NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/graphics/7578

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 7.0 KB | 138 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!bscott
From: [e-mail] (Ben Scott)
Subject: Re: Trying to find the perfect morpher
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: hey hey
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 05:52:41 GMT
Lines: 122

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Hastings-Trew) writes:
> BS> I do not expect a file called "addendum" to contain the only mention of
> BS> probably half the major features in a software package.  I have this
>
>Ben, if you had been "in" on Imagemaster from the beginning, as many HAM-E
>customers have been, you would be aware of the evolutionary nature of this
>product. With new features going in every few weeks, Black Belt Systems
>would have quickly gone broke printing new manuals (I know, I work for a

Yes, but what kind of argument is that?  Nobody's asking for a whole new
manual for every little change.  I was trying to express my feeling that a
year-old manual on a package that changes this much was perhaps going too
far the other way - there's got to be a happy medium somewhere!  I do a lot
of DTP work and so am familiar with printing as well.  With a 3-ring binder
or similar system, they could print a few extra pages for every reasonably
major upgrade at a pretty reasonable cost.  Heck, if you're sending out new
versions every two weeks, you can't be sending out so many that an office
photocopier couldn't keep up with the load.

>However, I can appreciate the point of view of a person who has not grown
>up with the software as I have. You are jumping in at this point, and

I'm glad you can sympathise with what I daresay is the majority of the
market...

>easily from it. The fact of the matter is, someone could SHOW you
>everything you need to know about the morphing tool in ten minutes and you
>would remember it all because it is really easy to learn and use. Perhaps

Probably true.  But rather beside the point - I'm not talking about how hard
the program is or isn't to learn, but about the documentation.

> BS> have one, easy to use)   I gave up on Imagemaster at around 5:PM on
> BS> dove into Morph+, was setting up what turned out to be a morph with
>
>There are a couple of points here I would like to comment on. First, what
>was it specifically about Imagemaster that made you abandon it for Morph+?

I had the morph set up as best I could, not being able to get the warp or
transparency curves to work at all, and after rendering several test frames
(which took a surprisingly long time considering the results others have
claimed on this newsgroup; I've seen a report of 2 mins/frame on a stock
A-3000 with 300 control points at 752x480, and I was getting 5-7 minutes on
a 28 Mhz '040), I found that the background was warping unacceptably and the
lack of controllable transparency curves was detracting from the effect I
needed to achieve.

>Was it some feature you were looking for and could not find, or was it some
>concept that was not adequately explained? Second, is it possible that the

Both.  The "addendum" file neither explains everything I can see available
nor does explain the rest well.

>experience with Imagemaster helped you understand the concepts in Morph+
>more easily? Is is possible that had you not given up and switched to the
>other product that you would have completed your project in an equivalent
>amount of time?

No.  Morph+'s interface is quite different.  I understood the concepts
behind morphing before I began.  Furthermore, if I had started the morph
running at the time I started trying to learn Morph+, it would have not been
done soon enough, given the time test frames took to render.  I'm ready to
believe that my version is slower than the current version, given what
others have been saying.

>:) You do owe it to yourself to look at the latest version of the software.
>It is very nice to work with.

Yeah, but I gotta pay extra for it.  Or rather, convince my client to do so,
which may or may not happen.  And we ordered from a distributor who keeps
nothing in stock, so I don't know how we might've gone about getting a more
recent version.

> BS> anywhere).  Also, I  had a lot of trouble keeping the (non-morphing)
> BS> background stable while the foreground faces were warped - even
>
>Most good morphs are done by stripping away the background altogether, and
>then recompositing the morphed figures back onto a single background. No

Gee, what a blow to learn my morph is no good...  the background was fading
to black.  i.e. the initial background was a purple curtain, the final was
solid black.  This was important to the "story", and I didn't have the time
to set up a composite operation even if I had thought to do it.  (or if I'd
had a whole image of the background to do this with)

>morpher on the planet is going to leave the background undistorted while
>pushing and pulling the foreground around. You should blank out the
>background on your images prior to morphing (Imagemaster is great for

Morph+ did a much better job, though not perfect.  I realize that there'll
be distortion right around the morphing area, but I was getting changes at
the edge of the frame, after more than one layer of non-moving points.

>In closing I would also like to point out an aspect of Imagemaster that may
>be of importance to you. They do listen to customer comments and
>suggestions. They are very responsive to customer input, and a suggestion

As I said, I got the package(s) Friday and had to produce finished work by
Sunday.  Not exactly plenty of time to register the software, and even if
so, one can only get support during weekdays from 2-4 PM.

>version of the software. You have to be careful of reviewing Imagemaster
>because it is a moving target -- it is always changing in as a result to

I see nothing too unfair about doing a comparitive review of two products
ordered and received (and learned) at the same time.

Anyway, I'm not trying to bash IM - again, if I were buying only one of them
for myself, and did not already own ADPro (or to be more accurate, have
access to it at every client site where I have need of it), I'd definitely
buy IM.  It's a feature-packed program, and I can easily see myself
eventually getting used to the user interface.  Morph+ is more specialized,
but perhaps offers more functionality for those interested primarily in
morphing.

.                            <<<<Infinite K>>>>

--
|Ben Scott, professional goof-off and consultant at The Raster Image, Denver|
|Internet [e-mail], or call the Arvada 68K BBS at [phone].|
|"Don't tug on that - you never know what ][The Raster Image IS responsible |
|it might be attached to." Buckaroo Banzai][for everything I say! | *Amiga* |