and I tried to think of what "bad" software I could have been
running.  The only other things I had been running in that session were
Term 3.4 (no previous problems)...and Imagine 2.9.

Has anyone with an MMU tried running Enforcer with IM2.9?

--
Evan Kirchhoff, [e-mail]


##

Subject: Happy Christmas...
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 00:00:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alex... <[e-mail]>

Just a quick message to wish everyone on the list a very merry Christmas,
and a happy new year.

And to those of you lucky enough to be reciving Imagine 2.9/3.0 in your
stocking, have fun and think of those of us still beavering away with
our good old copies of 2.0.

Best wishes,
        Alex...

PS. See you in the new year.

%-----\|/------------------- #include <.siggy.h> --------------------------%
%    (o o)     [e-mail]         -=* Retina's Rule *Bo) *=-  %
%-oOO-(_)-OOo- CSE Student @ Warwick Uni. UK  "All opinions are just mine" %


##

Subject: good mountain?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 17:04:31 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Mike McCool)

Hey y'all,

    Has anyone managed to come up with a good texture that
will make a mountain-shaped object actually look like a mountain?
I've been uploading objects created in VistaPro, but needless to
say, these are HUGE, and with Imagine2.9, I just lost another two megs of
ram.
    I've made a nice mountain object, but so far, experiments
with stucco, bumps, crumpled, asteroid, and other essence type
textures has resulted in a bumpy-stucco-crumpled-asteroid-looking object
but not really a mountain.
    My Mt Fuji full polygon object from VistaPro is gorgeous,
but it's nearly three megs big.
    I'm working on a commercial for a local tofu egg-salad
company, and the woman who owns the company loves Mt Fuji.  I
want one of her Toby's Tofu Pate containers to go wizzing by Mt
Fuji--but with only ten megs of ram, I can get the wizzing tofu
container, or Mt. Fuji--but not both.
    Experiments with the vistaPro rendered Fuji object laid
in as a background picture are passable, but they don't give much
of a three-D feel.
    So I'm making my own Mt Fuji, though so far it looks more
like Mt Mud.
    Any mountaineers out there?



##

Subject: Bunch 'o opinions
Date:     Sat, 11 Dec 1993 20:15:57 -0700
From: Sampson Allan James <[e-mail]>

Hello all, I've been on the list and not said anything for a long time,
so I guess here's where I make up for it.

 Byrt Martinez wrote,
>>Oh please. How many times in your life have you seen lens flare from your own
>>human eyes? Lens flare on film means the cinematography was bad. Anybody doing
>>photography tries to avoid this at all costs.

 As a professional photographer, sometime cinematographer (three small,
independant films) and general movie and computer graphics nut, I take
offence to the above.

As Dr. Gandalf pointed out, your eyes exhibit flare effects every time you
look at anything that's lit.  Whether the flare is *apparent to you is
something else altogether. In cameras, there are many variables to
consider when examining the results of flare, a couple of which are the
size of the aperture (i.e. the shape of the aperture determines the shape
of all those little moving hexagons), and the contrast between the light
source and the surrounding background (this determines, in part, the
visibility of the flare). Let's consider cameras and eyes to be virtually
the same thing (a point which seems to be lost on a few of us). All these
variables still come into play. There's a *reason your car is equipped
with those flip-down sunshades. Driving into the bright sun will wipe out
your entire field of view due to flare within your own eyes. If you're in
the dark and someone shines a bright flashlight in your face what do you
see, the fine outline of the bright bulb filament against a perfect black
background, or a bright ball of light with fine spokes of light radiating
out from the center?

 Some of the most breathtaking imagery I've ever experienced was just so
because of lens flare.  The establishing shot in Bladerunner still puts
me into a trance every time I see it: the spinners shoot by the camera,
running lights engulfed in flare. Or how about the opening sequence of
2001: A Space Odyssey where the sun slowly creeps from behind the Earth's
surface, majestic orange flare filling the entire screen. Without that
effect, the shot would be mundane, looking like something from a 50's
sci-fi flick. Look at the sequence in Alien where the Nostromo is about
to orbit the moon and the star is showing from behind the planet, or the
landing lights of the Nostromo as she's about to set down.
 I'm sure many of you have these films on video. Go...look at them.

 I'm using science-fiction films here because they're my passion, but
you can view nearly any film and find flare, chromatic abberation and
many other optical "problems", particularly in extreme lighting
situations.

 Why? Cheap optics perhaps? No, Panavision, Schneider, Cooke, Angenieux
and Zeiss optics...some of the world's finest. Flare is an unavoidable
physical phenomenon, and its often used, on purpose, to great effect.
What ISN'T REALISTIC is the total absence of it in most amateur CG.

 The effects of the first two films mentioned above were designed and
realized by Douglas Trumbull. Trumbull's effects are considered some of
the finest and most realistic in the business.  Anyone guess what his
trademark is?  Intentional, controlled lens flare. His effects are
the benchmark on which I compare any CG production I do, so its perhaps
not surprising that I've been considering purchasing LightWave.

 I think (if Impulse's true opinions on the topic have been correctly
represented here by Cyrus) that Impulse and others should consider that
lens flare may be something more than a passing fad, and might be
something very important that has been sadly overlooked until now.
Things like lens flare only seems flashy to those who don't have
experience with real photographic equipment.

 True photographic realism is my aim and film production is my target.
I've been saying for years that a rendering package could never call
itself photorealistic (think about what this term implies) until it
provided basic photographic functionality like depth-of-field, and
shouldn't even bother with animation unless it can simulate motion
blur. I understand that there are economic factors I'm not considering,
but there's a world of difference between "can't afford to do it" and
"not willing to do it because we don't think it's important".

 Variety is the spice of life.
 My biggest beef is people who believe that nothing is better than
something. Even if those of you who don't want to generate photorealistic
imagery would never use these features, they would be the deciding factor
for *purchase for many of us. And really, even if realism isn't your bag,
look at Nutopia's stuff in Video Toaster User magazine or, better, in Todd
Rundgren's new CD, and tell me that you wouldn't like the OPTION to be
able to make your images look like that.

[e-mail] wrote:
>edge glowing, anamorphic squeezing, red-ringed, hexagons flying
>toward the camera effect...subtle white starburst or haze

 Yes, that's what I want. If it happens in my real equipment, I want
it to happen in my computer.  I don't necessarily WANT people to know
I generated the images with my computer. Jurassic Park would have been
pretty different without lens flare, depth-of-field and motion
blur, let me tell you.

 I was discussing using computer graphics for a short "set in space" shot
with a producer about five years ago. His opinion (and mine) was that
the computer graphics would look too "computery". Our concern, quantified,
was that the imagery was too CLEAN (models were decided on before the
project was scrapped). I read somewhere that the Babylon V CG crew worked
like dogs to find ways to "dirty up" their renderings, to kill that
"computer effect" and infuse realism.

 How many of you (you too, Impulse) have considered that it is possible
that LightWave is being used on SeaQuest and Babylon V BECAUSE the lens
flare, depth-of-field and motion blur effects allow the shots to look
nearly as good as if they were done with models? Now, perhaps Impulse
doesn't want to cater to professional computer artists and the
entertainment industry, but if so, IMNSHO, Impulse should look at the
development of these features as a priority. I would pay a couple
hundred more dollars for these features...perhaps an "Imagine
Professional" is warranted for those of us who want to produce CG
professionally.

 Concerning doing lens flare and other effects in post with image
manipulation packages:  that just doesn't cut it. The characteristics of
lens flare and other optical abberations depend on the brightness and
location of the lights, particularly in the case of stuff like the
"moving hexagons". For various reasons including the luminance latitude
of the images these effects really have to be done in the rendering
process.

Off-topic interjection: [This is really the root of the problem because,
you see, the computer (or movie projector) can *never represent in an
image how bright, relative to other objects, the sun *actually is
(leading to [e-mail]'s concern that his lights "lack
visual impact"), and your monitor isn't going to be bright enough anyways
to get the point across, so we need a tool like lens flare to help.]

Additionally, doing depth-of-field requires depth information
not present in a finished rendering, and so also needs to be done in the
rendering process. True motion blur requires access to velocity
information, frame-rate, "virtual shutter" speed and other information
also not retained in a bitmapped image.

Evan Kirchhoff, [e-mail] wrote:
>Not only do we need lens flare, I think
>we need some kind of automated macro to simulate that camera-vibration you
>get when filming airplanes from other airplanes (for more realistic
>fly-throughs), an effect that simulates rain beading on the camera lens
>and dribbling off, a "dirt" texture to apply to everything in sight, and
>so on.

 Now there's a man after my own heart.

 See ya,

 Allan Sampson,   [e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: Lens Flare
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 13:33:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Schumacher Gordon C <[e-mail]>

> Computer animation is generally too "perfect", so any trick that can
> reduce this is possibly useful.  Not only do we need lens flare, I think
> we need some kind of automated macro to simulate that camera-vibration you
> get when filming airplanes from other airplanes (for more realistic
> fly-throughs), an effect that simulates rain beading on the camera lens
> and dribbling off, a "dirt" texture to apply to everything in sight, and
> so on.

I agree that this *kind* of thing needs to be done, but keep in mind that a
lot of these things can be done from another program as well.  I especially
think that the rain idea could be done from an image processing program (not
quite sure how, but I'll work on it.)
--
     Gordon Schumacher

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Champaign-    "I woke up on the wrong side of bed this   _@_      |
|     Urbana     morning... underneath it!"               /   \     |
|                    -Jason Freeburg                     | o o |    |
\-------------------------------------------------------U|--U--|U---/


##

Subject: Re: good mountain?
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 13:46:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Schumacher Gordon C <[e-mail]>

>     My Mt Fuji full polygon object from VistaPro is gorgeous,
> but it's nearly three megs big.
> Fuji--but with only ten megs of ram, I can get the wizzing tofu
> container, or Mt. Fuji--but not both.

What you might want to try is loading the mountain into something like
Pixel3D that can reduce the point count.  That way, you could use VistaPro's
object, but without quite as much complexity.  It's a good compromise...
--
     Gordon Schumacher

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Champaign-    "I woke up on the wrong side of bed this   _@_      |
|     Urbana     morning... underneath it!"               /   \     |
|                    -Jason Freeburg                     | o o |    |
\-------------------------------------------------------U|--U--|U---/


##

Subject: Re: good mountain?
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 17:58:02 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>container, or Mt. Fuji--but not both.
>    Experiments with the vistaPro rendered Fuji object laid
>in as a background picture are passable, but they don't give much
>of a three-D feel.
>    So I'm making my own Mt Fuji, though so far it looks more
>like Mt Mud.
>    Any mountaineers out there?
>

    Well short of using big objects, and or textures I'm not sure.  You say
that you can render one or the other, and also composite them.

    So, if you want BOTH moving to get that "3d effect" as you say, why
not try this...(though it might take a while to render).

    1] Create the anim in the stage/action editors with BOTH objects.
        If you can't load both into the stage at once, use a box or
        something similar to get the motion for each...
    2] In the action editor replace one of the objects ACTOR info with
        the filename for an axis object you make and save in teh
        Detail editor.
    3] Render the anim to the HD.  If it is the plate, render it
        on black.
    4] Now go back to step 2, but make the object you just rendered the
        axis (so it doesn't show), and reset the ground object to
        it.
    5] Now composite each frame from each into the final anim.
        ie: frame 1 from anim1 and anim2 ===> anim3

    This will be easier if you have Fred or some type of AREXX
knowledge at the least.  This is a somewhat long and tedious solution, but
it will enable to render both objects with a moving camera etc.., and then
to composite them.

    Note: if the object passes behind the mtn, you will have to then
swap which object is on black, and composite them in the opposite order for
those frames.

    I know I'm not too clear....but I think you'll get the idea.  If
not let me know.

    Good Luck!

--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail] - CWRU, Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
| "It's not how many hours you work, but how much work you put in an hour" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: RE: Lense Flare
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 13:12:56 -0400 (EST)
From: ecorbin <[e-mail]>

I've got to get my two cents in on this.  I don't care if it isn't
realistic.  Are mirrored balls floating around an abstract geometric
scene all that realistic?  The point is that it looks cool, as does lens
flare.  Whether one uses it or not is entirely up to the artist and
his/her tastes.  I would personally like to have the option to use it
once and awhile.

Earl
[e-mail]





##

Subject: commercially available object sets for Imagine
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 18:14:00 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Rob Lewis)

Has anyone put together a list of commercially-available objects that
will work with Imagine (for the PC) v2.9 and presumably v3.0? I see an
occasional ad in the back of magazines but haven't been able to find
anyone who has spent the money and evaluated them. If people are willing
to drop me a line, I'd be willing to collate experiences and post a
summary...

Rob Lewis  [e-mail]  StashuBBS 214-394-2726



##

Subject: Perspective Redraw Bug in 2.9
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 93 22:12:35 PST
From: [e-mail] (Daniel T. Edwards)

I have a rather large object (270k) that is about 50 objects grouped
togehter.  I have had problems with 2.9 not filling the perspective window
after some modification (rotation, scaling etc.)
The Perspective window just remians blank.  (maybe some fringe pixels...
but no picture)  If I turn on and off Quickdraw All or None
AND change viewtypes (solid, shaded etc.) several times and
do something else (whatever), The image magicly reappears.

Has this happened to you?

Yup... I use the screen size hack... In 2 weeks, no problems till now.
So I assume that it's something else.
 ____________________________________________________________
/                                                            \
| Amiga 2000                James R. Walker                  |
| 2MB Chip             [e-mail]           |
| 18MB Fast    ______________________________________________|
| 130 MB Hard /                                              |
| 68040 33Mhz |Heinlein,Rand,Clarke,Adams,Asimov,Niven,Worley|
\____________________________________________________________/


##

Subject: Lense Flaring Eyeballs!!
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 04:38:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mr. Scott Krehbiel; ACS (PC)" <[e-mail]>

Excuse me, but not only do I get lense flares in my eyeballs,
but I get static, NTSC chroma crawl, and CB interference, too.

:-P

just kidding
(in case you couldn't tell)   ;-)

Scott Krehbiel




##

Subject: RE: Imagine - Real3D Upgrade info.
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 09:01:37 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Stephen J.Gowdy)

I thought I should point out to everyone, why buy Real 3D at #230 when you
can buy Imagine 3.0 at #95 from Amiga Format?

                        regards,

                        Stephen.

****************************************************************************
*Stephen J Gowdy                *A4000/040* High Energy Physics Group,     *
*Bitnet: GOWDY AT GWIA          *120 MB HD* Dept Of Physics & Astronomy,   *
*DecNet: 20075::GOWDY           *6MEG RAM!* University of Glasgow.         *
*InterNet: [e-mail]*It moves!* Tel: [phone] E:5893 *
****************************************************************************



##

Subject: Re: Imagine<-->LightWave
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 11:11:05 +0100
From: <[e-mail]>

On Dec 10, 12:41am, Christian Gottschling wrote:
> Subject: Imagine<-->LightWave
>
> Do   you  know  something  about  an  object-converter  LightWave
> (Toaster) to Imagine?
>
>  MfG, Christian
>
Try a commercial product called Interchange. Works fine.

Robin

--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]






##

Subject: re: Bunch 'o opinions
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 08:06:40 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> >>Oh please. How many times in your life have you seen lens flare from
> >>your own human eyes?

> As Dr. Gandalf pointed out, your eyes exhibit flare effects every time you
> look at anything that's lit.

Without entering the debate on whether lens flair is desirable, I can
attest to the fact that your eyes do have it especially if you wear hard
contacts (as I do).  With certain types of hard contact lenses, driving
at night can be annoying since you get lens flair effects from each of
the oncoming headlights on other automobiles, and from other point
sources of light as well (streetlamps, etc).

  - steve


##

Subject: RE: Imagine - Real3D Upgrade info.
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 07:35:58 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> I thought I should point out to everyone, why buy Real 3D at #230 when you
> can buy Imagine 3.0 at #95 from Amiga Format?

Touchy topic, eh? :-)

Without trying to start a flamewar, I'll just say that there is no one
"right" answer here; you get different answers depending on what you are
looking for.  Personally, I've been using Imagine for quite a while, and
even though it can do a lot of things, I have only been able to drool
over some of the abilities of R3D.  I think the extra price of R3D is
primarily because it is a much more powerful system.

Some of the things from R3D I'd like to see in Imagine The Next
Generation are:

  * An ARexx port!  Imagine is about 4 years late with theirs.  At the
    very _simplest_, I'd like to automate certain repetitive manual
    tasks in Imagine, and be able to write my own user interface
    operations to add to the program.  But there is even more than that.
    For example, yesterday I was modeling something and I had both
    Imagine and ImageFX running. I'd create brushmaps in ImageFX, render
    in Imagine, look at the results, then tweak one of the brushmaps
    again in ImageFX and start over.  Rather than have to load the
    proper brushmap into ImageFX, I should be able to, from the
    attribute editing box in Imagine, have Imagine pass the brushmap
    directly to ImageFX and automatically flip to ImageFX's screen or
    window.  There are countless other tasks of this sort which would be
    trivial with ARexx to glue everything together.  Instead, I now have
    to manually flip back to the other program's screen, open the right
    file, modify it, save it again, etc.  The other programs I often use
    with Imagine all have had ARexx ports for a long time (VistaPro,
    ImageFX, etc).  Its the difference between a closed system such as
    Imagine, compared to something like ImageFX in which if it doesn't
    do what I want, I can customize it until it does.

  * Render-while-model.  Right now you have to run two copies of Imagine
    to get this ability, which consumes a lot of RAM and is needlessly
    cumbersome (ie, you can't easily move objects between them, etc).
    R3D is truly multithreaded, so you can have as many windows
    rendering whatever views as you wish, while you model in other
    windows at the same time.

  * Rule based animation.  Right now in Imagine, you can make paths for
    everything you want to move in your animation.  Instead, I'd like to
    be able to have a large number of objects and simply create my own
    *rules* for how they should move.  For example, you might have a
    huge fishtank with rules for how fish swim and what the fish do when
    they get close to other fish.  This is a much more powerful method
    of animation than having to move everything around yourself.

I could go on.  I think the biggest issue, for me, is user
extensibility.  Imagine can do a lot of things, particularly when you
add Essence to it.  But R3D is user extensible in a way that Imagine
doesn't even begin to approach.  I wish Impulse would move in that
direction, but I am highly doubtful that they ever will.  Anyway, the
only real things stopping me from going to Real3D are 1) the dongle, 2)
the fact that I've already gotten over the Imagine learning curve, while
I'd have to invest a lot of time to learn a new system, and 3) no
Essence for R3D (this is also why I won't buy Imagine 2.9/3.0 right
now).  My past experiences of Impulse hostility haven't exactly endeared
Imagine or Impulse to me either.  So for now I am still an Imagine user,
but a frustrated one.

  - steve


##

Subject: Re: Perspective Redraw Bug in 2.9
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 10:10:02 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Michael B. Comet)

>
>
>The Perspective window just remians blank.  (maybe some fringe pixels...
>but no picture)  If I turn on and off Quickdraw All or None
>AND change viewtypes (solid, shaded etc.) several times and
>do something else (whatever), The image magicly reappears.
>
>Has this happened to you?
>

    Yes, this is definitely a bug, or just the way the program is MADE
to work.  Here is what seems to happen,

    Take an object, select quickdraw, or draw bbox-edges.  Okay..Save
it.  Now, delete it, then load it back in.  IT WILL NOT DRAW!!(in
perspective).  However, if you undo quickdraw, then it WILL draw.  You can
also redo the the quickdraw after you undo it and it will be okay.

    Bascially, is seems as though quickdraw obejcts don't draw in the
perp window when they are first loaded.

    I am not using any screen hacks or anything else of that nature.


--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Comet, [e-mail] - CWRU, Software Engineer/Graphics Artist |
| "It's not how many hours you work, but how much work you put in an hour" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Subject: RE: Imagine3.0 latest (release date)
Date: 13 Dec 1993 13:32:24 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

I posted this last week, but it didn't seem to get distrubted either, so...
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: Oxley David on Tue, Dec 7, 1993 11:48 am
Subject: Imagine3.0 latest (release date)
To: IML

Hi all,

I called Impulse last night and talked to Mike H.  I was actually checking
they'd received a fax of a couple of bugs I'd found, plus a list of suggestions
for 3.0.  I asked him about 3.0 and he said its release was likely to be 'end
of January' (1994 I think, though I didn't ask ;)  He said that the user
interface was being made much more usable, and they wanted to get some other
features right first time.  Sorry I didn't ask him more, but it's not cheap
phoning from this side of the pond :)

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>



##

Subject: Re: Bunch 'o opinions
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 11:16:33 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Sampson Allan James wrote
>  As a professional photographer, sometime cinematographer (three small,
> independant films) and general movie and computer graphics nut, I take
> offence to the above.
>
[ranting and raving and proof of lots of movie watching delete ;)]

>  True photographic realism is my aim and film production is my target.
> I've been saying for years that a rendering package could never call
> itself photorealistic (think about what this term implies) until it
> provided basic photographic functionality like depth-of-field, and
> shouldn't even bother with animation unless it can simulate motion
> blur. I understand that there are economic factors I'm not considering,
> but there's a world of difference between "can't afford to do it" and
> "not willing to do it because we don't think it's important".
>
>  Variety is the spice of life.
>  My biggest beef is people who believe that nothing is better than
> something.

Yeah, but some people are just prioritizing.  Maybe they feel that there
are other features that should go in first.  We ALL want ALL the features,
but knowing we can only get them a few at a time,....[BTW, I want lens flare]
>
>  I was discussing using computer graphics for a short "set in space" shot
> with a producer about five years ago. His opinion (and mine) was that
> the computer graphics would look too "computery". Our concern, quantified,
> was that the imagery was too CLEAN (models were decided on before the
> project was scrapped). I read somewhere that the Babylon V CG crew worked
> like dogs to find ways to "dirty up" their renderings, to kill that
> "computer effect" and infuse realism.

Yeah, the Endeavor looks like it just ran the Baja 2000 (NOT);)  You did
say realism, not popular opinion, right?;)

>
>  Concerning doing lens flare and other effects in post with image
> manipulation packages:  that just doesn't cut it. The characteristics of
> lens flare and other optical abberations depend on the brightness and
> location of the lights, particularly in the case of stuff like the
> "moving hexagons". For various reasons including the luminance latitude
> of the images these effects really have to be done in the rendering
> process.
>
> Additionally, doing depth-of-field requires depth information
> not present in a finished rendering, and so also needs to be done in the
> rendering process. True motion blur requires access to velocity
> information, frame-rate, "virtual shutter" speed and other information
> also not retained in a bitmapped image.
>
Well, as far as doing things "correctly", I'm not sure this is true.  Lightwave
doesn't trace(usually), so its reflections aren't perfect, etc.  I'm not
ripping on Lightwave, just trying to show a point.  Lightwave doesn't do
things the "real" way, and yet its output looks fantastic.  Lots of tricks
are used to achieve desired effects just because the "correct" way is too
costly.  Algorithmic textures could be considered cheating("why not model those
waves, its more realistic"(yeah, right)), but "everyone" uses them(even
those hams at Jurasic Pork(sorry)).  So whether its all done in one package,
isn't really pertinent.  It how it looks that counts.[Several examples come
to mind, but I think(and hope) you get the point.]


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin



##

Subject: more disk space?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 11:39:45 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

I don't think I truly understand the release notice that was sent to help
install imagine... one thing is that the low density MSDOS disk is 720k
and the low density amiga disk is 880k. also to install is very simple
just move the icon of the disk to a window on your workbench screen and
all of it is copied over. Than double click on the .lha files and requester
appears in which you type the lharc -x (filename already here).
    I get the feeling they have not upgraded any of their amiga equipment
or their development practices for the amiga. thus lacking arexx etc.
    So I guess what I was wondering is are they mormons down there
or something? I hear you can get ex communicated if you own something
other than an IBM.....:)

(just venting some frustration please don't turn the IML upside down flamming)

                            Lesk
PS. the file requester still //////....


##

Subject: RE: good mountain?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 10:42:00 PST
From: Stethem Ted              5721 <[e-mail]>

  I use VistaPro landscape objects quite often and I have found out a few
things.  First, in VistaPro, only select that portion of the DEM that you
actually need.  For instance, if you just want Mt. Fuji, just pick those
blocks that have the mountain without the surrounding countryside.  This
will save on the final object size.  The other thing is to select a lower
polygon and texture setting.  In Vistapro, 1 is the largest polygon size and
8 is the highest.  If you don't need an absolutely smooth landscape,
somewhere in between usually provides satisfactory results and really
reduces the object's memory size.
   What I have found best to get a more realistic image from these landscape
objects is to ignore the polygon coloring that VistaPro applies.  I load the
object into Imagine and just set all the faces white.  What I have found
that works best to get the look of a landscape is a high-res brushmap.  This
is where it gets a little difficult because it is pretty hard to get a good
high-quality digitized overhead view of some mountains.  If you are
resourceful enough, you can improvise.  Anyway, you want to get a brushmap
with rivulets (I guess that's what they are called, the grooves running down
the sides of mountains due to runoff) and some contrast.  You can always
apply several layers of brushmaps, too.  Take one and make it an altitude
map then overlay that with a "bare" mountain map, then overlay that with a
"snow-covering" map.  You might have some luck just drawing an overhead view
of the bare mountain in some paint program, for the basic color then
overlaying a snow covering brushmap.  Mt. Fuji should be fairly easy since
it is a basic dark purple/black color.  It helps to use the Roughness
attribute when rendering although there are some quirks with it so it is a
matter of personal preference.  Anyway, with Phong shading and the
application of  brushmaps, the landscape object can have fewer polygons and
still look good.  Hope this helps.




##

Subject: Re: Lens Flare
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 11:08:00 PST
From: [e-mail]

>  Too Often I have tried to emulate an intense light source and find
> that my efforts are sadly lacking, the light lacks visual impact.
> However I see an image rendered in LW and i think WOW, I love the
> diffuse light glow and it would be nice to have those optical
> artifacts for the occasional use.

Sadly, I am not a user of Imagine.  I am, however, a user of POV-Ray
which also does not intentionally provide lens flare.  But I have
found a way to get a diffuse light glow (limited lens flare/glare).

I point the camera at a reflective surface that has some phong
highlighting applied to it.  The scene is placed in front of this
mirror.  The lights that are visible in the scene create a phong
"flare" on the mirror:

                                             |
Objects, lights, etc.          camera -->    | reflective surface
                                             |

Perhaps this can work in Imagine also.

 -- Roy Harper


##

Subject: re: Bunch 'o opinions
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 15:55:36 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|
|> >>Oh please. How many times in your life have you seen lens flare from
|> >>your own human eyes?
|
|> As Dr. Gandalf pointed out, your eyes exhibit flare effects every time you
|> look at anything that's lit.
|
|Without entering the debate on whether lens flair is desirable, I can
|attest to the fact that your eyes do have it especially if you wear hard
|contacts (as I do).  With certain types of hard contact lenses, driving
|at night can be annoying since you get lens flair effects from each of
|the oncoming headlights on other automobiles, and from other point
|sources of light as well (streetlamps, etc).

    Yep.  And tears in the eyes can increase the effect.  Also,
    squinting the eyes can produce lense flair.  As well as driving on
    a rainy night and having lights flaring through a wet windshield.

    I'm sure we could come up with hundreds of examples.  Face it...
    it's a natural phenomena.  If we're going to accurately reproduce
    reality, we need it.

    Dale


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: trees...
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 02:37:00 BST
From: [e-mail]

I want to thank those that replied to my question on the transparancy/filter
attributes to make some 2d banches for trees.
 I made a white bitmap with lots of black holes in it, used that as a
transparancy map, applied it on a 2d outline of a tree top, gave it a green
color and added a crumpled texture and viola! some cool looking leaves.  I
then copied that object and rotated 90 degrees to fill the tree out so now
its 3d.
 Thanks guys!
 Dave.


##

Subject: re: Bunch 'o opinions
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 1:02:55 CST
From: [e-mail]

Dale R Rogers says:
>
>     Yep.  And tears in the eyes can increase the effect.  Also,
>     squinting the eyes can produce lense flair.  As well as driving on
>     a rainy night and having lights flaring through a wet windshield.
>
>     I'm sure we could come up with hundreds of examples.  Face it...
>     it's a natural phenomena.  If we're going to accurately reproduce
>     reality, we need it.

After several days of this discussion, I can't stop noticing lens flare on
TV.  I was watching a Guns 'N Roses video a couple of hours ago (the new
one with the stupid dolphins), and it was just lens flare, lens flare,
lens flare every other shot:  live concert clips shot into the stage
lights, pretend "live" shots of police running around flashing bright
lights, that bleeding effect you get from shooting car headlights even if
they _aren't_ flaring, and so on.  I'm starting to think that it's the
rule, rather than the exception, at least for cameras, and we presumably
want to simulate cameras, at least some of the time (or does "reality"
include hanging around in absolute-zero vacuum, watching the spaceships
whoosh by? ;)



##

Subject: 2.9 random toughts and SPEED !?!?!?!
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 10:32:44 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Isaac Psycho Guajardo)

Hi everyone :

It's been a long time last posted here - just received 2.9 and spend
the weekend working with it and would like to share some toughts that
i think haven't been discused here ( at least to my knowledge ) - I
hope to get some feed back from you :

- First thing, check old bugs ... and all the ones i checked are still
there : Error on slice command (An edge is to close to bla bla bla ),
No global brushmap reflection of objects with a filtered object in front
of them, no fix on closed path stutter, when using animated brushmaps on
an object it won't quickrender on stage and can't morph objects with them,
now - the animated brushmaps don't cycle when less pic's than frames -
they seem to average along the frames (ie. 5 pics/10 frames instead of
two cycles would put pic 1 on frames 1,2 pic 2 on frames 3,4 etc.) - I
wonder why they changed it ?, no morph between objects with different face
count - very bad now with the power of states !, black areas on filtered
objects with refraction on trace mode (ie. glass cube)  ... by now i stop
checking, didn't get to fog objects and more, i sadly realized that
Impulse started improving the product without fixing it first, I hope
they do with 3.0 !!!

- And some new bugs found too .ok, ok i know this is still beta and probably
they already know about them, but still here they are ... on proyect when
making anims it would get the paletted all messed up in some cases and
would always crash the machine when trying to play it - the docs say about
this bug on AGA but mine is an A3000,  on particle f/x when using emission
it would crash the machine if emission percent is larger than 100 ... and
the ones that have been already pointed out on the list.

- Comments about 2.9 ... real time response (camera alignment, quick edges,
perspective) is GREAT now i miss it when working on 2.0, new mode to edit
on perspective is a BIG help, deformations are a great improvement BUT to
my opinion the bend option is wrong, it's more like a wave distortion
instead of a true bending, the top of the object remains fixed and the work
around - scaling Z twice the height of the object - would "bend" but no
more than 40 degrees without distorting heavily the object, Impulse should
look at Lightwave to see how a "bend" works, particles objects it's a
start and the particle F/X works great BUT it doesn't use the object axis
for the movement direction as one would have expected (Impulse uses the axis
almost for everything), it uses min/max angles on the requester and since
the F/X can't be morphed the effect gets linear, make an engine exaust
with emission that looks GREAT but the ship can't be rotated because the
particles would stay in it's original direction - but again it's a start,
states are extremely usefull a PLUS "new stuff" and bones are suppoused to
be better as Impulse says, just hope they fix the morphing between different
objects (Look at the hammer arm on the robot tutorial!), the new palette
requester, well, i don't know, it slows things a bit in some cases, the new
splines editor it's a start, again, why Postscript fonts only ? what about
standard Amiga fonts and/or bit-maps - THAT would be a really "new stuff",
new stage editor options (layers, associate, etc.) are a plus add-on ...
in general to my opinion on 1-10 scale, it's a 7.5 ...ok ok, it's a beta
just to keep us calm until 3.0 ... THEY BETTER !!!!

- NOW, some have been asking  about SPEED and haven't seen any comments
about it, well i did a test scene on 2.0 with some objects and attributes
including reflections, filter/refraction, shiny objects and such, no
textures and a global brush map, WELL, see for yourself :

On A3000 with 68040, 18 Mb RAM, 80 x 50 pixels image :

Imagine 2.0 scanline 0' 11"
Imagine 2.0 trace    4' 38"

Imagine 2.9 scanline 0' 14" new palette 0' 10" prev. palette
Imagine 2.9 trace    0' 29" new palette 0' 25" prev. palette

YES, 25 seconds versus four minutes 38 seconds !!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS BEYOND !

The same at 768 x 482 was 19' 24" ... with Imagine 2.0 would take more
than TWO HOURS (I cancel at 60%) !!!!

THAT IS THE MOST "NEW STUFF" WORTH THE 100 BUCKS ALONE !!! Impulse ....
thank you thank you thank you ....

Sorry about the bandwith hope it was worth something my 2 cents and
excuse my English "My brain was abused by my mother as a child !".

Isaac (Psycho) Guajardo
[e-mail]



##

Subject: PAL to NTSC patch for 2.0?
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 10:38:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Boulding <[e-mail]>

--
+===================================================================+
| Mark Boulding c/o FB&T      | Internet: [e-mail]    |
| 750 17th St., NW, Ste. 1100 | CIS: 72401,2400  Prodigy: TDRC42A   |
| Washington, DC 20006        | AOL: boulding    GEnie: M.BOULDING  |
+===================================================================+

So I wander into my neighborhood Borders bookstore, resolved to just
browse for a change, and there it is: the Amiga Format issue with
Imagine 2.0 as the coverdisk.  Can I resist?  No.  I own both a PC and
and Amiga, as well as Imagine 2.9 for the PC.  The Amiga 2.0 version
would be great for rendering small projects while I do other stuff on
the PC.  Plus, I have a genlock card for my Amiga 2000HD, so I could
do all those neat genlock object effects.

Next question:  How do I patch the PAL version to work on my NTSC
Amiga?  Is the answer in the archives?  Or, if it's easy, could someone
post it again here?

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before...Thanks for any help.

Mark


##

Subject: Anyone have Pagerender 3d??
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 16:58:41 -0500
From: "Mr. Scott Krehbiel" <[e-mail]>

I'm trying to use Arexx to create some algorythmic animations
by creating motion files for Videoscape (since ISL doesn't work
with Imagine 1.1 staging files).  Unfortunately I don't have the
control that I need - for instance, I can't have 1000 objects
flying in formation without doing the load requestor in
V3D 1000 times ..  :-P  forget that!

I remember that Pagerender 3d had Arexx control.  Anyone have it?
Anyone want to sell it cheap?  If you have it, whether you want to
sell it or not, please contact me... I'd like to ask about a
few features.

Thanks
Scott Krehbiel
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Association problem
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 21:00:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Steve J. Lombardi)

I would like to use the associate command to get at individual objects
in the stage editor as if they were a group. In theory if I load
5 objects and associate all of them to the same axis, as I move or rotate
the axis the 5 objects should follow, as if they were a group. The advantage
is that I should then be able to simultaneously rotate/move each of the 5
objects independantly. currently in 2.9 there is no way to get at the
individual objects of a group in the stage editor(although this
is promised for 3.0) soooooo.....

I CAN'T GET IT TO WORK!! Am I simply missing something or am I a moron?
Here's what I do:

1. in stage load a few objects and an axis. save and go to action.
2. add associate bar to each of the objects. enter the AXIS as the associate
object for each. save. go back to stage.

Now in the stage I should be able to move the AXIS and have the objects move
with it. they don't. Ive tried saving and reloading and evenb the A-c key
sequence to load the frame. nothing. any input is appreciated, as an
animation I'm working on NEEDS this ability in the worst way. thanks.

--
steve lombardi
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Moses on Mt Fuji
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 22:17:47 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Mike McCool)

Hey guys,

    Thanks immeasurably, for the enthusiastic suggestions for
my 'good mountain' project.  The responses are amazing--god do
you guys know your stuff!

    I have acted on all your suggestions, with fabulous
results.  And I saved most of your suggestions--except for one
very lucid one, in which somebody out there described how to
brushmap a mountain texture onto an artificially created mountain
object.

    Whoever you are, you mentioned doing a "Z-wrap."  As I am
hardly adept at brushmapping, I had to ask, 'does this mean just
a wrap-z setting, with no x- setting?'  You responded
affirmatively, just z-wrap, with no x-option selected.

    Problem:  my versions of Imagine won't allow me not to
select an x-option.  One or the other of the x buttons has to be
pushed.  They won't let me not push them.

    So excuse my bothering you again, since you were kind
enough to respond the first time--but pretend I'm blind deaf and
dumb, and lead me out of the darkness.

    Desperately seeking the person who's desperately seeking Susan,
    John Michael McCool



##

Subject: Bernoulli Drive/5carts $495
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:06:39 -0800
From: Tim Salazar <[e-mail]>

Just heard about this great deal:

Bernoulli is trying to get its new cartridge drives into the market. They
want to beat Sysquest. They are offerring a special offer thru "service
houses/bureaus". Offer Expires Dec 31, 1993.

$499 for 5 150meg disks and an external drive unit.

This is like getting the drive for free.

The cartridges are almost bullet proof. They pass a 5' drop test and they
hold 150meg and are accessed at 18ms.

The drive is a transportable external. It has a handle for carrying.

Drive 2yr warranty, disk 5 yr warranty.

Please do not email me.

Either call my service bureau 619-729-4020 ask for Terry or he is on GEnie
from inet [e-mail].

Leave him you name address zip fax# etc and he will send you a form to send
to Iomega for the special offer.

Tell him Tim sent you.



##

Subject: EDLE thing on 2.0 and 2.9 ...
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 09:23:28 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Isaac Psycho Guajardo)

Thanks a lot to the ones who have responded to my random thoughts !

Several have asked about my EDLE settings (antialiasing) and first, they
are at 30 and have always been, why ? ... i have a Firecracker 24 bit
board and all my renderings are on 24 bit to tape by single frame recording
(soon to PAR, i hope - as soon as i figure out how to connect the hard disk
drive of the PAR externaly, not to much space left on my A3000 !) and when
i got the FC/24 i did a lot of testing regarding the EDLE setting but i
didn't noticed any change in image quality with the default and 0, but the
penalty in speed. I rendered several images and loaded them to the FC/24
one on top of the other without seeing any significant change, they looked
as if i where loading the same image over and over again.

I have always complained about the antialiasing done by Imagine ... does
this happens to you ? I know Steve Worley recomends putting 0 when
rendering the final image, and he must have a reason, but in my case i
can't see anithing but an increase of rendering time.

Merry Xmas, Isaac (Psycho) Guajardo
            [e-mail]


##

Subject: Rockets Red Flare...
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 15:02:16 PST
From: Byrt Martinez <[e-mail]>

content-type:text/plain;charset=us-ascii
mime-version:1.0

Gee, what a way to get lots of mail! If I ever feel lonely during the holidays,
I'll know what to do! ;)

Okay, maybe ALL was a harsh word to use. How about MOST?

Several counterexamples & comments:

> However, like a camera, the human eye also has the lens flare effect.

  - Perhaps, but the lens flare people are demanding is the type produced by
    a camera lens. Doesn't lens flare just boil down to simple reflection?
    If you really wanted to model this, you should be able to, right? :)

> Human vision also exhibits motion blur.

  - I have a problem with this one. Isn't motion blur due to discrete sampling?
    i.e. frames of film? frames of video? Maybe if you can show me that the
    optic nerve samples the incoming light, I'll buy this argument.

> If you think Imagine is any where near imitating natural lights and their
  affects then you need to first open your own eyes.

  - I never said it did. But, (personal opinion here!) I would much rather
    Impulse would work on natural lighting rather than lens flare.

> If I want to see some pretty extreme lens flares all I have to do is put on
  my contact lenses.

  - Yeah, but that's still an external influence. Contact lenses are not part
    of your natural eyes. I wear glasses, I'm not going to say that the ghost
    images I see are attributed to MY eyes.

> IMO, realism is NOT one of the goals.

  - Huh? This one I DON'T get. Say you did want to simulate a camera, ( and
    no where did I say that you wouldn't want to) then why do you want lens
    flare? By introducing lens flare, you're trying to add realism to your
    virtual camera. I think you mean "view of realism" vs. "view from a
    camera of realism", right? This IS an artistic decision, but it does show
    the television/film paradigm, "If it's on a screen or on paper, it MUST
    have come from a camera." Computer animation IS a new media. Why constrain
    it with attributes of another media? (This, of course, precludes the use
    of CGI for film/video purposes, in which your point of view would prevail)

>  A computer animation is never seen with the naked eye - it's always on a
   screen, or on paper, or whatever. You're not trying to simulate naked-eye
   reality, in other words - not really.

   - Okay, ( I know this is WAY out there, but...) what about virtual reality?
     Would you want to simulate lens flare in that context? I wouldn't.

>  Lens flare is a consequence of an imperfect optical system. The human eyes
   are an imperfect optical system. You won't see lens flare as manifested by
   multiple hexagons in a row, but you can indeed see lens flare from your eyes.
   If you have ever seen rings around headlights or streetlights at night you
   have seen it.

   - Hmmm... Isn't lens flare a result of reflections against the lens of a
     severe brightness behind the lens, the light passing through the iris and
     hitting, I guess, the film? I don't understand where the imperfection
     comes in. Rings around headlights or streetlights at night I would
     attribute to diffusion from surrounding fog/air, not an imperfection of the
     eye. Perhaps you can expand on this. (email, please). BTW, I think Impulse
     implementing proper fog would have a higher priority than lens flare. :)


> For example, what was your first reaction to the Rodney King video?

   - Well I know it wasn't, "Gee, how can I model this in Imagine? Hmmm, can't
     do it. No lens flare!"  :)


> Yeah, but some people are just prioritizing.  Maybe they feel that there
  are other features that should go in first.  We ALL want ALL the features,
  but knowing we can only get them a few at a time,....[BTW, I want lens flare]

  - Oh my god! Somebody DID get the point! Never did I say lens flare shouldn't
    be part of the package, though many inferred this. I WOULD much rather
    have other features implemented first, which CAN'T be done post-render:
    depth-of-field, real fog/haze/gases, inverse kinematics, etc..
    Lens flare & even motion blur can be done post-render. Read "Undertanding
    Imagine" for motion blur tips. Yes, I consider lens flare LOW priority.
    When these other, more useful, features are implemented, then Impulse
    can work on implementing lens flare, HAM fringing, chroma crawl, color
    blindness, static, dirty windshields, fake camera jitter (NYPD Blue),
    real camera jitter, camcorder w/ anti-camera jitter feature, etc...

    Someone almost burst a blood vessel because it was suggested that lens
    flare be done during image-processing instead of within Imagine. That's
    like getting p**sed off at a paint manufacturer because the Burnt Sienna
    wasn't burnt enough. If we are indeed artists, then we work with the
    tools available until new tools come out. That's part of the artistic
    process, ingenuity.

    Anyway, my point wasn't to say there isn't a need for it, because there is;
    when integrating CG into film or video. I was also not referring to normal
    streaking type of lens flare that human eyes exhibit. I'll admit I didn't
    make this clear. What bothered me is the hexagonal, lens flare artifacting
    that is apparent in some cinematography. This is what I understand that
    most people are demanding. You have to admit there is potential for overuse.
    Even Babylon V went a little to far for me. If you can make a living making
    Guns & Roses videos using the lens flare feature alone, fine. I just think
    it's much ado about ... very little.

    Well sorry for the length, but I know I'd be REAL p**sed if Imagine 3.0
    is being held back because Impulse is still trying to get the lens flare
    to work. Oh well, supply & demand.


--
@******************************************************************************@
*                                      "When you point your finger 'cause your *
*  Byrt Martinez                        plan fell through, you've got 3 more   *
*  - Non-Christian  8^P                 fingers pointing back at you."         *
*    (Fred 12:45)                       - Dire Straits                         *
*                                             *
*  [e-mail], [e-mail]                           *
@******************************************************************************@














##

Subject: rough edges?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 18:06:21 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

Hello all Imaginiacs;
    I was trying to get the edge of a drafting table to not have the
"JAGGIES" since it is just a square with a face on it I was wondering
if edle set to 0 would help, but it didn't. so I set some other settings
and Viola all it did was take longer to render.

    OK question: If I use a grid with lots of points and faces will
             That help?
           : Or what about soft edges even though I want a crisp
             Transition, thats why I didnt use phong.
           : Or should I use phong with make sharp?
I am trying to get the kind of quality I see in "BEYOND the MINDS EYE"
but I am having some very ameture looking pieces show up and usually with
THE JAGGIES.....

                        Thanks for any help
                            Lesk

P.S. My accellorator M1230XA came today. It really really works! all 16Meg
    Boy was it hard to sit on 2.9 without the chance to play!
    Yep I feel my sanity comming back....


##

Subject: 2.9 STATES BUGS
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 22:52:49 EST
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

Is nayone else experiencing weird states problems. mine are so strange
that I can't even fully explain them here. but I can reproduce them.
I'm going to call Impuls and try to explain, but first I'd like to see
if anyone else is having similar problems.

1. when updating a state's grouping, other state's grouping is altered. the
states are added, the stranger the behavior gets.

2. twice I've had a state 'disappear' as if I deleted it when in
fact all Ive done is "SET" to it.

3. In the stage editor certain objects in the group often do not
show up in the tri-view windows, but I'll see them in the
perspective camera view.

number 3 is a minor annoyance. 1 and 2 make the states a pain in the
ass (non)feature to use. Anyone else??

                    |
steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
[e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


##

Subject: Happy Holidays!
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 07:22:30 EST
From: [e-mail] (Paul Marino)

Happy Holidays to Everyone!

Just a small message to everyone on the IML wishing
Happy Holidays and A Joyful New Year!

I have just U/L'ed an image I produced for my
annual holidays card (It's very Christmas oriented).

The piece is called "The Magic of Giving."

Its located on wuarchive...pix/trace(on wustl) as XmasGiveJPG.lha
(Its real small, about 55k)

It was rendered entirely in Imagine2.x w/ some paint
in Light24.

BTW, the "Happy Holidays" text was created with the new
spline editor in 2.9..


Has anybody had troubles loading Type 1 fonts into this editor?

Its seems that every Type 1 font I load in, all I wind up
with is a lone axis. (with the exception of the one I used...)


Anyway, enjoy it everyone...
Paul Marino.
([e-mail])


##

Subject: EDLE thing on 2.0 and 2.9 ...
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 08:04:43 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> this happens to you ? I know Steve Worley recomends putting 0 when
> rendering the final image, and he must have a reason, but in my case i
> can't see anithing but an increase of rendering time.

There can be a big difference but it depends on your image.  Some images
won't show any improvement.

Generally, the if you have small, regular detail, you'll see
improvements with antialiasing.  Things which are otherwise just at the
edge of your resolution limit will show up better with EDLE 0.  For
example, I recently rendered a picture with a brick texture - the width
of the mortar ended up being less than the pixel size at my default
resolution.  This made the mortar be "missed" by Imagine in many places,
resulting in horrible aliasing artifacts and a brick wall that didn't
look like brick at all.  By cranking EDLE all the way to 0, most of
these problems were eliminated.  Another common case is very close
parallel lines.

However, for large regions of color, you won't see any difference at
all.

The best thing would be antialiasing which could be set on a per-object
basis, so you could have it turned on for objects that needed it, and
off otherwise.  We don't have that though.  I seem to recall that one of
the other popular programs (Aladdin?  Real3D?) has that ability.

  - steve


##

Subject: Re: 2.9 STATES BUGS
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 09:25:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

    I have been experiencing bugs with states as well.  I have deleted
a state, the whole state, not just the position, only to have it
re-appear.  In addition, for some reason, an axis in one of my objects
that was controlled by a state had its X-axis backwards, while in the
other state it was fine.  No amout of transforming could correct it.


    Anyone else?...

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel




##

Subject: memory use of Imagine
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 09:02:08 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

I think there are a number of things Impulse could do to dramatically
reduce Imagine's memory use.  I know sending these suggestions to
Impulse won't do any good, so I'll post 'em here instead, which also
won't do any good, except I'll feel better about it :-)

  - Right now, if you have a single brushmap mapped to more than one
    object, Imagine loads the brushmap into memory once for each object.
    It could easily load the brushmap once and use it for every object
    which has it as a map.  That could save a *lot* of RAM in some
    cases.

  - Right now you can take an object and copy it multiple times.  You
    get multiple copies of this object all taking as much RAM as the
    original.  Some 3D programs permit you to make "instances", which
    have their own position, size, and alignment vectors, but simply
    point to the actual object (polygon/etc) data from the first object.
    This has two benefits.  First, for objects which are identical but
    repeated, you save huge amounts of RAM.  Second, any changes made to
    the first object will be seen in the instances as well without
    having to change them all.  This is probably the single biggest
    thing I wish for in Imagine.  There are some limits to this
    technique, such as if you apply an explode (etc.) effect to one, all
    the instances will do the same thing.  Same for texture morphing,
    etc.  But for most static objects, this is a wonderful thing to
    have.  I have have seen claims that Aladdin 4D can do this.  I also
    wrote a small PD renderer ages and ages ago which did it (in a
    primitive way).  Its not that hard to do.  It can go a *long* ways
    towards reducing memory usage.

Anyway, I discovered something recently.  There is a freeware program
called "VMM40" which can be used to add virtual memory to Imagine (and
almost anything else for that matter.  There are several commercial
programs for virtual memory as well, but this one is free).  This
program is on aminet, and currently in its first release with a few
rough edges, but it shows a lot of promise.  I tried it with Imagine 2.0
(FP version) last night, and it seems to work just fine.  Even after
loading my (rather large) OS environment with a bunch of programs,
having a GNU emacs running, about 4 shell windows, a terminal program,
and Imagine 2.0/FP with some big objects in the detail editor, I had 32
Mb *free* on my 18 Mb system :-).  This is with about 40 total processes
loaded on the system.  I could have easily done the same without virtual
memory in less than 18 Mb, but wanted to try VM with Imagine:

I did some testing in Imagine by making an object with a huge number of
polygons and copying it many times in the detail editor.  Imagine seems
tolerable to use even if it is swapping.  The only thing that causes any
problems is the perspective window update.  If some of your objects are
swapped out, the perspective window will access them all when it does
its redraw, causing some amount of swapping to get them back in again.
Otherwise, modeling works fine - the objects you are working with a lot
tend to get swapped in and stay there.  Rendering seems to work OK too,
and not be bothered too much by swapping.  I suppose if you push things
too far (try to render something requiring 30 Mb in only 4 Mb of
physical RAM) you might have troubles.  But otherwise it works well.

  - steve


##

Subject: Re: memory use of Imagine
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 11:21:04 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Steve Koren writes:
>
>   - Right now, if you have a single brushmap mapped to more than one
>     object, Imagine loads the brushmap into memory once for each object.
>     It could easily load the brushmap once and use it for every object
>     which has it as a map.  That could save a *lot* of RAM in some
>     cases.

Indeed.  This reminded me of one of the most annoying things about
Imagine - the fact that it loads each brushmap and object from disk
everytime a new frame is loaded -- both in rendering (increasing
rendering times needlessly), and when working in the Stage editor
(making it very frustrating to design animation, and increasing
wireframe preview rendering times).  I've asked here several times if
this is "fixed" in 2.9, but since nobody has said so, I assume it
isn't.


> called "VMM40" which can be used to add virtual memory to Imagine (and

Is that the one that only works with a 68040 CPU?

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: memory use of Imagine
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 13:22:39 PST
From: Byrt Martinez <[e-mail]>

content-type:text/plain;charset=us-ascii
mime-version:1.0

> I think there are a number of things Impulse could do to dramatically
> reduce Imagine's memory use.  I know sending these suggestions to
> Impulse won't do any good, so I'll post 'em here instead, which also
> won't do any good, except I'll feel better about it :-)

I thought of another idea, which I might try to simulate now. I only have 9Mb
and have hit my RAM limit. I have a setup that won't render at all, even in
Trace mode.

What I was thinking of was a way to partition the stage into a number of
segments that would be render separately. Each completed render would be
the backgound image of the next rendered segment. Let me see if I can make a
top view of what I mean:

            |      |
       +----|------|------+
       |    |      |      |
       |    |      |      |                    \
       |  1 |  2   |  3   |                  ---* camera
       |    |      |      |                    /
       |    |      |      |
       +----|------|------+
            |      |

The box represents the scene you are rendering (which takes up too much RAM).
Segment 1 would be rendered first and saved as an image file. Segment 2 would
then be rendered using Segment 1's image file as a background map. Segment 3
would use the resulting image file from Segment 2's rendering. You would now
have the entire scene rendered, I think, as if it were done all at once.

Of course, your rendering time would be much greater, but it could solve a
low RAM solution in time of crisis. (Like when RAM prices jump :))

I haven't tried this yet. The only thing I can think of that would be a problem
would be reflections, shadows, etc. But I think in Scanline it would be okay?
I'm going to try this after finals are over.

What do you think?

--
@******************************************************************************@
*                                      "When you point your finger 'cause your *
*  Byrt Martinez                        plan fell through, you've got 3 more   *
*  - Non-Christian  8^P                 fingers pointing back at you."         *
*    (Fred 12:45)                       - Dire Straits                         *
*                                             *
*  [e-mail], [e-mail]                           *
@******************************************************************************@




##

Subject: Re: memory use of Imagine
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 15:22:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Schumacher Gordon C <[e-mail]>

> Anyway, I discovered something recently.  There is a freeware program
> called "VMM40" which can be used to add virtual memory to Imagine (and
> almost anything else for that matter.  There are several commercial
> programs for virtual memory as well, but this one is free).  This
> program is on aminet, and currently in its first release with a few

Could you perhaps direct me to this?  I'm trying to Imagine in 3M (!) of
memory, an' it just doesn't cut it.  I looked on Aminet, but the only
thing I could find was a source-only program called VMem.  Is this the
one you mean, and if so, could it be compiled and made available?

Thanx,
--
     Gordon Schumacher

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Champaign-    "I woke up on the wrong side of bed this   _@_      |
|     Urbana     morning... underneath it!"               /   \     |
|                    -Jason Freeburg                     | o o |    |
\-------------------------------------------------------U|--U--|U---/


##

Subject: Re: memory use of Imagine>Anyway,
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 17:34:01 -0600 (CST)
From: [e-mail]

>called "VMM40" which can be used to add virtual memory to Imagine (and

I got this program yesterday and immediately tried it.
I have a 2000 with a GVP Combo 040, 4mb 32-bit, 6mb 16-bit.

I also have a 312mb hd at scsi 6 and a 105mb hd at scsi 0.

It ran perfect with everything I tried.  Then I noticed something.
My vmem partition is on device 6.  Well the scsi light was blinking
its little head off BUT was writing to my internal 105!!!!!!!!
WATCH OUT!!!
This program was written for A4000's which can only have 2 units
on the "scsi-look-alike-ide" device.  If you do use this program
MAKE SURE your vmem partition is on unit 0.
I found out that it took the block numbers for the partition on
drive 6 but used them on drive 0.  A very bad move!
Luckily I had backups.  Other than that, everything worked fine!

David.


##

Subject: Re: memory use of Imagine
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 17:22:18 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] writes:

> Could you perhaps direct me to this?  I'm trying to Imagine in 3M (!) of

Since several other people asked, I'll just post it to the list.  I got
it from aminet under the following location:

   os30/util/VMM40_V1_0.lha

Like I mentioned before, this is still a bit rough around the edges.
But it shows promise, and the author has asked for feedback on how to
make it better.  Right now, a bug apparently prevents you from using
more than 4 Mb of physical RAM to back your virtual memory.  This is
fine for small-memory systems (0-6 Mb) but its a real bummer for those
of us with 18 Mb :-)  But I assume this will be fixed in time.

> thing I could find was a source-only program called VMem.  Is this the

No, that's something else.  Not sure what that one is.

There are a couple of commercial ones too, but I have no experience
with those.

  - steve

PS - why does the "To:" field from IML posts now always say
"email.email.sp.paramax.com"?  Isn't there an extra email in there
somewhere?


##

Subject: Memory Manager for '030?
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1993 22:33:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Schumacher Gordon C <[e-mail]>

Okay, I have a question for all you Imagineers out there.  Is there a
virtual memory manager for the Amiga, preferably shareware, that will
run on an '030 based system, and if so, where can I find it?  I am
trying to do a somewhat complex animation, but 3 megs just don't cut
it.

Thanx all...
--
     Gordon Schumacher

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Champaign-    "I woke up on the wrong side of bed this   _@_      |
|     Urbana     morning... underneath it!"               /   \     |
|                    -Jason Freeburg                     | o o |    |
\-------------------------------------------------------U|--U--|U---/


##

Subject: Virtual Memory...
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 09:20:21 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Stephen J.Gowdy)

Hi All,
    I was wondering how good that PD VMM40 was, but from the previous mails
it sounds quite good. In the past I tried to get the old VMem program working
but without any luck.
    I wanted to render the NCC1701D object by Carman Rizzo (sorry if I've
spelt your name wrong!) but I have only 6 Meg. So I eventually bought Gigamem.
This is a commercial program and costs around #50 in the UK. It is quite good
and I don't believe it has caused me any problems. It works on any machine with
an MMU.
    You need to set a minimum amount for it to allocate as virtual memory
for any task you wish to use it. The default is 10000 bytes, but to render the
Enterprise I had to take this down to 10 (as low as it goes) for it to complete
it. I guess Imagine must grab lots of little bits of memory. The funny thing is
if it runs out of Fast Mem but there still it Vmem which won't be allocated to
it because it is asking for small bits it still renders but misses out bits of
the objects. Wierd effects, man!
    With gigamem you can either use an entire partition or a file on a
AmigaDOS partition.

                Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

                            Stephen.

****************************************************************************
*Stephen J Gowdy                *A4000/040* High Energy Physics Group,     *
*Bitnet: GOWDY AT GWIA          *120 MB HD* Dept Of Physics & Astronomy,   *
*DecNet: 20075::GOWDY           *6MEG RAM!* University of Glasgow.         *
*InterNet: [e-mail]*It moves!* Tel: [phone] E:5894 *
****************************************************************************




##

Subject: GigaMem and Imagine
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 09:31:53 +0100
From: <[e-mail]>

Hi !

As we are talking about Virtual memory and as I have the chance to own Gigamem
(Version 3.0, works with '030 and '040), does anybody know what is the best
setting ?

I've got 26MB RAM (Yes, I know, it's a lot) and as much as disk that I want (I
created a 20MB file to extend my memory to about 40MB for Imagine in some
renderings). Has anybody experienced how much buffer I should reserve for swap
(I don't know exactly what it is, but I think it the memory amount reserved to
allow swapping from/to disk).
This question applies not only to Gigamem, but to all Virtual Memory programs.

Thank you

Robin

--
                                                       \|/
                                                       @ @
---------------------------------------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-----------
Robin Chytil, Staff Engineer            Email: [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics Inc.                Vmail: 5-9389
Mediterranean Distribution Territory        Tel:   [phone]
Lausanne, Switzerland                Fax :  [phone]






##

Subject: RE: GigaMem and Imagine
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 10:39:07 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Stephen J.Gowdy)

If you use a file it tells you in the manual to set the buffer to zero. It
just uses the AMigaDOS device buffers for the partition.


##

Subject: Textures
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 93 22:37:16
From: [e-mail]

Ok folks, here's some more texture play for you guys.

Imagine 2.9's DETHSTAR texture leaves much to be desired for my tastes.  Here's
a solution I came up with....use the RADWIND,TUBEWIND,RECTWIND
textures to create multicolored spaceship panels:

- Add a primitive sphere with it's default values.
- Apply the RADWIND texture
- Make these adjustments to the texture variables:
Column One     Two
      ____    ____
       1       210       *These params will gill give you panels that are
       3       210        randomly colored from the two color ranges defined
      60       210        in column two.
       0       190       *Play around with some of the variables to get the
       1       190        affect right for you.
       0       190
       0        -1
       0         0
--------------------------------------------

BARK, MOUNTAIN RIVULETS, GRANITE, MARBLE EFFECTS
      -Use the WRINKLE texture for all these and more!

- Add default cylinder and CLOSE the TOP
- Select the top edges of the cylinder and MAKE SHARP
- Apply the WRINKLE texture and render.
    This will look like bark around the cylinder....play with the noise
    functions to adjust the look of the bark.

Now make these changes to the Texture:

Column One     Two
       ___     ___
       0.5     150      * This will look like the sides of a mountain around
       0.5     150        the Cylinder.  On the top of the cylinder it will
      10.0     150        look like granite.
       1.0      20      * When applied to organic object the vertical faces
       0.5      50        will have the rivulets, the horizontal faces will
       0.0      20        be granite-like.
       0.0       0
       1.0       0      * Try changing the first three variables in Column
                          one to 10,10,1 respectively.  The resulting look
                          will make the cylinder look like a core sample
                          around the cylinder, while the top of the cylinder
                          will have a marble-like quality.
---------------------------------------------
  Hope these tips were usefull, play around with the params to further tweak
these two textures...you'd be surprised what can be done.

-GreG



##

Subject: Candy apple
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 11:05:49
From: [e-mail]

Here's something that I found very usefull and use very often.

The new CNDAPPLE texture is GREAT for giving the appearance of a metalic
finish.  Take any mechanical object, plane, ship, gear, car, tank, robot, etc.
and apply the Candy Apple texture to the main group axis and click on Apply to
Group in the texture dialogue box.   It's that simple.
  I use it on an Exoskeletal armored suit.  The suit's color is pure white.
All RGB guns are set to 255 and I apply this texture.  The result is a
stainless steel finish.
  This trick is great when you need that metallic look but don't need any
reflections.  It saves a great deal of time rendering to boot.

GreG



##

Subject: 2.9 bugs coming out of the woodwork!
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 14:27:58 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ziolkowski)

Here's one for you, for some reason, you can not have the subgroup
    only button clicked on for textures.  It renders as if you hadn't
    assigned any texture at all!  This is bad.  What is worse is you
    can no longer apply maps on top of one another, at least the
    non-color kind.  I'm building a set of hard-core military/sci-fi
    sets, and I wanted to have this stair case with yellow and black
    safety stripes over top of these raised metal bumpmaps.  Well,
    surprise surprise, it wouldn't work.
Bear in mind I have not had time to do very much with it yet so I
    may be ignorant about the new way of doing things, but if
    anyone out there can point me in the right direction, I'd
    be most appreciative
steveZ                 Rhythm & Hues, Inc.
celia![e-mail]
"That's not Art Linkletter, that's Mickey Mouse!"
            -Art Linkletter, Disneyland opening day



##

Subject: Spaceship Object Availiable for Download
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 01:12:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (Daniel T. Edwards)


Available for download on WuArchive and AmiNet:

T-17SpaceFighter

An Imagine 2.9 object.  It is one of the fighters from the Star Wars
series.  I'm certain you will not recognise it.  I never heard of it until
I saw it in a book.  It uses some 2.9 textures and  several brushmaps.  The
brushmaps are, of course, included. This is probably my very best object.
It'l keep getting better as I add things to it.  When 3.0 comes out, I'm
going to add a "landing gear out" state.  It should be possible with 2.9,
but I hear that states is still quite buggy.


On wuarchive.wustl.edu it is in:
systems/amiga/boing/incoming/imagine
The filenames are:
T-17.SpcFtr.For2.9.lha  \__ Be very specific about these filenames.  The
T-17.V2.9readme         /   others in the directory are obsolete or bad.


On Aminet it is in the new directory and currently unavailable.
It will probably end up in: aminet/gfx/3d/3dobj or whatever.
The filenames there are: T-17.V2.9.readme
                         T-17.v2.9.lha

Please E-mail me if you have any fun with this...

Still using Imagine 2.9 on a 700 x 462 screen without special hardware.
E-mail me for more info.
 ____________________________________________________________
/                                                            \
| Amiga 2000                James R. Walker                  |
| 2MB Chip             [e-mail]           |
| 18MB Fast    ______________________________________________|
| 130 MB Hard /                                              |
| 68040 33Mhz |Heinlein,Rand,Clarke,Adams,Asimov,Niven,Worley|
\____________________________________________________________/


##

Subject: PAL VCR
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 16:18:19 +0100 (MET)
From: [e-mail] (Krunoslav Kedmenec)


        Hi to all Imagine users!

    One question for Amiga users in Europe (or any PAL country).
I need some video recorder that can record in single frame mode.It can
be in any video system (S-VHS, Hi8,...) for PAL. Only limit is price
( not over 10.000 DEM, 6.000 $, 4.000 #, ...).
    I am also interested in some quality PAL genlock for S-VHS.

    If anyone knows any model (and price) please reply.

                        Krunoslav Kedmenec
                        [e-mail]

        Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


##

Subject: Revelation 3D
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 13:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]

I just saw a blurb in the Jan. Amiga World, page 12 concerning Revelation 3D.
What impressed me was the fact that it supports network-distributed
rendering (even on the serial port! (?)).  Has anyone heard any more about
this product?  Perhaps there was discussion about it on comp.sys.amiga.graphics
or something?

PJ
Kinetic Dreams



##

Subject: Anim cards
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 01:07:21 +0200
From: [e-mail]

Ho ho ho IMLs, merry Christmas, and happy Hanuka! (yeah, a bit late, but
still)

On  my way to a multi-million dollar computer animation business, and right
before I sign the Jurassic Park II (Jurassic Ocean) contract with Steven, I
need to get a real-time 24bit high-res animation player.

I browsed through recent magazines, and came up with the following
options:

DPS - PAR
OpalVision 2.0
Digital Broadcaster 16/32
Vlab Motion

I'm  seeking  hands-on information on these boards or any other boards that
fit  the  criteria from real-life users, concerning primarily the animation
playback.  Also, if anyone uses a 'display enhancer' like the EGS-Spectrum,
Merlin etc.  for similar animation playback, please respond.

Features I'd like to have:

feature                                          a must?

* __PAL__                                          YES
* Clear display - no mpeg/jpeg artifacts           YES
* 50 fps, no matter how complex the animation is   YES
* Composite, Y/C, component output                 NO
* Real-time video capture                          NO
* Non-linear editing tools                            NO
* Arexx support                                    NO
* Non-dedicated hard disk                          NO
* Zorro II/III compatibility                       YES
* 'Buy a card, get a Porsche' coupon               YES

If you could refer in your answers to those features or add other features,
I'll  be  very  happy.   Responses  may go here or directly to me, and I'll
compile it and send it to the list.

Thanx!

Nir Hermoni
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Revelation 3D
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 23:25:47 EST
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

>
>
> I just saw a blurb in the Jan. Amiga World, page 12 concerning Revelation 3D.
> What impressed me was the fact that it supports network-distributed
> rendering (even on the serial port! (?)).  Has anyone heard any more about
> this product?  Perhaps there was discussion about it on comp.sys.amiga.graphics
> or something?
>
> PJ
> Kinetic Dreams
>

There were a number of debates on C.S.A.G. relating to revelation. (most
centered on the fact that it was to ship with a donggle, however the
makers have removed the dongle and instead opted to distribute on CD-rom)

An extensive feature list was posted. I don't have it handy, but It generally
listed all of the features of imagine 2.0 with a helping of assorted features
from other programs. It sounds proimising. I esspecially like the promised
real time color shading in the editors. Of course as far as I'm
concerned it's all vapor until it can be purchased (which may be right now!)
It certainly did sound promising.

I had also heard a RUMOR (repeat RUMOR) that this is the 3D package that
progressive peripherals was handling. The rumor stated that they purchsed
the code and greatly enhanced it. If anyone has more info on this I'd like
to here it.

                    |
steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
[e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


##

Subject: Trying to illuminate my ceiling
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 08:04:44 PST
From: [e-mail]

I'm trying to render a room and I can't get Imagine to illuminate my
ceiling!

As a test case I created a simple box (actually a 4-sided TUBE primative)
and stuck a light and the camera inside of it.  Now the box is all one object
so the walls, floor and ceiling all have the same attributes but Imagine
seems to want to treat the ceiling as the "bottom-of-the-top" and render
it shaded... I get white walls and a white floor but a grey ceiling, even If
I render a spot lamp pointed at the ceiling I get a light grey spot.  If I
point the light at the intersection of a wall and the ceiling, the portion
of the spot on the wall it white but the portion of the spot on the ceiling
is grey.

Anybody got some ideas?

Don DeCosta
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Understanding Imagine (the book, not the concept!)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 17:06:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Freundlich <[e-mail]>

I've been using Imagine 2.0 for about 3 months now.  I've got the basics, but
mothing more.  Everyone on the list is talking about Steve Worley's
"Understanding Imagine", so I thought I'd go get a copy.  Went to my dealer
this weekend.  IT'S OUT OF PRINT!!!!!!  AAAAAIIIIIGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!

So, two questions:

1. Anyone want to part with theirs?  I'll pay good money for it!

2. If (1) fails, anyone want to copy theirs?  Now, before all you anti-pirate
types get in a dander, let me say I WOULD PAY FOR IT IF IT WERE AVAILABLE!!!!!
Barring that, I'm willing to pay Worley his royalty on the copy (does he read
this list?  If so, Steve, what do you think?  I won't do this without your
permission as the author).

All the features of 2.9 sound great, but if I can't figure out 2.0, I don't
know if it's worth the upgrade price.  I am not a professional cga, nor do I
plan to do anything other than make neat pictures and animations for personal
pleasure.  So I don't actually _need_ Imagine.  Or a complete understanding of
it.  However, it's nice to use this wonderful machine for something fun but not
necessary.  So I'd like to find the book and use it before deciding whether or
not to upgrade.

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|Rob Freundlich                         |#define SYSOP GOD                   |
|IDX Systems Corporation                |#define REALITY NULL                |
|[e-mail]     <- You Are Here |                                    |
|[e-mail]                 |Diseased Programmers do it in MUMPS!|
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|  "Some folks you don't have to satirize - ya just quote 'em" - Tom Paxton  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|#include <stdio.h> void main() {printf("My opinions, not my employer's\n");}|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+



##

Subject: LightWave Pro magazine
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 17:42:47 EST
From: Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

I don't recall which list this question originated from (I think it was the
Imagine list) but I have received dozens of requests for subscription
info on LightWave Pro magazine for areas outside North America. To the best
of my knowledge (I just got off the phone with the chief editor), it is not
currently available outside this continent primarily due to shipping cost
issues. They are concerned that they don't have enough exposure in Europe
to make it financially viable. I did mention to him that I have been getting
many requests and he is going to bring it up with the Publisher (Avid
Publications). If you would like to see this happen, you can email Avid at:
[e-mail]
%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
%      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  %
% --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   %
%      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   %
%     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   %
%                                                                          %
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


##

Subject: Re: Rockets Red Flare...
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 93 18:06:15 PDT
From: [e-mail]


     >>>> Human vision also exhibits motion blur.

     >> - I have a problem with this one. Isn't motion blur due to discrete
     sampling? i.e. frames of film? frames of video? Maybe if you can show
     me that the optic nerve samples the incoming light, I'll buy this
     argument.


     No, motion blur is not the result of changing frames over time. It is
     the result of changes that happen within the time limit of a single
     frame. (Well, ok, there are other ways, too.)  Note that you can see
     motion blur in a still photo.

     Sampling happens in the eye, not the optic nerve. But it is sampling.
     I don't know what else would you would call it.

     The blur happens because images have a duration. Focus on a high
     contrast item and shut you eyes. There's a bit of afterimage, no? The
     perception of the thing doesn't disappear the same instant that the
     light from the thing does. If the images changes over time, there will
     be afterimages along with the current images: thus, blur. It's not
     discrete or digital, but it's still there.

     If you still don't believe human vision has motion blur, here's an
     experiment you can try: wave your hand in front of your face. Just to
     be sure, try it outside in sunlight, so you know there aren't any
     artifacts from 60 Hz lighting.


     Marshall



##

Subject: Re: Rockets Red Flare...
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 22:34:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 20 Dec 1993 [e-mail] wrote:

>
>
>      >>>> Human vision also exhibits motion blur.
>
>      >> - I have a problem with this one. Isn't motion blur due to discrete
>      sampling? i.e. frames of film? frames of video? Maybe if you can show
>      me that the optic nerve samples the incoming light, I'll buy this
>      argument.
>
>
>      No, motion blur is not the result of changing frames over time. It is
>      the result of changes that happen within the time limit of a single
>      frame. (Well, ok, there are other ways, too.)  Note that you can see
>      motion blur in a still photo.

    You get the idea...

    One more thing to try:

    Video used in brightly lit areas sometimes has NO motion blur.
I've seen this in a few Sprite ads where people were playing baseball.
The frames are like a series of still pictures shot at a very fast shutter
speed.  You can tell something is wrong even if you can't trace it to
motion blur right away.

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel






##

Subject: RE: Rockets Red Flare...
Date: 21 Dec 1993 10:11:02 +0000
From: "Oxley David" <[e-mail]>

Cyrus J Kalbrener on Tue, Dec 21, 1993 6:16 am wrote:

>    Video used in brightly lit areas sometimes has NO motion blur.
>I've seen this in a few Sprite ads where people were playing baseball.
>The frames are like a series of still pictures shot at a very fast shutter
>speed.  You can tell something is wrong even if you can't trace it to
>motion blur right away.

Producers of televised athletics coverage in particular seem to go for high
shutter speeds, presumably so that in action replay, the athletes don't look
like blurs on the screen as they whiz past.  IMHO it makes for an artificially
crisp and jerky style of animation...but I suppose it serves its purpose.

Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>


##

Subject: errors in anim makin
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 8:57:41 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

Hello Imaginauts;
    I have been having trouble making my anims, The rendered frames
Look great. I cannot play the regular imagine anims so I use the anim option
and play them back with vt.
    Two things have happened one is that on building the last anim it
crashes my machine with an unrecoverable error. the other thing is that it
gets what looks like large scratches in the dithered surfaces that blink
off and on about every other frame. My great gold frame comes out looking
like (%^$&$$^) where the light dithers away into gold.

    Oh one other thing when you have an object with a bad face or point
count, and get the requester over and over and over, its like that stupid
rabbit with those batteries it just never quits. not a bad idea to check
your objects but c'mon.

    I also noticed that the preferance setting don't take some of the time
to be specific try adjusting your default quickrender background color with
the sliders. also edle does not change unless you save exit imagine and come
back in.

                        Thanks
                         Lesk


##

Subject: Re: Rockets Red Flare...
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 9:30:09 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

|     If you still don't believe human vision has motion blur, here's an
|     experiment you can try: wave your hand in front of your face. Just to
|     be sure, try it outside in sunlight, so you know there aren't any
|     artifacts from 60 Hz lighting.

    Of course the human eye exhibits motion blur.  That's why videographers,
    cinematographers, animators, and photographers all try to emulate
    it with their particular medium.  It is my understanding that
    because of the "persistence of vision" in the human eye, fast moving
    images tend to blur together.  That is the basis for which moving
    pictures are created.  Your watching a sequence of still images.
    Yet they appear to be moving due to the mechanism of the eye.  It
    is a controlled motion blur.  That is why slower film and video
    rates dont produce smooth motion.

    Dale


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: Now I Understand Imagine :-)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 11:24:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Freundlich <[e-mail]>

Thanks to all who responded to my request.  I called System Eyes in Nashua, NH,
and as of this afternoon, my copy will be on its way.

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|Rob Freundlich                         |#define SYSOP GOD                   |
|IDX Systems Corporation                |#define REALITY NULL                |
|[e-mail]     <- You Are Here |                                    |
|[e-mail]                 |Diseased Programmers do it in MUMPS!|
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|  "Some folks you don't have to satirize - ya just quote 'em" - Tom Paxton  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|#include <stdio.h> void main() {printf("My opinions, not my employer's\n");}|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+



##

Subject: Re: Trying to illuminate my ceiling
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 11:50:32 CST
From: [e-mail]

>
> I'm trying to render a room and I can't get Imagine to illuminate my
> ceiling!
>
    I had the same problem.  My solution was to use a paint program
to do a gradient fill of my all-black ceiling.  I'd bet ImageFX or
ImageMaster could also do a region flood-fill with a "lighten" effect.
The solution I didn't try because my room was too complex to bother
with, is to delete the ceiling polygons and replace them with a plane.
You might have to set the ceiling's attributes to "bright".

-John


##

Subject: RE: Rockets Red Flare...
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 13:28:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On 21 Dec 1993, Oxley David wrote:

> Cyrus J Kalbrener on Tue, Dec 21, 1993 6:16 am wrote:
>
> >    Video used in brightly lit areas sometimes has NO motion blur.
>
> Producers of televised athletics coverage in particular seem to go for high
> shutter speeds, presumably so that in action replay, the athletes don't look
> like blurs on the screen as they whiz past.  IMHO it makes for an artificially
> crisp and jerky style of animation...but I suppose it serves its purpose.
>
> Regards, David Oxley.  <[e-mail]>

    My point exactly.




##

Subject: RE: Rockets red flare
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 13:29:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 20 Dec 1993, Daniel T. Edwards wrote:
> Did I lose anyone?
> How does this relate to Imagine?
> I want motion blur and lens flare.  I just don't have a good
> (read confusing) argument for lens flare... yet.

    O.K., Take a bright flashlight, go into a dark closet, turn the
flashlight on, and shine it in your face.  If anyone can tell me that you
only see a glowing filament (and can still see the rest of the room behind
the light), I will concede(sp) that lense flare is unrealistic.

    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel






##

Subject: PAR question
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:55:54 CST
From: [e-mail] (Dale R Rogers)

    Greetings and Happy Holidays,

    the video engineer in our video services department told me that
    when I create animations I should put about 45 seconds of color
    bars on the front of the tape so that the engineers can adjust
    their equipment to my colors.

    I noticed that the PAR comes with a "test patterns" directory and
    there a number of files in it.  One file says it has color bars.
    They are not IFF files.  I tried to view them and received an error
    message.  I don't want to have to create a color bar test screen if
    I don't have to.  I would rather just display the image through the
    PAR for about 45s and then play my animation.  The manual and
    README files don't seem to talk about them (unless I missed it
    while I was reading).

    What exactly are these files?  How do I use them?

    BTW My Imagine animation looked fantastic played over the studio
    monitor.  The engineer was very impressed with the output.

    Dale


        ____________________________^____________________________
        dale r. rogers

        Intergraph Corporation
        Building Design & Management             MailStop: LR24A4
        [e-mail]           Tel: [phone]
                                    .


##

Subject: IFF files to slide woes
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 13:10:42 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Manjit Bedi)

I was hoping to get some images that I rendered in Imagine
done up on slides.  But things seem to have gotten very
expensive.

Does anyone on the list have any experience with getting
their artwork outputted to slides?

One of the problems I have is memory.  I generated a 2000 x 2000
24 bit IFF in Imagine but then I could not read it in with
ADPro to convert it to a JPEG file.  ADPro wants 16,004,000 bytes
of memory to hold a raw image.  I only have a 12 M fast and 2 M
chip in my 3000.  Incidentally, the actually IFF is 1,773,294
bytes in size.

The guy at the image bureau I talked to said ideally they would
like the file as PCX or Targa file.  But they would have to scale
it up to the proper resolution; he said it would be 15 minutes
of work at $100 Canadian an hour.  The advertisement I saw
said $5 - $8 Canadian per slide ( but it did not say what the
criteria was).  I was hoping to get quite a few slides done up
time permitting but the costs when added up are too much for
me.

I am prepared to accept that this stuff is not altogether cheap
but I would like to know better what goes and how I would
ideally have slide ready files to take to image bureau.

The other problem is I would need the images by next Tuesday;
otherwise, I would try one the places I saw advertising they
handle amiga files by mail to make slides.  There are a few places
in with ads in AmigaWorld.  Has anyone dealt with any of these
places and how much did it all end up costing?  These places
advertise that they handle IFF-24's amongst other file formats.

What have I learned here?  I should have been making some calls
before even trying to do any renders in the first place.

PS.  I was surprised how quickly the gas giant texture in Imagine
2.9 renders.


##

Subject: My recent trip
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 16:54:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Andrew P. Vogel" <[e-mail]>

Well, this past weekend, I was in San Francisco California. While I was out
there, I had the chance to meet up with Steve Worley for lunch.

We met in Menlo Park in a fantastic Chinese restaurant (can't remeber the name)
and we had the chance to talk a lot about the state of things, and Steve even
provided me with a features-list of some new stuff from Apex Software! Lots
of goodies coming from them. If Steve gives me permission, I will post what
I remember from our conversation. Steve?

All in all, the entire trip was very nice and relaxing, and it was certainly
nice to put a face to the name and voice of Steve Worley!



##

Subject: textures index
Date: 21 Dec 93 02:44:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

     If you've printed out the list of texture descriptions for 2.9,
     then you've probably been searching through 30+ pages looking for
     the one you need (I have).  Here's a list sorted alphabetically
     by filename to use as an index.  Fill in the page number for
     your printout.  Please post corrections here.

     Ed

c=color r=reflect f=filter b=bump

Filename  Type      Page

Agate     c
Antique   crf(+alt)
BathTile  cb
BumpNoiz  b
CndyAppl  c
ColrNoiz  crf
Confetti  crf
CoolFir   crf
Crumpled  crb
DethStar  crfb
DinoSkin  cb
Easy Wood c
FilNoiz2  f
FireBall  crf
Gas Giant cf
HrdStrip  crf
Iris      c
Leather   b
LensFlar  f
Metals    crb
MntnTop   crf
Monster   cb
Mosaic    crfb
Pebbled   crb
Peened    crb
Plaid     c
RadCheks  crfb
Rainbow   c
RdDthStr  crfb
RectChex  crfb
RectWind  crf
RedWing   crf
RefNoiz2  r
Scratch   crb
SftStrip  crf
Shingles  b
Splotch   c
SprlChex  crfb
StainGls  cfb
Statue    cb
Transpar  f
TriChex   crfb
TriTile   cb
TubeWind  crf
Venetian  b
Weave     crfb
Worm Vein crfb
Wrinkle   crb
Z Buffer  c
Zooloo    cb


##

Subject: Re: My recent trip
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 23:21:21 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis - ICD ~)

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew P Vogel <[e-mail]> writes:

Andrew> We met in Menlo Park in a fantastic Chinese restaurant (can't
Andrew> remeber the name) and we had the chance to talk a lot about
Andrew> the state of things, and Steve even provided me with a
Andrew> features-list of some new stuff from Apex Software! Lots of
Andrew> goodies coming from them. If Steve gives me permission, I will
Andrew> post what I remember from our conversation. Steve?

    I'm afraid that Steve has just taken off to visit his family
for Christmas, and he won't be back until about the 28th or 1st of the
year.  Sorry I didn't get to meet you too, Andrew... Charles and I are
quite remote from Steve.

[ My opinion regarding question sent only to Andrew. ]

                            -- Glenn


##

Subject: re:slides
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 15:24:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kodama)

Manjit Bedi was looking to get slides from Imagine-
i have successfully gotten slides of my Lightwave images, which run
5-7 megs, by transferring the IFFs to Photoshop 2.51, which reads 24 bit
IFFS, then saving out to any format the bureau requires. I use Amax to
transfer from Amiga to Mac syquest.
Most service bureaus i have used have access to photoshop/mac or pc, and ther
even use photoshop to send to the slide recorder...
hope this helps-
p.s. i too have 16 megs and was quite disappointed that ADpro couldn't read the files-
i hear ImageFX has virtual memory-this should be able to load bigger images.

kevin
[e-mail]


##

Subject: IFF files to slide woes
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 17:58:58 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> One of the problems I have is memory.  I generated a 2000 x 2000
> 24 bit IFF in Imagine but then I could not read it in with
> ADPro to convert it to a JPEG file.  ADPro wants 16,004,000 bytes

Shoulda bought ImageFX instead :-)  Its got built-in virtual memory.
I've used this to manipulate some *huge* files.

But failing that you have a couple of choices:

  - get GigaMem or one of the other virtual mem programs to let you
    effectively get more memory for ADPro.  This should be cheap.

  - If you have an 040 system you can probably use the free VMM40
    program from aminet.  Right now this is limited to 32 Mb, but
    perhaps that will be enough.  (The author says he will remove that
    limit soon).

  - Find a friend who has either more RAM, or ImageFX.

> like the file as PCX or Targa file.  But they would have to scale
> it up to the proper resolution; he said it would be 15 minutes
> of work at $100 Canadian an hour.  The advertisement I saw

Might as well do this yourself.  If you can find someone nearby with
ImageFX you should be able to scale to any size file you want, in
addition to writing Targa or just about any other format they can think
of.

(I'm surprised the shop doesn't accept IFF images though.  IFF has been
around longer than things like GIF, and it seems like most modern image
processing software will read just about any format).

  - steve


##

Subject: Re: slides
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 13:44:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Schumacher Gordon C <[e-mail]>

> i hear ImageFX has virtual memory-this should be able to load bigger images.

Yes, ImageFX is the way to go on this one - for the most part, I find
that I prefer it anyway.  It should be able to load the image... don't
expect to be able to get a decent screen image of it 'tho...  *that*
takes lots of real memory.  You'll just get a grayscale or dithered 16-
color version.
--
     Gordon Schumacher

/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Champaign-    "I woke up on the wrong side of bed this   _@_      |
|     Urbana     morning... underneath it!"               /   \     |
|                    -Jason Freeburg                     | o o |    |
\-------------------------------------------------------U|--U--|U---/


##

Subject: Brilliance IFFs don't load as brushmaps
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 18:22:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Freundlich <[e-mail]>

My copy of UI just came in (wow.  Overnight service during Xmas week.  System
Eyes is _impressive_!) and it'sgot me wanting to play with brushmaps.  So I go
into Brilliance (yes, I'm on a 4000) and create a brush.  Save it to disk.  Go
into Imagine, create a 1x1 plane and map the brush to it.  Now when I try to
Quickrender, Imagine tells me it can't load the brush.

This was mentioned on csa.graphics (I think) and someone said to edit out the
ANN0 hunk of the Brush IFF file, but that's not working for me (or I'm editing
it out wrong).  Has anyone had success using Brilliance and Imagine?  I'd hate
to go back to DPaint ...

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|Rob Freundlich                         |#define SYSOP GOD                   |
|IDX Systems Corporation                |#define REALITY NULL                |
|[e-mail]     <- You Are Here |                                    |
|[e-mail]                 |Diseased Programmers do it in MUMPS!|
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|  "Some folks you don't have to satirize - ya just quote 'em" - Tom Paxton  |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|#include <stdio.h> void main() {printf("My opinions, not my employer's\n");}|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+



##

Subject: Re: IFF files to slide woes
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 05:01:43 +0100
From: Johan Andersson <[e-mail]>

Hello.

I printed out a few pictures last week, using a service buroue in sweden

it costed me 10 dollars/picture and they accepted jpeg, iff, pcx, tiff etc...

For a A4 - copy (21*29 cm) you'll have an image size of 2000*3000.



Cee ya

    / Johan


##

Subject: Re: Brilliance IFFs don't load as brushmaps
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 05:05:12 +0100
From: Johan Andersson <[e-mail]>

Hi.

Imagine 2.0 can not use AGA - pictures

    / Johan

ps. I don't know if v2.9 can ds.


##

Subject: Re: Brilliance IFFs don't load as brushmaps
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 20:34:46 -0800
From: Tim Salazar <[e-mail]>

You can always load the Brill IFF into the good ol' standby ADPro and resave
as an IFF.

Tim Salazar  [e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Imagine-PC!?!
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 00:32:29 EST
From: [e-mail]

Wow!  Imagine-PC.  I didn't know it was available...  Haven't seen it.   What
does it list for, and where can I find it?


##

Subject: AGA IFF conversion
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 9:40:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Freundlich <[e-mail]>

OK, so Imagine 2.0 doesn't understand AGA IFFs  A couple of people have
suggested ADPro to convert to a normal IFF.  Unfortunately, I don't own AdPro
or any other conversion program.

1. Are there any PD programs that will do this?

2. What's the difference between AGA IFF and just plain IFF?  I've got the 2.0
RKM sitting in front of me, so I could probably write a converter if the
differences aren't too complicated.

3. Is it just a matter of screen modes and color resolution?  Maybe I can make
a non-AGA screenmode picture with a non-AGA color resolution?

Rob


##

Subject: Mouse lock bug!
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 08:16:20 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Brad Molsen)

        I'm new to this mailing list so, if you're already aware of this problem
sorry to be redundant. If you are aware of this problem and know how to get
out of it please let me know.
        When holding down the shift key to make multiple selections I have
found that if I go up to the menu bar i.e. the last selection being
incorrect so, I go up to do an "Undo", the mouse locks on the menu bar and
I have to reboot the system to regain control losing of course anything
that I have in work in the process. Even if I try the using the keyboard to
at least get me out of Imagine to avoid rebooting; using "a Q", I receive a
requester asking me if I want to quit! Unfortunately, this requester only
responds to mouse input!! Has anyone else experienced this problem. I have
a lot of PD programs enhancing my system which possibly could be causing
this glitch.
                                Merry Christmas,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Toasters don't burn toast. People burn toast."
                        Curator Seattle Toaster Museum

Brad Molsen c/o  LORAL                          [e-mail]

13810 SE Eastgate Way Suite 500                 [phone]
Bellevue, Wa 98005                              Fax: [phone]



##

Subject: Re: Brilliance IFFs don't load as brushmaps
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 10:24:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 23 Dec 1993, Johan Andersson wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Imagine 2.0 can not use AGA - pictures
>
>     / Johan
>
> ps. I don't know if v2.9 can ds.

    Imagine can't handle 256 color pix (haven't tried it on 2.9).




##

Subject: Imagine 2.9 or V3.0
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 22:37:40 +0100
From: [e-mail] (Andreas Gutzwiller)

I ordered the upgrade from Impulse to version 3.0. I got only V 2.9 with a
letter that V 3.0 comes later. Do anybody have V3.0?



              ^^
     xxxx     xxx
   xxxxxxxx xxxOxxx  _       Andreas Gutzwiller
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 /xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx       FIDO:  2:301/707.7
/ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx       AmigaNet: 39:110/101.7
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/       AmiNet: 44:8010/101.7
   xxxxxxxxxxx    xx     InterNet: [e-mail]
    xxx   xxx
    xxx   xxx


##

Subject: Re: Brilliance IFFs don't load as brushmaps
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 93 09:13:18 EST
From: [e-mail] (Graeme Mc Donough)

>On Thu, 23 Dec 1993, Johan Andersson wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Imagine 2.0 can not use AGA - pictures
>>
>>       / Johan
>>
>> ps. I don't know if v2.9 can ds.
>
>        Imagine can't handle 256 color pix (haven't tried it on 2.9).


If you read the notes you should have with your 2.9 you
will read that the Imagine people request that you do not try to use AGA.
the AGA selection is there in imagine, but they say not to use it yet..




/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-SUN
Graeme Mc Donough,
INTERNET: [e-mail]  (postmaster)
                                                                        ///
Monash University                                                      ///
Dpt of Earth Sciences                                                 ///
Clayton, Melbourne                                                \\\///
Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3168                                           \XX/
PHONE: [phone]
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-TWIRL





##

Subject: Re: AGA IFF conversion
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 21:47:04 -0800
From: Tim Salazar <[e-mail]>

Rob,

A PD converter is Rend24. Its in the gfx section of aminet.

AGA is a version of Ham but you need the correct chipset (AGA) in order to
view it. As far as Imagine not accepting it that is internal. I don't know
about that.

Also I thought that you could save Brilliance in both AGA and IFF. Isn't
True 24 running in the background?

Tim


##

Subject: Re: AGA IFF conversion   (Msgnum: 1082658)
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1993 13:08:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Freundlich <[e-mail]>

From:    IDX::SMTP%"[e-mail]" 24-DEC-1993 02:25:22.26
To:    MOTHER::RSF
CC:
Subj:    Re: AGA IFF conversion   (Msgnum: 1082658)

>Rob,

>A PD converter is Rend24. Its in the gfx section of aminet.

Ergh.  The version I've got crashes me.  I'll dl the newest ...

>Also I thought that you could save Brilliance in both AGA and IFF. Isn't
>True 24 running in the background?

I can't find an option for save format.  Using True Brilliance will save HAM or
IFF, but I'm using straight Brilliance, no HAM.  What's "True 24"?

Rob



##

Subject: Imagine 2.9 and Grow effect
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 00:30:31 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Ok. I'm pissed off now! I understand that there are quite a few bugs in
what is essentially a Beta release, but I hate it when they screw up what
used to work (more or less). i.e. the Grow F/X. Has anyone tried it in
2.9 ?
Well, I have and it doesn't seem to work. After spending quite a while
designing a path I thought I'd set up the growth sequence. I did
everything the same as in 2.0 (nothing  in the docs. to indicate that
anything has been changed) and all of a sudden Imagine tells me that the
path object is wrong. Ok, I made sure that I checked how I grouped it -
i.e. the path being the parent. Everything was right!
Ok, I thought... No problem I'll just do it in 2.0. Sorry, Impulse have
changed something with the paths as 2.0 won't recognize it as a path -
you only get an axis... Real major bummer! I spent an hour or so on this
and it has all gone down the drain! Looking at the sizes of the effects,
it seems that the 2.9 versions are completely the same as 2.0 versions.
Some just do not work!
If anyone gets Grow to work, let me know how you did it since something
has definitely changed!



Oh well, back to 2.0...

Nik.



##

Subject: Mirrors
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 7:42:56 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

Hello all;
    I tried making a mirror in 2.9 and it would reflect the ground
and sky but nothing else. I tried a tree and a logo placed everywhere
around it I even added a chrome sphere it to only reflected the ground
and sky no matter where I placed all my other stuff.
Any Ideas?

                    Thanks
                     Lesk


##

Subject: Re: Mirrors
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 17:46:31 EST
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

>
> Hello all;
>     I tried making a mirror in 2.9 and it would reflect the ground
> and sky but nothing else. I tried a tree and a logo placed everywhere
> around it I even added a chrome sphere it to only reflected the ground
> and sky no matter where I placed all my other stuff.
> Any Ideas?
>
>                     Thanks
>                      Lesk
>
You have to be in TRACE mode to get full reflection. In scanline
the ground and sky do reflect.

                    |
steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
[e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


##

Subject: More on IFF to slides
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 14:24:09 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Manjit Bedi)

Firslty, I would like to thank all the people who replied to my
mail about getting slides made up.

To summarize:


   - the dimesions of the render should be

       2048 x 1368 (approximately)

       or

       1536 x 1024

   - the aspect ratio should be 1 for X and 1 for Y but one
     person said it should be ratio of the the above
     dimensions


But this much more than I knew to begin with  ;-)

I am going to hold off on getting some slides done for the
time being.  I am wondering about getting an external
high density floppy for my A3000 so I might be able to
transport images more conveniently.  I cannot justify
buying a sysquest (sp?) at the moment.

Quite a few people mentioned using ImageFX over ADPro since it
has virtual memory built in. This is with regards to converting
the IFF-24 to something like a targa file. And of course there
is a Gigamem.

I have another question: does Imagine render the entire image in
memory or portions at a time and then writes the parts of the image
to disk? It seems funny that I generate a image with Imagine larger
than ADPRO can read in into RAW memory.

I should mention that the PC version of Imagine writes Targa and
TIFF files.  Impulse should consider adding this to the Amiga
version of Imagine; it could make things easier in cases like
what I am going through.

Soapbox

I have been using PC's at work and an Amiga in my home for years
now. It is incredibly inefficient to have start out in
one program and three or four programs later have the
data in the desired file format, colour depth and
resolution.  I don't want to have to spend my time thinking
about how I will get the work done because of all the software
steps.  There is an opportunity cost here;  I would rather
focus on the creative aspects of what I am doing rather than
the technical aspects of getting things done.

I find Imagine a pain sometimes because it is not always
apparent to me on how I will get the effects I want and
experimenting can take a long time on my A3000 - 25 MHz.
I am getting better!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess most people have heard of the new package called "Repro
Studio Universal"; Spectronics International USA will have a demo
version up on their BBS in a about a week and half I was told.
I am going to look into this program before buying something
like Gigamem. I will post about it if and when I get the demo
version. I am very interested in this program because it has
features that neither AD Pro and ImageFX have like a structured
drawing module as part of it. Does anyone know of anything
else on the horizon?

The guy I am working with on this visual stuff ended up doing some
stuff in Corel Draw; I mention this because Corel Draw has a special
format for slides called something like "Skodal". Does anyone know
anything about this and why the heck doesn't any Amiga software
support it?


Anyway, it is has been said many times in the past; this mailing list
is indispensable!  Keep up the good work gang!

Manjit






##

Subject: Just to clarify a point
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 21:16:55 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail] (Manjit Bedi)

I was talking IBM and Amiga as both requiring a lot of program
shuffling.  It would be nice if Imagine made use of "clipboards".

Ultimately, if one could operate a paint program , a 3 D renederer
and an image processor and they co-operate together and share
a memory buffers things could be pretty funky. You would not
have to worry about file format Imagine uses; you get AD Pro
to save the 24 bit memory image in whatever format you like
without the intermediary step of saving a disk file.


##

Subject: Just to clarify a point
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 07:08:01 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> shuffling.  It would be nice if Imagine made use of "clipboards".

Yep.  And I'll go you one further.  Of all the software I own, Imagine
is close to if not the poorest about using nifty OS features.  It has no
ARexx (its single biggest failing I think).  No clipboard.  No support
of the display database unless you go through screen promotion
utilities.  No support of datatypes (which is what would enable Imagine
to transparently read any graphics format, and have new ones installed
without modifying the Imagine code).  No standard file requester.  No
iconification of its screen.  Uses its hardcoded font instead of your
system font.  No direct drag-and-drop.  Etc.

I could go on at length.  But I think Imagine could be made *much* more
user friendly (fonts/requesters/clipboard/etc) and much more powerful
(Arexx/datatypes/etc) with not all that much work.  I doubt Impulse will
do any of this for Inagine 3.0 though.  At least, they don't have a very
good track record so far.

  - steve


##

Subject: Re: Mirrors
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 10:40:02 -0400 (AST)
From: the Shockwave Surfer <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 27 Dec 1993 [e-mail] wrote:

>     I tried making a mirror in 2.9 and it would reflect the ground
> and sky but nothing else. I tried a tree and a logo placed everywhere
> around it I even added a chrome sphere it to only reflected the ground
> and sky no matter where I placed all my other stuff.

    Yep. You are either:
1) Rendering in scanline mode. Go to Trace mode.
2) Using a reflection brush for your mirror. Dump it.



##

Subject: Vertex modeller
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 07:45:04 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

After someone mentioned this on the IML a few months ago, I finally got
around to FTP'ing the Vertex demo.  I must say, it looks *very* nice.  I
only played with it for maybe 15 minutes, but as a modeller it looks
like it blows away Imagine's modeller in pretty much every regard
imaginable.  It'll read+write Imagine files, Caligari, Lightwave, and a
bunch of others I forgot.

Anyway, I'm looking for more information on this program.  The demo
archive gave an address, but didn't have a price or anything else.

  - How much is Vertex?  I don't need an exact price, just a general
    range.

  - Does anyone have experience using it to build Imagine files?  It
    looks like it supports Imagine attributes, hierarchies, etc, but you
    have to assign the brushmaps manually when you get the objects into
    Imagine.  But since the demo version has save disabled, I couldn't
    really see how well it works.

  - The demo has a menu item for changing the standard view from
    wireframe to solid rendered.  However, this didn't seem to do
    anything.  Is there some trick I'm missing?

If the price is reasonable, I'll probably end up getting this.  If I do,
I'll post something about how it works with Imagine.

Anyway, here is a brief feature list which I got from my short trial of
the demo:

   * Custom primitives
   * beveling
   * Fractal trees defined by about 8-10 parameters or so.  They seemed
     nice, but I couldn't render them since you can't save in the demo
     version.
   * fractal displacement operators
   * fantastic real time response when editing.  It has the "feel" and
     response of the Caligari modeller.
   * There is some implication than you can actual edit in a filled
     polygon view, but I wasn't able to get it to work.
   * Lots of operators such as lathe, spin, extrude, etc.  In general
     they seemed much more powerful than the Imagine operations
     even where Imagine has any equivalent at all.
   * Some sort of spline object editing, but I didn't try it.
   * Some sort of "layers" like feature.
   * Standard OS file requesters (why can't Imagine do this??)
   * ARexx (yeah!) (again, why can't Imagine do this?).  There are some
     included examples of custom operations written in ARexx that come
     with the demo.

Since this thing has an ARexx port, it *would* be possible to connect it
to Imagine rather transparently, except that Impulse has yet to give us
an ARexx port in Imagine.  Sigh.  But at least it has the ability to
create custom operations if you need to, which is something I have
wanted many times in Imagine.  Anyway, it blows away the Imagine 2.0
detail editor, and I'm about 99.9% sure it'll also blow away the Imagine
3.0 detail editor too.  As long as I can be assured this works well with
Imagine, then I'm sold...

   - steve


##

Subject: IMPULSES LACK OF SPECIFIC OS SUPPORT
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 11:36:57 EST
From: Steve J. Lombardi <[e-mail]>

> Yep.  And I'll go you one further.  Of all the software I own, Imagine
> is close to if not the poorest about using nifty OS features.  It has no
> ARexx (its single biggest failing I think).  No clipboard.  No support
> of the display database unless you go through screen promotion
> utilities.  No support of datatypes (which is what would enable Imagine
> to transparently read any graphics format, and have new ones installed
> without modifying the Imagine code).  No standard file requester.  No
> iconification of its screen.  Uses its hardcoded font instead of your
> system font.  No direct drag-and-drop.  Etc.
>
> I could go on at length.  But I think Imagine could be made *much* more
> user friendly (fonts/requesters/clipboard/etc) and much more powerful
> (Arexx/datatypes/etc) with not all that much work.  I doubt Impulse will
> do any of this for Inagine 3.0 though.  At least, they don't have a very
> good track record so far.
>
>   - steve
>
AGREED! Imagine does not take advantage of the Amigas killer OS at all. I have
a feeling this will never change. Impulse has told me that they do not
support the ASL file requestor as there is no equivivilant on the PC. I
can only imagine that for the same reason the chance of support for the
display database, arexx, datatypes, and all of the other goodies that
make an amiga an amiga will never be implemented. This sucks. I may as
well be running in the msdos "environment". THe writing is on the wall.
Too bad. for years silver/turbo/imagine has kicked ass. Impulse has fallen
behind in features and shows no sign of supporting the OS.

I have never had the duty of maintaining/writing portable code for multiple
platforms complete with gui support etc... but if I had this duty it
seems that I would maintain a library of "core" code (such as the render
algos) that CAN be generic to any platform. OS stuff specific to each
system would be maintained seperately in plug and play libraries. IS this
outrageous?? Am I missing something? It seems like almost no extra work
to support each platform. Isn't this why we have structured, modular,
OO approaches to coding?

BTW... This is not meant as a flame towards impulse. THey can manage
or mis-manage their software however they please. users can then choose
to use/not use their product. I merely hope to continue a constructive thread
on the subject of OS support and imagine.

                    |
steve lombardi      | She won't get out of the tub. She
[e-mail] | has morning wood. -- Beavis


##

Subject:      mirrors2
Date:         28 Dec 93 09:50:12 MST7MDT
From: [e-mail]

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Received: from CC.SNOW.EDU by student-lab.nov.snow.edu (Mercury 1.0);
Thanks to all who have responded.
    The consensus has been that you have to render in trace.
I am in trace. I have a 640X400 24ILBM image in trace selected I have not
been using quickrender. My objects were made using the new metals and set
for chrome. smooth and antique 0. I did not change or modify any attributes
other than the texture, and I have no brushmaps in use.
    Is it possible that something in the attributes could be doing this?
I do remember reading something about it in the old IMLFAQ. although my
mirror is not invisible as discussed there. At 28 minutes a picture I think
I will try something else. I have lost quite a little bit of time playing
with it.

                Again Thanks to all and to all a great render
                           Lesk
P.S. I just recieved mail from Jeff W. and he suggested my resolve
depth may be set to 0. I was playing around trying to change EDLE and
I think I may have set the resolve depth instead of EDLE.


##

Subject: automating imagine (sort of)
Date: 28 Dec 93 09:12:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]

     I wanted to render all of the textures for reference, but quickly
     tired of manually changing attributes over and over.  So I used
     the program 'journal' which records mouse movement and/or
     keystrokes along with an arexx program to automate the process.
     I haven't yet finished the program, but I've eliminated all mouse
     movement repetition and used 'Hotkey!' to run the scripts
     created by 'journal'.  If you are working on a project that
     requires a lot of repetition, give this combo a try.  It's easy
     to put together.  Of course, none of this would be needed if we
     could call imagine directly from arexx, a very basic need IMHO.

     Ed


##

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 09:13:23 -0800
From: [e-mail]

>From delphi.com!pjfoley Tue Dec 28 08:57:20 1993
Received: from delphi.com by cyber.cyber.net id aa03618; 28 Dec 93 8:57 PST
Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-11 #4520) id
 <[e-mail]>; Tue, 28 Dec 1993 01:37:22 EDT
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 01:37:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Brilliance IFFs don't load as brushmaps
To: [e-mail]
Message-id: <[e-mail]>
X-VMS-To: IN%"[e-mail]"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


I have told Digital Creations that Imagine will not load their IFFs
AND Brilliance will not load Imagine's IFFs.  Brillance is the only program
I know of that has problems with Imagine's IFF24's, so I tend to blame
Brilliance.

Another thing to check, however, is to set the colors in the screen setup
to "Out of 4096".  This will keep you to a 12bit pallette, which Imagine
2.0 is expecting (being from pre-AGA days).

Otherwise load then save with ADPro or even Dpaint.

PJ
Kinetic Dreams

(I hope I posted this to the IML....  ooops)



##

Subject: Re: Vertex modeller
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 20:53:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

>   - How much is Vertex?  I don't need an exact price, just a general
>     range.

I believe it's about $45 or $50.


>   - The demo has a menu item for changing the standard view from
>     wireframe to solid rendered.  However, this didn't seem to do
>     anything.  Is there some trick I'm missing?

If I remember correctly, that setting is only for the animated view
(which is nice, check it out if you've not, it rotates your object a
full 360 degrees in "real" time).


>    * Fractal trees defined by about 8-10 parameters or so.  They seemed
>      nice, but I couldn't render them since you can't save in the demo
>    * fractal displacement operators

Those are my two favorite features.  (I only have seen the demo tho).
The trees look great, and the fractal displacement can give a more
realistic "rough" look to the edges of your objects.  Kind of like the
"jitter" in LW Modeler.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: 2.9 Screen Sizes
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 93 21:09:14 PST
From: [e-mail]

Has anybody found out what the 'magic' bytes for tweaking Imagine 2.9's
screen sizes yet?  I've tried screen promotors, but can't seem to get
anything to work with it yet.

Douglas Bullard


##

Subject:      Humanoid
Date:         Wed, 29 Dec 93 09:03:38 CET
From: "R. Luettgens" <[e-mail]>

I am using the Humanoid models with IM 2.9 to create an animation
where the humanoid gets of the floor like the cute stuff in
Terminator II. Does someone has a good idea on how to place a
checkered texture such that it looks right (Texture covers body
and ground, as if the floor lies over the body).
Any hints would be appreciated.

Anybody out there using CLARISSA ? It uses the SSA Super Smooth
Animation format, its incredible.

Regards,
R.L.


##

Subject: automating imagine (sort of)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 08:07:53 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

>      to put together.  Of course, none of this would be needed if we
>      could call imagine directly from arexx, a very basic need IMHO.

I also think it is the most basic need in Imagine right now.  There seem
to be a number of people who agree.  Perhaps it might be useful to draft
a letter to Impulse, saying essentially, "You haven't added an ARexx
port to Imagine yet, and here are the names of 4 bazillion people who
think it is just about the most useful thing you could add right now".
Worded more diplomatically of course.  Can't hurt to try anyway.

Shucks, I'll even volunteer to design it for 'em, or maybe they can
contract Apex do it.  Lord knows I don't trust _them_ to get it right.
If left up to Impulse, they'll probably come up with something which
won't talk to any other ARexx program in the world, is hopelessly
cumbersome, and doesn't go through the normal system interfaces but
instead invents its own interprocess message passing mechanism.  (Only
1/2 :-) here).

  - steve


##

Subject: Using AGA
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 8:51:29 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

Hi all;
    Well I have been using the aga option in imagine, the only time
I ran into a problem is when building the animation after the frames have
been rendered.
    I have built about 10 anims now without a hitch

    1) build your frames as ILBM AGA 24bit
    2) use rend24 to build the anim
    3) use vt to change to anim7 (only for speed in my case)
    4) use vt to run the anim

They look great! VT will also display any individual pic.xxxx from your
list of frames. very nice for video.

                    Have Fun
                     Lesk


##

Subject: 2 2 messages messages
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 10:25:29 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

Is anyone else recieving duplicate copies of messages from the ILM?

Is anyone else recieving duplicate copies of messages from the ILM?

:)


ps I noticed how quickly we got back to Impulse bashing.  Their reprieve
didn't last too long from the release of 2.9....Anyone done any nice
anims with brush tacking yet?  A snake or something?


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin

Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: ---MERRY X-MAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!---
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 09:05:30 +0100
From: "- Carsten Berggreen - Denmark -" <[e-mail]>

(I wrote this on the 16th december, but the mailer failed the address...)

Hi and hello to everybody who spend the time/money to read this letter!!!

I'm just sooooooo happy, my holiday has just begun (15/12/93 ->> 07/01/94) !!!!
Now, is THAT a holiday or ??? (I just love this computer-education!!!)

Well, if you're looking for any imagine related stuff here, then here it is...
"Does anyone have a "Santa Claus" imagine object that I could have a copy of??"
(or DO I have to make one myself???? ?(<-- the last one is the MOST important!)
BTW: I'm ALSO looking for a "sweet looking" snowman....(!?) and a lemming
(you know with a carrot nose and ..... )

Now a little question:
What is this surposed to be: ---->   *{3    <---- (a star, a bracket and a "3")


Well, it's a LEMMING!!!!!!!!! He IS a kind of cute, isn't he???

Now I think it's time to end this happy letter, so:

      !
        !               !         !
     !  **   ** ******* ******  ******  **   **                 !
    *** *** **   !  **   ** ** ! ** **  !**     !
 !      ******* *****   ******  ******   ** **   !
   !    ** * ** ** !    ** ! ** **   **   ***
    **   ** ******* **   ** **   **   *** !           !
     !     !                 !                 !
     !          **   **   !     **   **  *****   ******            !
 !     !    !   **   **         *** *** **   ** **    !
         *****   *****  ******* *******  *****       !
!       !       **   **      !  ** * ** **   **  !   **
        **   **!        **   ** **   ** ******  !      !

    A N D   A   V E R Y   H A P P Y   N E W   Y E A R   ! ! !

    --- > From ALL of ME (???)

        --- > To ALL of YOU (Imagineers!!!!!!!!!)

Signed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Address: Carsten Berggreen         E-mail: [e-mail] -
-          Hirsevaenget 16A                                         -
-          8464  Galten          "It isn't the equipment alone, it  -
-          Denmark                is also what YOU can do with it!" -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- A true fan of Amiga, Coca-Cola, Imagine and good looking females! -
---------------------------------------------------------------------



##

Subject: More Grow F/X problems
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 03:20:33 +1100 (EST)
From: Nikola Vukovljak <[e-mail]>

Ok, so right now the Grow F/X doesn't seem to work on Imagine 2.9. But,
how about all the problems in 2.0 ? I was already aware that the scaling
function doesn't work, but now I've found out that the object being
extruded doesn't pass on the color attributes to the extruded bit. All I
seem to get is a first and last segment in target color and black inbetween!
I've tried everything with this except for making it a light!

Can anyone help ? If you can tell e the solution!

Nik.
[e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: More Grow F/X problems
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 11:37:49 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

> extruded doesn't pass on the color attributes to the extruded bit. All I
> seem to get is a first and last segment in target color and black inbetween!

Hmmm, I know I did a succesful Grow effect awhile ago in 2.0.  It was
simple, like one flat poly extruding, but it did maintain the right
color throughout.  I'll try to dig that project out and see if there
was any trick to it.

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: Humanoid
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 12:06:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Peter Garza <[e-mail]>

> I am using the Humanoid models with IM 2.9 to create an animation
> where the humanoid gets of the floor like the cute stuff in
> Terminator II. Does someone has a good idea on how to place a
> checkered texture such that it looks right (Texture covers body
> and ground, as if the floor lies over the body).
> Any hints would be appreciated.

What about grouping the human to the ground and have the ground tile
texture applied to the child.  I don't have 2.9, but if it has texture
tacking, squash the human out, make this the base for the texture, then
have it morph to human.  Hope this helps.

>
> Anybody out there using CLARISSA ? It uses the SSA Super Smooth
> Animation format, its incredible.

What is SSA?  What is CLARISSA for that matter :) ?

>
> Regards,
> R.L.
>

Peter Garza
[e-mail]


##

Subject: Re: Humanoid
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 12:51:26 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
> I am using the Humanoid models with IM 2.9 to create an animation
> where the humanoid gets of the floor like the cute stuff in
> Terminator II. Does someone has a good idea on how to place a
> checkered texture such that it looks right (Texture covers body
> and ground, as if the floor lies over the body).
> Any hints would be appreciated.
>
My guess would be to align the texture objects of both objects to each other.
Imagine uses the hit coords in relation to the texture axis to determine what
color to show.  So I would: 1) align the texture axis with the object axis on
both objects 2) in the stage, align both object axis on top of each other, X
on X, Y on Y, and Z on Z.  I think this will work, although I haven't tried
it.


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Re: Humanoid
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 20:14:18 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis - ICD ~)

>>>>> "Tom" == Thomas Setzer <[e-mail]> writes:

>>  I am using the Humanoid models with IM 2.9 to create an animation
>> where the humanoid gets of the floor like the cute stuff in
>> Terminator II. Does someone has a good idea on how to place a
>> checkered texture such that it looks right (Texture covers body and
>> ground, as if the floor lies over the body).  Any hints would be
>> appreciated.
>>
Tom> My guess would be to align the texture objects of both objects to
Tom> each other.  Imagine uses the hit coords in relation to the
Tom> texture axis to determine what color to show.  So I would: 1)
Tom> align the texture axis with the object axis on both objects 2) in
Tom> the stage, align both object axis on top of each other, X on X, Y
Tom> on Y, and Z on Z.  I think this will work, although I haven't
Tom> tried it.

    Yes, this should be fine as long as your texture is a 2D
texture, of course.  In other words, if it ignores the Z (or third)
component (height) of your object.  A 3D checks would obviously not
work for this.

    Also, this does not "smooth" between the object and the floor,
unfortunately.  To have the object "oooz" out of the floor you really
would have to do some morphing.

    Along with Tom's suggestion, I think I would take the object
and make a widened and flattened version of it.  Then, I would
probably make two or three intermediate versions of the object, each
with an upward parabolic deflection of the middle section, with the
sides gradually moving in toward "normal".

    Then I would have four objects, for example, ready to morph...
The widened flattened one morphs to intermediate #1, morphing on to
intermediate #2, then morphing to the original unmodified object.  I
would make the first three objects by writing a program and using
T3DLIB.

    To make a convincing puddle of liquid which collects as in T2
is much more difficult than my above description, but I think the
above would make for an excellent start.

                            -- Glenn



##

Subject: Re: Using AGA
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 14:53:41 CST
From: [e-mail]

[e-mail] says:
>
> Hi all;
>     Well I have been using the aga option in imagine, the only time
> I ran into a problem is when building the animation after the frames have
> been rendered.
>     I have built about 10 anims now without a hitch
>
>     1) build your frames as ILBM AGA 24bit
>     2) use rend24 to build the anim

Have you managed to get Rend24 to build animations without a locked
palette (and if so, which version of Rend24)?  Whenever I tried to build a
changing-palette anim back in ECS days, Rend24 produced a horrendous mess
for every frame after the first, so I had to lock the palette (which, of
course, looks awful if you need a lot of different colours at various
times).  It would be nice to be able to make proper AGA anims before March
(my estimated release date for Imagine 2.99b ;)

--
Evan Kirchhoff, [e-mail]



##

Subject: Re: More on IFF to slides
Date: 29 Dec 93 16:37:55 EST
From: John Foust - Syndesis Corporation <[e-mail]>

To: >internet: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Manjit Bedi) asks:
> stuff in Corel Draw; I mention this because Corel Draw has a special
> format for slides called something like "Skodal". Does anyone know

SCODL is used by several PC programs like Harvard Graphics and Corel
Draw.  It's rare outside of those contexts.  It's a structured file
format, giving nice device-independent high-res slides, although I
think it can do bitmaps, too.  SPC and Corel plug it for several
reasons.  Suits demand slide output, and a certain slide-making
service bureau gives them a mini-terminal program that automatically
sends slide files to them.




##

Subject: Re: Just to clarify a point
Date: 29 Dec 93 16:43:52 EST
From: John Foust - Syndesis Corporation <[e-mail]>

To: >internet: [e-mail]

Steve Koren <[e-mail]> writes:
> features.  It has no ARexx (its single biggest failing I think).
> No clipboard. No support of the display database unless you go through
> screen promotion utilities.  No support of datatypes (which is what
> would enable Imagine to transparently read any graphics format, and
> have new ones installed without modifying the Imagine code).  No
> standard file requester.  No iconification of its screen.  Uses its
> hardcoded font instead of your system font.  No direct
> drag-and-drop.  Etc.

Put yourself in Impulse's shoes for a moment, or in the shoes of any
Amiga developer for that matter.  What percentage of their users will
*use* the ARexx interface?  Will it be a feature that pushes more
people to buy the next upgrade?  And once it's in there, your tech
support line is soon asked to help debug ARexx programs.

(To balance this, we did expend a lot of effort to add an ARexx
interface to all of InterChange Plus.  We found it useful for the
batch-conversions for the Syndesis 3D-ROM, but I continue to doubt
that many users will ever explore it, and from that perspective, I
wonder whether it was worth the effort.)

As for support of relatively new display methods, icons and
drag-and-drop, it's tough to keep this market happy.  There's a large
base of people still running 1.3, believe it or not.  And then
there's the inane mixture of post-1.3 machines out there.  I've lost
my ability to map the Kickstart and Workbench versions to user-level
2.0 / 2.1 / 3.0 / 3.1 and all the in-between releases that people
managed to install.  Making an executable that supports everything
means lots of extra effort and lots of dual code.  In an age when the
janitor to answers CBM's phone, you can bet that developers are not
keen on supporting slimly documented OS features.

As for the clipboard, CBM didn't supply many examples for it many
years ago, and few developers ever adopted it.  Why?  I dunno.  I've
heard a zillion stupid arguments against it, often ending in "just
because the Mac does it that way, doesn't mean it's right."

As for datatypes, again, it's relatively new.  Personally, I don't
think it would've taken off unless CBM wrotes the datatype libraries
for a dozen or so popular formats.  If they do it for image formats,
they're competing against the likes of ASDG.  If they did it for 3D
formats, they'd compete against Syndesis.  Needless to say, this sort
of effort doesn't cultivate good developer relations.  If CBM doesn't
do it, then you've got the "free rider" problem where any developer
who simply adds hooks for datatypes can take advantage of the efforts
of other developers who do provide datatype libraries.

"Steve J. Lombardi" <[e-mail]> writes:
> AGREED! Imagine does not take advantage of the Amigas killer OS at all.
...
> silver/turbo/imagine has kicked ass. Impulse has fallen behind in
> features and shows no sign of supporting the OS.
...
> play libraries. IS this outrageous?? Am I missing something? It seems
> like almost no extra work to support each platform. Isn't this why we

Everyone would like completely portable code, but reality intervenes.
On one hand, you beg for 100% utilization of every Amiga-specific OS
feature, and then you want them on the other platform, too.  In my
eyes, Impulse's disregard for popular MSDOS memory managers is a far
more serious problem than their choice of file requester.



##

Subject: Re: Humanoid
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 17:11:42 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Setzer)

>
> >>  I am using the Humanoid models with IM 2.9 to create an animation
> >> where the humanoid gets of the floor like the cute stuff in
> >> Terminator II. Does someone has a good idea on how to place a
> >> checkered texture such that it looks right (Texture covers body and
> >> ground, as if the floor lies over the body).  Any hints would be
> >> appreciated.
> >>
> Tom> My guess would be to align the texture objects of both objects to
> Tom> each other.  Imagine uses the hit coords in relation to the
> Tom> texture axis to determine what color to show.  So I would: 1)
> Tom> align the texture axis with the object axis on both objects 2) in
> Tom> the stage, align both object axis on top of each other, X on X, Y
> Tom> on Y, and Z on Z.  I think this will work, although I haven't
> Tom> tried it.
>
>     Yes, this should be fine as long as your texture is a 2D
> texture, of course.  In other words, if it ignores the Z (or third)
> component (height) of your object.  A 3D checks would obviously not
> work for this.
>
Ah, but with 2.9 and states, you can "tack" your textures onto your object,
and they *SHOULD* deform properly right along with your object.  Right?
3d textures or not.

>     Also, this does not "smooth" between the object and the floor,
> unfortunately.  To have the object "oooz" out of the floor you really
> would have to do some morphing.
>
couldn't you use one of the deformations, say "squish"(is this one in there?)
to make your flattened object and just have two states, flat and human?
Ofcourse, as Glenn said, this isn't gonna look like liquid, more like
a short fat human growing into a taller one.  I'd say a few more states
would be needed.  Maybe one squished and tapered guy, one middle sized
guy and one guy.(Geez, talk about rambling)

As you may have guessed, I haven't upgraded yet. I'm waiting for Apex to
release for Real 3d(OOPS, no flames please:), and then I am gonna check
out Real.  Glenn? any dates?  Wanna pull an Impulse and promise us yesterday?
:) (Sorry, have to work in one of those per day:)


Tom Setzer
[e-mail]

"And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery
intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" - Calvin


##

Subject: Re: Just to clarify a point
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 16:09:34 PST
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Walkup)

Well, my opinion is that ARexx is too-often used as a kludge for doing
operations that should be BUILT-IN to the programs.

Professional Page is the most guilty of this.  Sh*t, I need an ARexx
script to align two boxes?  Why?  That, and most of those cheesy
"Genies" should be built-in operations - as in "click this button".

Same goes for ADPro/FRED, and even ImageFX to a lesser extent.

Now, a good use of ARexx? = Showmaker controlling the Toaster over the
serial port.  Or even AmiLink controlling the Toaster.  Still, if NewTek
would just make their own editing/sequencing s/w for the Toaster, none
of that would be needed... but ARexx-something is better than nothing, I
guess.

Sorry this aint got much todo with Imagine... except to say that I'd
rather have Impulse build functions into the program than rely on an
ARexx port and 3rd party scripts.  Just what kind of operations could
ARexx do that you'd like to see anyway?  Are they things that couldn't
be done internally by Imagine alone?

--
Jeff Walkup - [e-mail] - Digital Animator / Videographer


##

Subject: Re: Humanoid
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 00:15:13 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Glenn M. Lewis - ICD ~)

>>>>> "Tom" == Thomas Setzer <[e-mail]> writes:

Tom> Ah, but with 2.9 and states, you can "tack" your textures onto
Tom> your object, and they *SHOULD* deform properly right along with
Tom> your object.  Right?  3d textures or not.

    Ooops, right.  :-)

Tom> As you may have guessed, I haven't upgraded yet. I'm waiting for
Tom> Apex to release for Real 3d(OOPS, no flames please:), and then I
Tom> am gonna check out Real.  Glenn? any dates?  Wanna pull an
Tom> Impulse and promise us yesterday?  :) (Sorry, have to work in one
Tom> of those per day:)

    Sorry, I've vowed to myself to try never to pull an impulse.
(Ouch! :-)
    Anyway, Charles Congdon is working on this and it shall be
tremendous... nothing remotely like the current Essence I&II...  much
more powerful.  No dates yet.  No other info yet either.  Still in the
development stages.
                        -- Glenn


##

Subject: R3D upgrading
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 18:07:29 MST
From: [e-mail] (Ben Scott)

>  I'm waiting for Apex to
> release for Real 3d(OOPS, no flames please:), and then I am gonna check
> out Real.  Glenn? any dates?

Don't bother waiting!  Real3D, as we've said before, offers a goodly amount
of what Essence For Imagine gives already.  Essence for Real3D is said to be
a whole new ballgame, but you'll need some time to come up to speed on it
anyway so make the jump now.  I deleted Imagine off my HD not long after
I bought Real3D and I haven't missed it.  The interface is incredible, the
feature list is unmatched, the software is stable and supports all those
useless little nonsense items like the Display Database, AREXX, the standard
file requester, etc... I still have a soft spot for Imagine, but it's just
(IMO) outclassed.  Real3D will take some time to learn, but only because
there's simply more of it - the manual is huge, about half tutorials, and
there's online context-sensitive help too.  It's just more USABLE, at least
to me, than Imagine ever was.

I'll stop here 'cause this isn't really the appropriate place for R3D
evangelism; this is my last message to the IML anyhow as I'm unsubscribing.
I'm still on the learning curve for R3D but things are going nicely, and anyone
who's interested in help making the jump from Imagine can send me Email if
they have questions.

'Bye all, it's been fun.  Anyone wanna buy a used copy of Imagine?  I'll
throw in the Buddy System (which I never used), a set of Pro Textures,
and if you really want, my copy of Understanding Imagine, though that'll
probably double the value of the whole package, at least...

.                              <<<<Infinite K>>>>

--
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Ben Scott, video animation dilettante and consultant at The Raster Image. |
| [e-mail], 24 hours a day!/\-----------------------------------|
|---------------------------------------.\ Powered by the mighty Amiga 4000 |
| "The penalty for murder is the same   `-----------------------------------|
| here as anywhere else."  "Plea bargain and a suspended sentence?" - MST3k |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'


##

Subject: Re: Just to clarify a point
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 20:18 EDT
From: [e-mail]

>John Foust states:

>>Steve Koren <[e-mail]> writes:
>> features.  It has no ARexx (its single biggest failing I think).
>> No clipboard. No support of the display database unless you go through
>> screen promotion utilities.  No support of datatypes (which is what
>> would enable Imagine to transparently read any graphics format, and
>> have new ones installed without modifying the Imagine code).  No
>> standard file requester.  No iconification of its screen.  Uses its
>> hardcoded font instead of your system font.  No direct
>> drag-and-drop.  Etc.

>Put yourself in Impulse's shoes for a moment, or in the shoes of any
>Amiga developer for that matter.  What percentage of their users will
>*use* the ARexx interface?  Will it be a feature that pushes more
>people to buy the next upgrade?  And once it's in there, your tech
>support line is soon asked to help debug ARexx programs.

>(To balance this, we did expend a lot of effort to add an ARexx
>interface to all of InterChange Plus.  We found it useful for the
>batch-conversions for the Syndesis 3D-ROM, but I continue to doubt
>that many users will ever explore it, and from that perspective, I
>wonder whether it was worth the effort.)


John, Arexx is used by many Amiga owners even those who have never
programmed a line of Arexx. Many commercial applications come
with Arexx programs to add features and functionality to the
application. There are also many pd/freeware arexx programs available
to do a wide variety of tasks. An Arexx port is becoming a must
have in any modern Amiga application.


>As for support of relatively new display methods, icons and
>drag-and-drop, it's tough to keep this market happy.  There's a large
>base of people still running 1.3, believe it or not.  And then
>there's the inane mixture of post-1.3 machines out there.  I've lost
>my ability to map the Kickstart and Workbench versions to user-level
>2.0 / 2.1 / 3.0 / 3.1 and all the in-between releases that people
>managed to install.  Making an executable that supports everything
>means lots of extra effort and lots of dual code.  In an age when the
>janitor to answers CBM's phone, you can bet that developers are not
>keen on supporting slimly documented OS features.


John, why does Syndesis or anyone else have to support AmigaDos 1.3?
Anyone who hasnt upgraded to at least AmigaDos 2.04 isnt likely to buy
yours or anyone else's software. More and more Amiga programs
are requiring AmigaDos 2.04 or above. SoftLogik with PageStream 3.0,
Softwood with Final Writer, VRLI with VistaPro 3.0, etc all require
tthe user to have at least AmigaDos 2.04. That should be the mininum
baseline OS revision now. I'm tired of hearing amiga software companies
complain that they have to support the A500 owners with 1 meg of memory
a 8mhz 68000 and AmigaDos 1.3. Sometimes you have to leave the past behind
to move to the future.

As for the problem of having to maintain dual code in order to have
all features of a program available for all OS revisions, again I
ask why? What's wrong with taking advantage of new OS features
if they are available on the machine the application is running
on and not making them available on machines which are not running
a newer OS? You cant use ProPage Genies on machines without Arexx
which requires AmigaDos 2.04 or above or buying it from Bill
Hawes. I just got my Final Writer upgrade from Final Copy and
there are a whole bunch of features that arent available unless
you are running AmigaDos 2.1 or better.

If you and other Amiga software developers keep coddling the AmigaDos
1.3 users by bending over backward to support AmigaDos 1.3 they will
never upgrade their machines. If CBM comes out with a 10ghz Alpha based
Amiga with 1 gigabyte of memory in 2005 and a 10 terabyte hard disk
will you and other Amiga developers still be claiming that "gee,
we cant afford to add any new features because the  1 floppy, 1 megabyte
8mhz A500 owners cant use it."



                                 Scott Corley

[e-mail]



##

Subject: Re:  2.9 Screen Sizes
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 17:35:36 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Daniel T. Edwards)


If you have any problems with this modification:
1) Don't Blame me for your Guru.
2) Send me E-mail with your config (a2000,040,Retina,etc..)
   I'm curoius to see what causes Imagine to fail
   with this modification.



Ok, here's how it works...

Get a filezapper type program. (NewZap DPU FileZap Hex etc...)

Look up your version of Imagine on the chart below.
(If your version is not listed, Email me and I'll see if I can
make one for it.)

Edit the executeable at the bytes indicated in the chart. The block #s and
byte #s are shown in decimal.  The hex numbers in parenthesis are the hex
versions of the block numbers.  The bytes to modify are, of course, in hex.
Replace the resolution you  find there with the resolution you want.  Then
save the new file. (I don't have to remind you to keep a backup of Imagine
on hand!)

Notice that Imagine automaticly doubles the vertical resolution for use in
interlace mode.  So, if you want vertical resolution of 462 then you must
tell it to give you 231.  (231 = 00E7 in hex)

 Imagine Version # Horizontal                   Vertical

FP       1.1     Block 393 ($189)             Block 83 ($053)
                 Bytes 220 & 221              Bytes 162 & 163
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8
       (Example: To    02    BC = 700 in dec)(To    00    E7 = 231 dec)

FP       2.0     Block 497 ($1F1)             Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 328 & 329              Bytes 250 & 251
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8

INT PAL  2.0     Block 500 ($1F4)             Block 94 ($05E)
                 Bytes 124 & 125              Bytes 42 & 43
                 From  02   80                From  01   00

FP  PAL  2.0     Block 497 ($1F1)             Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 388 & 389              Bytes 244 & 245
                 From  02    80               From  01   0

INT      2.9     Block 1561 ($619)            Block 119 ($077)
                 Bytes 486 & 487              Bytes 480 & 481
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8

FP       2.9     Block 1529 ($5F9)            Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 82  & 83               Bytes 168 & 169
                 From  02    80               From  00    C8

FP  PAL  2.9     Block 1529 ($5F9)            Block 95 ($05F)
                 Bytes 146 & 147              Bytes 162 & 163
                 From  02    80               From  01    00

Impulse told me, in the past, that Imagine is made to run ONLY on a
640 x 400 screen.  I was told that if I changed it, I would do so at my own
peril.  I pass this information on  to you.

One Final Note:  Imagine PC users have a whole different program than Amiga
users.  This modification will not work on the PC version.  I would guess
that a simmilar modification for the PC version would be more  complicated,
given that VGA modes are more complicated than Amiga modes. I would be very
interested to see someone try though.   Imagine Imagineering on a 486DX2/66
with a 1024 x 768 editor screen. Now imagine Impulse telling you it will
never happen.

Thanks to Juha Kallioinen of Finland for the PAL numbers.

 ____________________________________________________________
/                                                            \
| Amiga 2000                James R. Walker                  |
| 2MB Chip             [e-mail]           |
| 18MB Fast    ______________________________________________|
| 130 MB Hard /                                              |
| 68040 33Mhz |Heinlein,Rand,Clarke,Adams,Asimov,Niven,Worley|
\____________________________________________________________/


##

Subject: Re: Just to clarify a point
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 00:41:44 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> Sorry this aint got much todo with Imagine... except to say that I'd
> rather have Impulse build functions into the program than rely on an
> ARexx port and 3rd party scripts.  Just what kind of operations could
> ARexx do that you'd like to see anyway?  Are they things that couldn't
> be done internally by Imagine alone?

Good point.  But I'm gonna disagree.

I think ARexx has several whopping huge advantages over built-in
functions, especially Imagine-style ones.  The first is that I can now
control Imagine internal operations from another program.  I do this a
lot now, with the tools that support it such as ImageFX.  I have hooked
ImageFX and gnu emacs into all kinds of things.

Second, I get extensibility of the product beyond its own environment.
Not only can I write my own operations and "primitive functions", I can
call the internals of one application from another.

I use this stuff a lot.  I want to see more of it.

ARexx isn't a great language, but it *is* a standard way of doing
interprocess communication and control.  Also, having all your
applications have a *common* scripting language is something of an
advantage also.

I do realize that a lot of people probably never use it though.  But it
does provide a degree of power that you just can't get otherwise.  How
else could I, for example, sit in a shell window, CD to a directory, and
type a shell command to have Imagine load an object from there?  (I do
that a *lot* with ImageFX, and I desperately want it in Imagine).  Or,
click a button in Imagine and have it load the brushmap from the current
object into a running ImageFX?  Or have Imagine automatically re-do the
quickrender as soon as I save the current brush from ImageFX or DPaint?
If Imagine had an ARexx port, I could do bazillions of little things
like that to make my environment more productive, along with several big
things such as writing my own beveling operators or what have you.
Sure, you could go off and invent a non-arexx way to do this stuff, but
why bother?  We've already got a standard mechanism for it.  Its just
that Impulse hasn't seen fit to support it yet.

I do agree not everyone wants or needs it.  But not everyone wants, say,
reflection maps, or a twist+extrude operator, either.  Due to the nature
of what you get with ARexx, I place it on a higher level than any
individual other feature that doesn't itself provide extensibility of
the environment.

  - steve


##

Subject: Re: Just to clarify a point
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 00:23:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Lopez <[e-mail]>

> John, why does Syndesis or anyone else have to support AmigaDos 1.3?
> Anyone who hasnt upgraded to at least AmigaDos 2.04 isnt likely to buy
> yours or anyone else's software. More and more Amiga programs
> are requiring AmigaDos 2.04 or above. SoftLogik with PageStream 3.0,
> Softwood with Final Writer, VRLI with VistaPro 3.0, etc all require
> tthe user to have at least AmigaDos 2.04. That should be the mininum
> baseline OS revision now. I'm tired of hearing amiga software companies
> complain that they have to support the A500 owners with 1 meg of memory
> a 8mhz 68000 and AmigaDos 1.3. Sometimes you have to leave the past behind
> to move to the future.

Agreement here...C'mon folks, It'd be a different story if it was a mac or
something that cost a fortune to *legally* upgrade the roms...but
considering that 2.0xx can be bought for under 30 bucks, and the features
of the new roms alone are worth that, Heck I've seen it for as low as
$21.95 american on special some places...get with the program people, if
you cant afford 30 bucks for new roms, how are you gonna afford the
average price of a couple hundred for a software package?  Move outa the past!

No, I'm sorry, we dont support '040 code, it wont run on the C64!

My 8 1/2 cents.

Steve.





##

Subject: More Grow F/X problems
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 08:21:39 -0700
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>

> Ok, so right now the Grow F/X doesn't seem to work on Imagine 2.9. But,
> how about all the problems in 2.0 ? I was already aware that the scaling

Sorry, I can't help with this, but I have a related question.  Is there
something I'm not understand about the "Tumble" effect in 2.0?  I can
use "Rotate2.0" with great results.  But if I just replace it with
tumble but keep everything else the same, no movement takes place.  (The
other F/X seem to work also - I just can't get tumble to do anything).

Am I missing something?

  - steve


##

Subject: Re: More Grow F/X problems
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 12:19:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Cyrus J Kalbrener <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 30 Dec 1993, Steve Koren wrote:

>
> > Ok, so right now the Grow F/X doesn't seem to work on Imagine 2.9. But,
> > how about all the problems in 2.0 ? I was already aware that the scaling
>
> Sorry, I can't help with this, but I have a related question.  Is there
> something I'm not understand about the "Tumble" effect in 2.0?  I can
> use "Rotate2.0" with great results.  But if I just replace it with
> tumble but keep everything else the same, no movement takes place.  (The
> other F/X seem to work also - I just can't get tumble to do anything).
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>   - steve

    Lots of people have trouble with this.  The answer is simple.

    Ready?

    Take a lone axis and make it the parent of the objects, or group
of objects that you want to tumble.  That's it!

    Imagine needs a stable axis for controlling the object.  If the
parent axis was tumbling all over, you would not be able to control
alignment or direction.

    It is briefly mentioned in the Imagine manual, and it was left out
of Understanding Imagine 2.0 (a printing error, I'm sure ;^)


    Cyrus J. Kalbrener

        Digital_Cel

            "...To render, by any means necessary!..."




##

Subject: Lensflares
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 11:41:06 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

     AARRRGGGHHHH!!!! That damn LensFlare texture is worse than awful....
It's a nice idea and would probably work well if it didn't operate with
Imagine's buggered transparency. I've been trying to put a couple of
subtle flares on a ship heading into a gas giant's aptmosphere. The first
problem arrives when overlapping two disks (the duel engines are close
together) and having the overlapping areas appear solid. So I split the
disks (and lost the inner part of the flare, oh well...) and tried it
again. It looks fine in the detail editor but dosen't show up in the
stage..... What does appear completly blocks out the fog object that
composes the planet's aptmosphere!!!!!!  At least the jets from the
engines look nice (fireball on a teardrop) as does the entry into the
aptmosphere (fireball on a morphing hemisphere ==> elongated teardrop),
complete with crackling fractelly stuff....

      I give up on the Lens Flares. I've wasted 4 days on it.... Let me
know if you have more luck or figure a work-around.

                                            Christopher

ps. Has anyone had sucess with the particle fx. I couldn't figure a way to
affix an emission to the tail of a rocket. I wanted a bubble-drive ;-)..




--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: AREXX
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 18:59:00 -0700 (MST)
From: [e-mail]

Hi all;
    I guess to just ad my 3/4 cents worth I consulted a users group
and several amiga developers to find out more about arexx. I was overwhelmed
by many facts and power delivered to the user but everyone "EVERYONE" I
talked with agreed if it does not support arexx then DON'T buy it!
and programs that do not support clipboards, the display database, data types,
standard file requestors, etc. etc. etc. are considered at best beginning
programming attempts. I was told that these were not difficult to handle
even between multiple platforms. (surprising considering amount of video cards
for pc's) Several of these developers do Mac, PC & AMIGA formats. I talked
with people from arizona, Utah & California. It did not take long to find
these results. Someone said the "writing is on the wall" in an earlier post
and as I read the comments here it does seem true, Imagine has fallen
behind by not integrating better with 3.0 ADOS. and they don't seem to
be responding to the desires of their customers.
    I am evaluating imagine for a large company. I have found that
the poor integration in relation the multitasking operations of the Amiga,
as well as all the above mentioned problems forces me to be unable to
recommend this product. I love the amiga for its O.S. to not make proper
use of it is just not acceptable. I am still open to see what 3.0 holds
but I am not holding my breath.

    I mean no offense to anyone in my comments, and am willing to
apologize to anyone who feels offended. I have been optomistic about
imagine but have to be realistic.

                            Lesk


##

Subject: Re: Lensflares
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 93 20:41:12 PST
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Stewart)

>
>Hey Christopher,
>    As much as I love Imagine, I have to admit, LensFlare is
>strictly tinkerbell.  I've tried and tried to get it to look less
>cartooney, and have given up.  It's junk.

     I managed to get it looking alright in stills. You have to make sure
a light source (spot) is directed at the face of the disk. It work so-so
but it's the best I've got ;-).


>    I figured great, more mac junk--but no way.  The
>lensflare option is delicious!  And very easy to use, with
>multiple diminishing flares and little realistic diffraction
>rainbows. I wouldn't cross the street for a MAC, but the
>lensflare in PhotoShop puts Imagine's attempt in the toilet.

     Imagine's lighting is supposed to get an upgrade in the full release
of 3.0, let's hope. I tried to use Imagemaster RT 1.01 to add lens flares
to a sequence (after all, it IS a nice effect..) but it seems that IMRT
has a few more problems than even Imagine does <sigh>.

     If Impulse is listening....... Take your time, get it right.



--
....and if there be some harder, better way    [e-mail]
to salvation than to follow that which we      [e-mail]
believe to be good, then are we all damned.    [e-mail]
   Lord Dunsany, "Dom Rodriguez" (1922).       Join the Animation Sig!


##

Subject: Re: Ping ->)|
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 07:21:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Kelly <[e-mail]>

No, you're not pathologically lonely.  I suspect the dearth of postings to
the list to be the result of the holiday aftermath, new deadlines for
working folks, and holidays/down systems for the educationally connected.

I've also noticed a growing number of persons abandoning Imagine.  Do you
think this is just a vocal minority, or is this software really about to
bite the dust?  I personally am not about to mail my check to Impulse
until 3.0 is CONFIRMED to be in the hands of those who paid in advance.
The bug reports on 2.9 seem to vindicate this decision.

I'd love to keep using Imagine.  It's got lots of nice features, and the
bang-for-the-buck from 2.0 is still one of the best deals in the Amiga/PC
market.  But it's darn near standing still compared to the competition,
and Impulse doesn't seem to have the right attitude to put Imagine out on
the leading edge again.  If Mike & Co. don't shape up, all but the fanatic
Imagine users will speedily head for greener pastures.

Anybody out there actually USING Imagine to generate income?  How about a
few encouraging words for those still struggling to learn the d**n thing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Kelly               Information Specialist         First Consulting Group
[e-mail]  [phone]x125  P.O.Box 5161, Los Alamitos,CA 90721-5161

   "The difference between genius and stupidity: genius has its limits."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------






##

Subject:  Re: Ping ->)| (fwd)
Date:  Mon, 3 Jan 1994 12:30:42 -0500
From: "rob (r.d.) hounsell" <[e-mail]>

Doug,

> I've also noticed a growing number of persons abandoning Imagine.  Do you
> think this is just a vocal minority, or is this software really about to
> bite the dust?  I personally am not about to mail my check to Impulse
> until 3.0 is CONFIRMED to be in the hands of those who paid in advance.
> The bug reports on 2.9 seem to vindicate this decision.

  I can't speak for Imagine users who are using it for professional
money-making projects, but from the hobbyist point of view, I'm sticking with
Imagine. I made the choice to buy it some time ago, and I can't afford to plop
down money for the latest piece of SW to leapfrog it. Perhaps a number of years
down the road I may change my tune, but for the forseeable future (unless I win
a lottery) it's Imagine for me.

  Once 3.0 is confirmed, I expect to upgrade. I don't really *need* it, though.

  I can understand that if CG was putting bread on my table, I probably couldn't
afford NOT to use the latest SW (learning curves and project re-planning aside).
But since I'm not in that boat, I'm not switching.

  Not sure what this does to your abandoning / staying stats.  8-)

Rob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob Hounsell                           BNR WAN:  HOUNSELL@NMERH53           |
| Team Leader: UNIX                      INTERNET: [e-mail]            |
| System Performance:                    PHONE: [phone]                |
| Paradigm Club Design Team. Dept. PS27  ESN: 395-2904                        |
| Northern Telecom Public Switching                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


##

Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 11:47:14 +1100
From: [e-mail]

> I've also noticed a growing number of persons abandoning Imagine.  Do you
> think this is just a vocal minority, or is this software really about to
> bite the dust?  I personally am not about to mail my check to Impulse
> until 3.0 is CONFIRMED to be in the hands of those who paid in advance.
> The bug reports on 2.9 seem to vindicate this decision.

As for myself, I have made the decision to move to another product - in
this case Real3D, when I can afford to do so.  It's a relatively easy
decision after weighting RealSoft's commitment to the market vs. Impulse's.
 For me software is a long-term investment.  Unfortunately I don't see
Imagine evolving towards what I want or Impulse responding to it's
customers in a appropriate manner.  The clincher for me was hearing that
old/reported/obvious 2.0 bugs are still in 2.9!  I seriously doubt that
Impulse is going to fix these for 3.0.  And I question Impulses commitment
to address the 'new' problems in 2.9 already reported here on the IML.

I asked a number of past Imagine users to rate how easy it was to migrate
to R3D.  I'd be happy to send the responses I received about migrating if
you mail me personally.  If you want to flame me for 'dissenting' please do
so via personal mail NOT to the list.  Thanks.

-Scott
[e-mail]



##

Subject: Soap attribute
Date: 04 Jan 94 13:59:42 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Soren Wind)

Finally, i succeed, in making a perfect soap bounle or how do you call those
boubles, made with ie. soap and water ? :D

I Hope UUencode postings is ok, i'm not sure coz. this is my first posting
to the IML....

If anyone want me to type the specs of the attribute, just write me a note.

It is about time..

begin 644 SOAPBOUB.LHA
M(54M;&@U+=D```"T`0``$V\D'```"U-/05`N0D]50DQ%52@`LUIVVC3D?UHF_
M$X86E:!HRE&5VMZEY*WN.[L'&AH;:$F@[3='TQ&,Q&.O@$QF2P[!8-_O%7.,T
M&-+P:F&U,M9U,R@1:G333*[LG80]$R&REOXJ/E0`.MJZ$,1AD'.-H.LM7A&`H
MM34D/`.D.]+2UVB(?<_3M3X(A]\GOE:SL<0>HK,!*JED&WCNWL1/3`9C&<P]N
M4![=/NU<LD!V5\'/=C(>S^>_P_3\&//O?#GLN[_&[=EP_H^LKM\(^GRG7Q%'"
<>YT/^8$N?B7F]?;RSY\P6Q<D$BN":'%Z@M1P`+_&&
``
end
size 253

   _:        So/ren -IZI- Wind          __     _____        _______  _:
  / \\     Imagine'er in IMPACT       (__) /\/\___ \/\_____\     / / \\
  \ //   Fidonet  : 2:230/418.30      /  \/ \/ \/  /  \ ___/\/ \/  \ //
  _\/   Amiganet : 39:141/104.30     /____\  \__\ /__| \\___/\__\  _\/
   :   Internet : [e-mail]     /     \      |__\_____\     :
   |  A2000c/68030/68882/9/345/33Mhz   /_______\                    |

... He walks as if balancing the family tree on his nose.-Via DDDGate @ 2:230/418.0  DDDGate 1.42 (30.09.93)


##