Multimedia Toolkit 2/Multimedia Toolkit 2.iso/imagine/text/archive.21a

Text File | 1993-03-12 | 128.9 KB | 3,229 lines

IMAGINE archive: collected off of [e-mail]

ARCHIVE XXI (Part A)
Feb. 26 '92 - Mar. 13 '92

If you have questions or problems with this file, email Marvin Landis
at [e-mail]

note: each message seperated by a '##'

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Subject:     Steve's Images
Date:        Wed, 26 Feb 92 08:09:10 EST
From:        "Bob Lindabury, SysAdm" <[e-mail]>

>I'd like to get the pictures that Steve Worley just uploaded to
>hubcap.clemson.edu.  Could someone please tell me which directory
>they are in on hubcap.  I have to go through decwrl's ftpmail to get
>these and it takes alot of time just to locate the directory where
>files are at the I want.  Thanks a bunch!
>
>Kevin Hobbs

Well, if I can get a hold of Steve's images sometime soon, all of you
using FTPMAIL will have an alternative source, my graphics file
server!

The file server is mail based.  What that means is that you just send
a mail message to my server with commands in it for retrieving files
much like FTPMAIL.  However, the delays should be much shorter.  Here
is the info you need...

-------------------  Graphics File-Server Info    --------------------

A mail based file server for 3D objects, 24bit JPEG images, GIF images
and image maps is now online for all those with Internet mail access.

The server is the official archive site for the Lightwave 3D mail-list
and contains Lightwave objects, scenes, image maps and JPEGed
renderings from users of the Lightwave 3D software as well as
renderings from other 3D packages.

Besides the above mentioned image-based files, the server contains many
PD and Shareware graphics utilities for several computer platforms
including Amiga, IBM and Macintosh.

Some samples include:

DKBTRACE    - Raytracer for IBM, Amiga and Mac
POV         - Persistance of Vision Raytracer
RAYSHADE    - Raytracer for the Mac
QRT        - Raytracer for IBM, Amiga and Mac
FRACTINT    - Fractal program for IBM
GIFJPG        - Several versions for Amiga, IBM and Mac
WASP        - Image converter for Amiga
REND        - 24bit to IFF converter for Amiga
PLAY        - Several Autodesk .FLI SVGA Players for IBM
GRASPRT     - Latest player for GRASP anim files (Amiga player also)
GRAPHWRK    - Latest Graphics Workshop for IBM
FLI/ANI     - Several .FLI and .ANI anims for IBM
BADGE        - Killer entries for all 3 years (Amiga)
Objects     - Objects for Imagine, Videoscape, Lightwave and others
Renderings  - JPEGed 24bit images from Mark Thompson and others
Demos        - ImageCels, Caligari, Autodesk 3D Studio and others

Plus much more!  And many more to come!

The server resides on my BBS called "The Graphics BBS".  The BBS is
operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week at the phone number of +1
908/469-0049.  It utilizes a Hayes V-Series 9600 V.42 modem. (soon to
upgrade to a V.32bis modem)

If you would like to submit objects, scenes or images to the server,
please pack, uuencode and then mail the files to the address:

    [e-mail]

For information on obtaining files from the server send a mail message
to the address:

    [e-mail]

with the following in the body of the message:

HELP
/DIR

and a help file describing how to use the server and a complete
directory listing will be sent to you via mail.

-- Bob

 The Graphics BBS  908/469-0049  "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!"
 ============================================================================
  InterNet: [e-mail]                | Raven Enterprises
      UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl      | 25 Raven Avenue
    BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc           | Piscataway, NJ 08854
    Home #: 908/560-7353                          | 908/271-8878

##

Subject:     OCTD & world size
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 14:02:23 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>

What kind of relationship is there between OCTD (level in octree) parameter, in
 the PREFERENCE EDITOR, and world-size ?
I mean, I found that varying one or both these values, rendering time changes f
requently; the problem is that I still haven't found the optimum values.

                                        Please help.
                                        CIAO.

--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     Re: Color0 on object
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 1:45:00 PDT
From:        Aaron Tucker <[e-mail]>

>
> The problem is that the "transparent" object is letting the background show
> through, and the background is black.  Therefore you get a black squiggle.
>
> The solution is to use an object with the "genlock" attribute to conceal the
> squiggle.  That will let the video show through properly.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
The problem is that the squiggle is RED. It is supposed to be invisible until
it is drawn in. If the object is a Genlocked object, I will never see the red.
That is my dilemna. I guess I will have to put a genlocked plane over the
undrawn portion and track the positionto the linear transparent texture as
it goes by. I wonder if any of the other 3D packages for the Amiga are
capable of doing this...any experienced biters? Stephen? Mark?

Juan Trevino
[e-mail]
"Wake up. Time to die."  -Leon from BladeRunner

##

Subject:     Re: Pricing for Animations...
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 1:58:02 PDT
From:        Aaron Tucker <[e-mail]>

> That is a very good question.
> I would like some help on this subject too.
> Do I charge by the hour for my time?
> Do I charge by the finished length of the work?
> Or so combination?
>
> *****DWAYNE*****
> [e-mail]
>

I am currently charging by the frame because most of the work I do is simple
logos flying in and setting down on the screen, with maybe a ripple of light
go across them. They are all fairly simple, so not much of my time is used.

If I charged for time, I honestly think I'd be making much less than would
be worth my while. I am paying a local video production house a small
percentage of the profit to use his single frame equipment and his MII deck.
That is something else to consider if you are going to go to videotape. I
would rather pay a video production house and get MII, Betacam, or 1" than
go to VHS, SVHS, or 3/4" for free. The difference is substantial.

I suppose it depends on the situation. I am sure I would change my mind if
somebody wanted only 100 frames of some amazingly complex scene. It is always
best to get a storyboard before generating a 24bit animation.

Juan Trevino
[e-mail]
"Wake up. Time to die."  -Leon from BladeRunner

##

Subject:     How to do it ...
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 16:59:20 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>


John Rosner wrote:

>No but yes.  The rendering engine has not changed.  What has changed is
>world size can be automatically set and in trace mode this has dramatic
>differences.  A friend said he did a TRACE of a satellite and it took 2
>hours 20 minutes, I had helped him on his satellite and knew this was
>way off.  He was using the default world size instead of setting the
>globals size to 0, which does automatic sizing.  The TRACE took 12
>minutes.

HOW CAN I DO THAT ?????
I ask because I tried, but rendering speed becomes always very low !!!!!
What I'm doing wrong for you ?

                                Thanks in advance.
                                CIAO.

--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     New member, Author of Vertex
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 06:09:24 EST
From:        Alex Deburie <[e-mail]>


Hello,

Glad to be a part of the Imagine mailing list! I'm the author of Vertex,
the shareware object editor/converter. If anyone has any comments,
requests, criticisms or questions, let 'em rip...

I've just made some changes to the program, including improved line
clipping, an object name requester to replace the name menu, and a new
function called cut window. Preferred users should be getting updates in a
about a week.


On Imagine, has anyone heard about the lock-up problem? I've heard a
little on the net about it, and a friend of mine said the program locked
up after clicking the OK button from the file requester. Any ideas?


So long...

    Alex DeBurie
    ([e-mail])

##

Subject:     Speed increase in rendering engine?
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 07:05:05 EST
From:        John Rosner <[e-mail]>

> From [e-mail] Thu Feb 27 03:39:03 1992
> has the integer version of imagine 2 had a speed increase in its
> rendering engine.
>

No but yes.  The rendering engine has not changed.  What has changed is
world size can be automatically set and in trace mode this has dramatic
differences.  A friend said he did a TRACE of a satellite and it took 2
hours 20 minutes, I had helped him on his satellite and knew this was
way off.  He was using the default world size instead of setting the
globals size to 0, which does automatic sizing.  The TRACE took 12
minutes.

##

Subject:     Re: Pricing for Animations...
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 09:28:33 CST
From:        Michael Mikottis <[e-mail]>

More thoughts on how to charge: by the frame, time spent, etc.

The thinking behind the billing practices of many professionals (e.g.
doctors, lawyers, ARTISTS, etc.) is that what is being charged for is
the experience, schooling, expertise. etc., which is all very hard to
come by, and not so much the hours spent, per se.  That's why the hourly
rates of these people tend to be high.

You need to consider all the long hours spent pouring over manuals,
hooking up new hardware, frying chips, trying various rendering techniques,
getting gurus, getting black screens, getting nice screens; i.e honing your
craft.  Nobody was sitting behind you then writing you checks, am I right?

And what you have earned for yourself is the ability to provide a service
that not just anybody has the wherewithall to provide.  i.e. it's relatively
rare and therefore valuable to somebody who wants that service.

    > That is a very good question.
    > I would like some help on this subject too.
    > Do I charge by the hour for my time?
    > Do I charge by the finished length of the work?
    > Or so combination?
    >
    > *****DWAYNE*****
    > [e-mail]
    >

    I am currently charging by the frame because most of the work I do is s
imple
    logos flying in and setting down on the screen, with maybe a ripple of
light
    go across them. They are all fairly simple, so not much of my time is u
sed.

    If I charged for time, I honestly think I'd be making much less than wo
uld
    be worth my while. I am paying a local video production house a small
    percentage of the profit to use his single frame equipment and his MII
deck.
    That is something else to consider if you are going to go to videotape.
 I
    would rather pay a video production house and get MII, Betacam, or 1" t
han
    go to VHS, SVHS, or 3/4" for free. The difference is substantial.

    I suppose it depends on the situation. I am sure I would change my mind
 if
    somebody wanted only 100 frames of some amazingly complex scene. It is
always
    best to get a storyboard before generating a 24bit animation.

    Juan Trevino
    [e-mail]
    "Wake up. Time to die."  -Leon from BladeRunner


If Mr. Trevino can now reap the benefits of his hard work such that
based on his experience and knowledge he is able to produce a slick
animation for a client in a relatively short amount of time, great!
In fact the more proficient he is, the more he ought to charge!

But back to the main question, how to charge?  There's a couple of common
choices used in other similar industries: "fair market" and "time + materials".

"Fair market" says charge what the market will bear.  If the going rate
for a 10 sec. flying logo on whatever media is x dollars, charge that
rate more of less depending on how your work stacks up to the standard.
The problem here is that since a lot of what is being discussed here
is new, there may be no way to obtain a "going rate".  On the other hand
whatever somebody agrees to pay you IS the going rate.  The danger is
you might be undervaluing your work, or overcharging (and risking loss of)
your client.

Where there is little info re: waht the market will bear it might be better
to try the "time + materials" model.  Compare rates with similar industries
in order to find a yardstick, and come up hourly rate.  What's similar?
Commercial art, traditional animation, programming...  Adjust the rate up or
down depending on the rarity and quality of your service.  e.g. Putting titles
on home videos might represent less of a knowledge base than flying logo
animations, which is less than some other service.  And if your work has some
special flair that people really go for, charge for it!

Mike

##

Subject:     Re: How to do it ...
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 11:51:46 EST
From:        John Rosner <[e-mail]>

> Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
> >He was using the default world size instead of setting the
> >globals size to 0, which does automatic sizing.  The TRACE took 12
> >minutes.
>
> HOW CAN I DO THAT ?????
> I ask because I tried, but rendering speed becomes always very low !!!!!
> What I'm doing wrong for you ?

You created a single frame size bar in the Action editor under Globals,
and the rendering time for a TRACE took longer?

Something else is wrong.  The world size can affect trace times but the
above method of setting the size to zero causes Imagine 2.0 to optimize
the world size.

Later, John Rosner

##

Subject:     Yet Another Bug Report
Date:        27 Feb 1992 10:35:52 -0800
From:        Mitch Halpern <[e-mail]>

                                             10:22 AM           2/27/92
                                             Yet Another Bug Report
I have found what appears to be a bug in Imagine 2.0 when rendering an
animation in DCTV mode.  If you render the animation in Impulse's format,
everything appears to be OK, but if you render the animation in ANIM format,
one gets an error message (Can't build anim file) when the computer tries to
build the first anim file.  Other than using DCTV format and screen
resolutions, I've been using "normal" procedures for someone with relatively
limited hard drive capacity (eg looping anim, delete picture files, generate
movie file from pick list etc.).  Has anyone experienced anything similar?  Is
their a bug in my technique rather than the software?

Thanks, Mitch  ([e-mail])

My opinions are my own...No one else would really want them

##

Subject:     How to render???
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 13:57:33 EST
From:        James Parker <[e-mail]>


Ok, you guys...

I have been wanting a ray-tracer with a graphic interface for a while and I
talked a dude down the street out of his Imagine1.0 (I know it is old but I
am really just trying it on for size before I pump out major $$$ for a better
one.)  The problem is...he lost the manuals but he insisted it was very easy
to use.  Common sense sorta stuff.  (Yeah, right!)

Here's my question:  HOW IN THE HELL DO I RENDER ANYTHING!?!?!?!?!

I can draw nice objects.  I have gotten a bunch of neat stuff from hubcap like
TIE fighters, X-Wings, the Enterprise, etc, and I can rotate, scale, etc
easily enough but I can't render anything!!!!!  The fellow I bought it from
says he can't remember and he never used it a lot anyway.

HELP!!  Can someone just give me some simple instructions about how to render
any of these great objects???

I REALLY appreciate any and all help....

Thanks a bunch!

--
=============================================================================
Jim Parker   [e-mail]                   |  Standard
"What we got here is a failure to communicate.." -S.M. |          Disclaimers
=============================================================================
Hard work doesn't guarantee anything, but without it you don't stand a chance

##

Subject:     Re: How to do it ...
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 15:56:27 -0500
From:        "Michael B. Comet" <[e-mail]>


>
>
>Something else is wrong.  The world size can affect trace times but the
>above method of setting the size to zero causes Imagine 2.0 to optimize
>the world size.
>
>Later, John Rosner
>
>

    The one possibility that I can think of that could cause a
longer trace time with 0,0,0 for global size is this:

    Setting to 0,0,0 does force imagine to use a good world size,
but however, it does take time to calculate this.  Therefore, if the
initial world size is equal to or is close to the "best" world size, it
could actually take longer to render!  (Though depending on the type of
processor there shouldn't be much difference).

    Michael B. Comet
    [e-mail]

##

Subject:     world size
Date:        Thu, 27 Feb 92 18:55:12 GMT-0500
From:        Scott Matthew Krehbiel <[e-mail]>


2 Hours to 12 minutes?  I need that feature!
This isn't available on 1.1, is it?
thanks

By the way, does anyone have a good lharc program that will run on
a Next?

Scott

##

Subject:     Flying objects
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 92 02:36 EST
From:        Marc Rifkin <[e-mail]>

Here's a question for all Imaginators...

When doing flying stuff like logos, ships, planes, cows, etc.,
do you key frame to motion or use paths?
If you use paths, do you use multiple paths to get motions that
slow down and speed up during the anim?
If you use paths, how do you get planes to bank on turns?
Any tricks?

Thanks for any help.  I just did a flying logo and had a heck of a
time getting it to look the way I needed.

Marc Rifkin- Graphics and Multimedia / [e-mail]
"The future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
-John Connor, Terminator 2

##

Subject:     world size
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 1992 09:07 EST
From:        GREG GRANVILLE <[e-mail]>

One other little "feature" that I noticed with respect to using 0,0,0
as a world size is that it only seems to calculate it for the first
frame of any one timeline. Normally, you'd add a size (of 0,0,0) to
the first frame of your anim...  and only the first frame. However,
I noticed that if you add a size bar of 0,0,0 for the entire animation,
Imagine will calculate the size needed to enclose all the objects on
the first frame, and will then *morph* the world size to a literal
0,0,0  throughout the rest of the animation. The result is that all
the sides of the world close in, and finally everything disappears.
The animated "clipping" of objects in this manner might come in handy
sometime. I can "imagine" ;-) a few cases where it might be a desirable
effect.

...Greg
[e-mail]

##

Subject:     Unix lharc (was Re: world size)
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 92 08:43:16 MST
From:        Marvin Landis <[e-mail]>

> By the way, does anyone have a good lharc program that will run on
> a Next?

Yes, hubcap has a Unix lharc program in

/pub/amiga/incoming/imagine/misc/ux.lharc.tar.Z

I would guess you should not have much trouble getting this to run on your
NeXT.

Marvin Landis
[e-mail]

##

Subject:     colors
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 92 10:05:08 CST
From:        camelot![e-mail]


    Imagineers,

    Is there a way to specify how many colors I want Imagine to use when
    rendering an image; I mean beyond HI-res, ham, low-res settings?
    I would like to create a Hi-res animation but render with colors
    using only about 12, or so, colors out of the 16 available in the
    hi-res pallette.  (Since Imagine creates a pallette during the
    rendering process, I don't know how to control the pallette
    creation.)  I would then like to use the remaining 4 (of 16) colors
    to overlay well contrasting text on top of the frames in
    DPAINT IV.  Is there a way to tell Imagine to limit its color
    selection?

    Also, I haven't been receiving any mail as of the last few days.
    Have I been removed from the list or is it quiet out there?  If I
    have been removed, please re-add me to the list.

    Thanks,

    Dale

        ____________________________^__________________________________

        dale r. rogers               Email:  ingr!b24a!camelot!dale
                                     Internet:
                                     ingr!b24a!camelot![e-mail]

##

Subject:     Al those objects...
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 92 14:12:25 EST
From:        Jose Roberto Landell Fehse <[e-mail]>

Hello everybody !

        That's the first time i'm sending something to this mailing list and,
obviously, it's a question. HOW CAN I ACCESS ALL THOSE DIRECTORIES CONTAINING
ALL THOSE WONDERFULL OBJECTS AND BRUSHES ? (I'm sorry). Could someone, please,
tell me how can I access the directories everybody talks about all the time
containig textures, objects and things like that.
        Could, someone, (I promess this is the last question) tell me how to
access the FTP and get that all that PD programs.

        Thanx for your cooperation.

                                The Walrus.

PS.: I'll never forget this !( you probably not too)

##

Subject:     Imagine 1.1 bug
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 1992 18:52:59 -0500
From:        Christopher Stevenson <[e-mail]>

Hi, folks - pardon the bandwidth, but I've tried to be brief.
Here's my problem;

I *strongly* suspect that there's a bug in the rendering engine of Imagine 1.1.
I've known that 2.0 has been out there for a few months, now, and have gotten
mixed info re: whether it's rendering engine has been completely reworked
or not; a sales rep. told me over the phone that "yes, everything's been re-
written", and just this morning I learn over the news net that Imagine 2.0's
rendering engine hasn't been touched (I assume this to mean it's the same one
that 1.1, 1.0, and TurboSilver used. The essential core, at least - I've seen
this "bug" I'll decribe in 1.1 and TurboSilver, on 68000-equiped A500's, an
A1000, and an A1000 + 020/881 + 2MBram (running the FP versions, of course).

What's up?

Here's the "bug", which I ran through again last night to make sure I get
everything right here. Make a glass; ANY hollow glass will work (I made a
small tumbler last night by using ADD LINE, SNAP TO GRID (gridsize 10) in the
DETAIL editor, drawing the cross-section of half a tumbler (which took all
of six points):
                        x--x
                        |  |      z
                        |  |      |
                        |  |      X---x
                     --- etc ---
                        |  |
                        |  x------x
                        |         |
                        |         |
                        x---------x

Sweep this through 360 degrees, in 24 sections. Apply some attributes for
glass (use your favorites, or use what I did; colour=(240,240,240),
filter=(240,245,250), reflec=(30,35,40), specular=(240,245,250), NO
shininess, full hardness & dithering. No textures or maps for this test)
Use an index of refraction that's sensible for glass;  1.50.

Put the glass on a grid-texture mapped white table top, put the camera
fairly close and looking slightly down
(so you should be able to see the grid lines
through the glass), add a light or two, and render. Setting the world size=0
autosnaps the universe down to your objects, speeding rendering significantly.

First, scan-line. Of course, since there's no refraction going on at all here,
everything is ~koshur... if you like ethereal glasses with no shadows. Now,
try a couple of traces; first with PHONG shading OFF (faceted); the glass is
transparent, if composed of flat faces. Now, turn ON PHONG shading. The glass
suddenly becomes opaque, except perhaps for any points on the glass's surface
that are almost perfectly perpendicular to the lines-of-sight involved. Turn
the Index of Refraction to 1.02, and the opaque zone (trapped rays? This zone
will be the colour of whatever you've set AMBIENT to, plus reflections from
the glass' surroundings) has "opened up" to reveal a large zone of transparency
... but wrongly-handled refraction (look at the distortions of the grid. Grab
a real juice glass and, surface irregularities aside, note that straight glass
sides don't appreciably distort things behind them).

What's up? Try this, if you have a few minutes (the traces take less than
20 minutes even on a machine with no 32-bit ram, in quarter screen HAM lace.
Incidentally, the "opaque" picture renders appreciably faster than the
"faceted, clear" picture). Have I boo-booed in making the object? Surely not-
this is ultra-primitive. Is there something I'm missing?

If anyone has any ideas, please get back to me via email or the mail list.
Thanks - Chris

##

Subject:     protextures2,vistapro2,lightwave2
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 92 21:04:12 PST
From:        Kevin Kodama <[e-mail]>


has anyone seen heard tried Protextures II, i saw an ad for it in Avid.
i like Protextures I, seamless 24bit images for brushwrapping, and am
interested to see what Protextures II is like.

received the upgrade to Vistapro, Vistapro 2, definitely a major upgrade !
worth getting, although the render times seem to have increased significantly
along with the new features.

lightwave2-i mentioned in an earlier post that lightwave 2 shipped with
many of the same objects shipped with Imagine 2.0. what i should have
mentioned is that someone OBVIOUSLY took the time to present these objects
in their best possible light for lightwave. try rendering the triceratops
or cow or porshe in both packages, and view as default objects.
in imagine, you get the simple objects, with some coloring. in lightwave,
the cow has black spots, the triceratops has a bumpmapped skin, and the
porshe ! you have to see the metal texture of the porshe !

how hard would it have been for impulse to have taken a bit of time to
tweak the objects supplied ? in lightwave, even the objects serve as great
examples to learn from.....
kevin
[e-mail]

##

Subject:     Polyhedra (Platonic solids and others)
Date:        Fri, 28 Feb 92 23:42:39 -0700
From:        Val Kartchner <[e-mail]>

     I got a file which contained the Platonic Solids and other polyhedra.  It
supposedly had them in a simple format.  I tried entering the tetrahedron (four
-
sided regular polyhedra) into Imagine, but I got something wierd which containe
d
the tetrahedron.
     Has anyone already input these polyhedra into Imagine?  Please let me know
.

                Thanks in advance,
                    -=:[ VAL ]:=-
                    [e-mail]

##

Subject:     alpha channel
Date:        Sat, 29 Feb 92 2:27:02 PDT
From:        Aaron Tucker <[e-mail]>

 ....stuff deleted...
> To have that, you're into a much more sophisticated system which stores
> graphics as 32-bit -- rather than 24-bit -- and uses the extra 8 bits to set
> a transparency level.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no Amiga
> hardware or software that supports 32-bit images with linear keying
> capability.
>
Actually, you can do a 4bit alpha channel with the Amiga 500 or the 2000 by
using the composite port. You could also get a second 24bit device and only
use pure gray colors, and send that out as the alpha channel. Two firecrackers
could do this...you would also have to have two genlocks and something that
will accept the alpha channel.
The Toaster can use the composite output as an alpha channel to create
transitions. I think it will only support a 1 bitplane channel...either on
or off (transparent or opaque).

> Pete
>
Juan Trevino
[e-mail]
"Wake up. Time to die."  -Leon from BladeRunner

##

Subject:     Re:  Flying objects
Date:        Sat, 29 Feb 92 13:45:23 EST
From:        "F. Felixberto" <[e-mail]>

>Here's a question for all Imaginators...
>
>When doing flying stuff like logos, ships, planes, cows, etc.,
>do you key frame to motion or use paths?
Depends on the motion involved.  For linear motions, I prefer just using
key frames because it is quick and easy.  Now, if I wanted to have a cow
shoot out of a cannon, do a loop, take a parabolic path and land on the
ground, I'd probably use a path. :)  Seriously though, I did an animation
of an origami crane weaving in and out of some columns and it was easy to
set it up using paths (I had the camera follow another path to keep up with
the crane).

>If you use paths, do you use multiple paths to get motions that
>slow down and speed up during the anim?
Yes.  Again, like I said, if the motion is purely linear, it is easier to
have several key frames and adjust the number of frames to the distance moved
by the object to slow down or speed up.  The problem with this approach though
is if you want the object to visibly accelerate, you have to set up a lot of
key frames and it can get pretty tedious.  Using paths of course you just use
the accelerate or decelerate options.

>If you use paths, how do you get planes to bank on turns?
>Any tricks?
Well, here's one way.  After creating the path, go into edit path mode.  Pick
the spot where you think the plane should start banking.  Split the path and
put the axis created by this process on this spot.  The path might change its
shape a little when you do this so just make the necessary adjustments.
Pick out the spot where the plane will be at the maximum bank.  Split the
path segment again and place the resulting axis on this point.  Finally,
pick out the point where the plane goes back to level flight and perform
the same operation as you did the first two times (split and move the axis).
Now, pick out the axis where the plane will be at maximum bank and rotate it
by the amount of bank you want.  Save the path.

Go to the action editor and add an alignment bar for the plane and tell it
to align to path.

You should also be able to use key frames to make the plane bank while followin
g
a path.  I haven't tried doing it that way so I don't want to make any positive
assertions.  When I've got a chance I'll check it out (I still haven't used
the cow that came with Imagine 2.0 for anything :)).

>Thanks for any help.  I just did a flying logo and had a heck of a
>time getting it to look the way I needed.

>Marc Rifkin- Graphics and Multimedia / [e-mail]

You're welcome.  Hope I was some help anyway.

                        felix

##

Subject:     bug in rendering engine?
Date:        Sat, 29 Feb 92 14:03:09 EST
From:        "F. Felixberto" <[e-mail]>

> ... stuff deleted...
>Here's the "bug", which I ran through again last night to make sure I get
>everything right here. Make a glass; ANY hollow glass will work (I made a
>small tumbler last night by using ADD LINE, SNAP TO GRID (gridsize 10) in the
>...description of glass deleted...
>First, scan-line. Of course, since there's no refraction going on at all here,
>everything is ~koshur... if you like ethereal glasses with no shadows. Now,
>try a couple of traces; first with PHONG shading OFF (faceted); the glass is
>transparent, if composed of flat faces. Now, turn ON PHONG shading. The glass
>suddenly becomes opaque, except perhaps for any points on the glass's surface
>that are almost perfectly perpendicular to the lines-of-sight involved. Turn
>the Index of Refraction to 1.02, and the opaque zone (trapped rays? This zone
>will be the colour of whatever you've set AMBIENT to, plus reflections from
>the glass' surroundings) has "opened up" to reveal a large zone of transparenc
y
>... but wrongly-handled refraction (look at the distortions of the grid. Grab
>a real juice glass and, surface irregularities aside, note that straight glass
>sides don't appreciably distort things behind them).

>What's up? Try this, if you have a few minutes (the traces take less than
>20 minutes even on a machine with no 32-bit ram, in quarter screen HAM lace.
>Incidentally, the "opaque" picture renders appreciably faster than the
>"faceted, clear" picture). Have I boo-booed in making the object? Surely not-
>this is ultra-primitive. Is there something I'm missing?

>If anyone has any ideas, please get back to me via email or the mail list.
>Thanks - Chris

I tried the scene you described and I understand what you are talking about.
The problem is with the Phong shading.  Are you using Imagine 1.1?  It is
a lot easier to correct the problem using 2.0.  The trick is to set the
bottom edges and the rim of the glass to No Phong (using make sharp in the
Functions menu of 2.0 Detail Editor) while keeping the cylinder that makes
up the body of the glass Phong shaded.  When you do this, the scene looks
a lot closer to real-life.  I used an index of refraction of 1.50 and the
sides of the glass were transparent with the checkerboard looking a little
bit distorted.  The checkerboard wasn't distorted when viewed through the
bottom of the glass.  I am not sure how you can have some parts of an
object Phonged while other parts are not using Imagine 1.1.  I think you
have to break it up into several pieces (rim, cylinder, bottom), turn
Phong on or off accordingly and joining the pieces but that is just a guess.
I think someone described how to do this some time back so if somebody
remembers, please just post the info.

                        felix

##

Subject:     phong splitting
Date:        Sat, 29 Feb 92 20:54:25 GMT-0500
From:        Scott Matthew Krehbiel <[e-mail]>


Yeah, I need to find out how to edit what parts of objects are shaded,
also.   I was creating the old NCC1701 enterprise, and it made it
look like a nice thick potato pancake, 'cause it smoothed the edges
of the saucer section.  I had to make the top and bottom into two
different objects.

Is there a way to turn off phong shading for some triangles????
it wouldn't let me turn it off.

Thanks
Scott

##

Subject:     NCC 1701-A object
Date:        Sun, 1 Mar 92 19:05:07 -0500
From:        Elizabeth E Sack <[e-mail]>

On February 29th, Scott Krehbiel had posted about an Enterprise object he was m
aking.
All I can say is that if you want the BEST NCC 1701-A object for imagine call
the Studio BBS  817/557-2111 and download the object EPRIZEA.LZH.  There are al
so
models for the Enterprise NCC 1701-D, a Ferengi cruiser and a Romulan WarBird.

Studio BBS is devoted entirely to 3D objects and renderers.  It works on a 1:10
upload/download ratio (or you can have unlimited downloads by becoming a charte
r
member for $5.00 american)  I urge all Imagine artists to logon.

Jeff Hanna
Studio J Video Productions
[e-mail]

I am in no way affiliated with Studio BBS, I just think it is the greatest BBS
for
3D artists.

##

Subject:     Foggy Lights
Date:        Sun,  1 Mar 92 18:08:29 PST
From:        [e-mail]

I just stumbled on this this weekend. It may be old hat for some of you but
it was a real revelation to me:

Have you ever tried to put a visible light source in your renderings?  My
experience has always been that if I created a bright object and set it to
light/create shadows, the light would all be trapped inside the object (in
trace mode).  Moving the axis outside of the object then would cause the
light object itself to cast a shadow (not too realistic :) ).  The only
solution that I could come up with was to make the object slightly
transparent and then turn the light intensity WAAAY up.

However, Imagine 2.0 offers a much more elegent solution! After you create
the light/bright object, set the FOG to some small value (I used 1.0).
Since a fog object doesn't create a shadow, all the light passes through it
and you have something that actually looks like a light bulb (or candle
flame etc.) without having to turn the intensity up!

I came up with this after trying to create fuzzy shadows by making the
objects foggy.  This, of course, didn't work.  Too bad as it could have led
to some great effects.  Think of it - Add some fog to all your objects.
Render your image WITH shadows (fuzzy).  Then, go back remove the fog
settings, set your lights to NO shadow, set the previous pic as a backdrop
and re-render.  INSTANT FUZZY SHADOWS!!!  Oh well, Maybe Impulse could
figure out some way to incorporate this special fog (maybe call it fuzz) in
a future version.  However, learning how to make a light bulb made this
experiment worthwhile to me even if I didn't get what I was after.  As the
'manual' says, EXPERIMENT!

Lenard Lundblad

##

Subject:     Cycle Editor
Date:        Sun,  1 Mar 92 18:11:16 PST
From:        [e-mail]

I have a question about the CYCLE editor:

What I was trying to create was an cycle like an engine cylinder (Yeah, I
know, real imgainative :) ). Anyhow, I set up the following 4 Key frames in
the cycle editor:

                |
       |          |    |
        \    |     /    |
    _\    |    /_    |
        |

When I animated this, I expected the cylinder to move straight up and down
on the Z axis as that is it's position in all four key frames.  However, it
wobbles back and fourth like someone was feeding it too high of octane
fuel!  I had to create a number of additional key frames between the ones
shown above to get a decent motion.

Can anyone explain to me what is going on here?

##

Subject:     Again with World size....
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 13:42:33 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>


Sorry every one for talking about this old subject again, but I'm really gettin
g crazy!
I was trying to play whith world size just to test the possibility of reducing
rendering time using the (0,0,0) size bar in action editor.
The scene was just a sphere, a light and....nothing else.
Well, the problem are the rendering times; look this table:

RENDERING MODE          WORLD SIZE              RENDERING TIME

Scanline                                        2.07 secs.
Trace                   default (untouched)     2.23 secs.
Trace                   0,0,0                   3.09 secs.
Trace                   8000,8000,8000 (max.)   2.21 secs.


That's why I'm really confused! You all said that increasing world size will dr
amatically increase rendering time........!
Have I did any error or what ?

                                        Ciao.


--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     Splitting objects into groups based on attributes
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 1992 16:51:55 MET
From:        Stefan Lindahl <[e-mail]>

Hi all!

I was wondering if there is a program to split up objects
into grouped objects based on say the color of the different parts.

This so one could convert objects from different formats and still
render them with phong shading.

I tried to render the Enterprise object posted to the net earlier
(which was in Sculpt format). But since it had different colors in it,
engines etc. it would only render non-Phong ;-)   and the saucer section
was only made out of a few polygons, thus not looking too good...

The alternativ was to change the objects over-all attr. resulting in a
one-color object :(

So, is there such a program? or another solution to the problem?

Maybe an ARexx-based script and the Textural TDDD format? (I've only
just seen the programs and don't know much about the format)

-Stefan. LIT, Sweden

##

Subject:     Re: alpha channel
Date:        Mon, 02 Mar 92 10:00:01 EST
From:        Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> The Toaster can use the composite output as an alpha channel to create
> transitions. I think it will only support a 1 bitplane channel...either on
> or off (transparent or opaque).

The Toaster supports a full 8bit alpha channel but the software is only just
begining to take advantage of it.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  |
| --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   |
|      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   |
|     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   |
|                                                                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

##

Subject:     World size.
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 11:17:04 -0500
From:        Joe Kiniry <[e-mail]>


To put this discussion to rest...

Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>
says:

----
Sorry every one for talking about this old subject again, but I'm really gettin
g crazy!
I was trying to play whith world size just to test the possibility of reducing
rendering time using the (0,0,0) size bar in action editor.
The scene was just a sphere, a light and....nothing else.
Well, the problem are the rendering times; look this table:

RENDERING MODE          WORLD SIZE              RENDERING TIME

Scanline                                        2.07 secs.
Trace                   default (untouched)     2.23 secs.
Trace                   0,0,0                   3.09 secs.
Trace                   8000,8000,8000 (max.)   2.21 secs.


That's why I'm really confused! You all said that increasing world size will dr
amatically increase rendering time........!
Have I did any error or what ?
---

Well Marco, you didn't do anything inherently wrong, it's just that the
overhead for computing optimal world size killed your increased performance.
On a scene as simple as one sphere and one light you will not see a speed
increase.  Aye, there's the rub.  The more complicated your scene and the
greater the differential between your scene and the default world size,
the greater the speed increase you will see.  I did some stuff last night,
here's my results:

Scene: Candlestick, with lit candle on wood table.
Mode: Trace, default world size.
Time: 44 minutes.

Mode: Trace, (0,0,0) world size
Time: 5.2 minutes

Scene: Coffee mug with brush maps, reflection, etc. on same table.
Mode: Trace, default world size.
Time: 1 hour 53 minutes.

Mode: Trace, (0,0,0) world size
Time: 4.6 minutes

I can give more examples if you like.  BTW, this is under Imagine 1.1, I
don't know if the differentials under 2.0 are different.

---joe
[e-mail]

##

Subject:     Vertex
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 11:58:08 GMT-0500
From:        Scott Matthew Krehbiel <[e-mail]>


Where was that Vertex modeler located again?
if it was on AB20, what was the path?
thanks
scottk

##

Subject:     Studio BBS
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 12:24:35 -0500
From:        Elizabeth E Sack <[e-mail]>


Sorry about the number I posted for Studio BBS.  The sysop has posted on Studio
that that number (817/557-2111) would go into service on March 1st, but it
hasn't.  I'm at work now and I promise I'll post the old number the second I
get home (about 5:30 eastern standard time).

All you have to do to join is log on.  What is meant by the 1:10 upload/downloa
d
ratio is that for X number of files uploaded you get X*10 number of files to
download (X might be based on file size, I haven't really checked).  You can
download after you are validated by the sysop, but you'll have to upload the
next time you want to download something.

Information about becoming a charter member is online at Studio, but I'll post
the address when I get home.

Jeff Hanna
Studio J Video Productions
[e-mail]

P.S. I know my mailer identifies me as Elizabeth E. Sack.  Purdue doesn't
believe in giving computer account to non-engineers :( so I have to borrow.

##

Subject:     Re: World size.
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 12:44:01 EST
From:        William F Bennett <[e-mail]>

>
> Well Marco, you didn't do anything inherently wrong, it's just that the
> overhead for computing optimal world size killed your increased performance.
> On a scene as simple as one sphere and one light you will not see a speed
> increase.  Aye, there's the rub.  The more complicated your scene and the
> greater the differential between your scene and the default world size,
> the greater the speed increase you will see.  I did some stuff last night,
> here's my results:
>
> Scene: Candlestick, with lit candle on wood table.
> Mode: Trace, default world size.
> Time: 44 minutes.
>
> Mode: Trace, (0,0,0) world size
> Time: 5.2 minutes
>
> Scene: Coffee mug with brush maps, reflection, etc. on same table.
> Mode: Trace, default world size.
> Time: 1 hour 53 minutes.
>
> Mode: Trace, (0,0,0) world size
> Time: 4.6 minutes
>
> I can give more examples if you like.  BTW, this is under Imagine 1.1, I
> don't know if the differentials under 2.0 are different.
>
> ---joe
> [e-mail]
>

Thanx for the test Joe. The reductions of rendering time is dramatic. I was
unaware of this "trick". Does the 0,0,0 world have any limitations? Do the
images look the same? Can you use a ground or sky with this?

               Bill Bennett

##

Subject:     REXX interface?
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 13:15:14 -0500
From:        "Mr. Brad Milhorn" <[e-mail]>


Question: Is there any *easy* way to add an arexx or system pipe: to allorings
to be sent directly to a screen editor for genlocking over an outgoing
video signal like in paintbox or toster? Doses the 2.0 upgrade include
output re-direction?  Also I've had good results dumping 24bit data files
to 24tosham from imagine and DKB however I do not have a sham editor or
the source code for decodeing the sham iff images. Are these part of the
new deep bitmap iff standards commodore has recently implemented and
does anyone know where I can get them?

    Finaly does anyone have the documentation to the Janus LIB
from commodore? I would like to write a program to transfer graphic
and raw digital data accross an 2088A bridgecard. CATS has not returned
my messages and the local developers I know have never played with it.
PS: the lib version on janus is 2.0 I am not aware of any major upgrades.

#-------------------------------------------------------------------------#
! "The strength of the wolf is in the pack...    Brad Milhorn U Md.      !
!    ... The strength of the pack is in the wolf.               !
!                                      !
!    [e-mail]     [e-mail]              !
!    [e-mail]    [e-mail]              !
!                                      !
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------#

##

Subject:     World Size
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 14:41:16 EDT
From:        Frank McPherson <[e-mail]>

    I haven't yet had a lot of experience with Imagine; where does
one set the world size to (0,0,0)?

Thanks.


--
Frank McPherson                          Internet: [e-mail]

##

Subject:     world size use
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 1992 15:04:02 -0500
From:        Christopher Stevenson <[e-mail]>

To Frank McPherson (and possibly others);
To set the world size, go into the stage editor and make a SIZE bar for
GLOBALS, for the first frame. Set the three values each to 0; ie.,
you'll enter 0,0,0 (hit return after each). This will autosnap the
universe onto whatever is being rendered in that frame, and potentially
radically speed up your renderings.

-chris

##

Subject:     World Size continued...
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 15:22:56 -0500
From:        Joe Kiniry <[e-mail]>


Bill Bennett writes:
---
Thanx for the test Joe. The reductions of rendering time is dramatic. I was
unaware of this "trick". Does the 0,0,0 world have any limitations? Do the
images look the same? Can you use a ground or sky with this?

---
Well Bill, the 0,0,0 world size has no limitations as far as I can tell
so far.  The images are identical down to the last pixel, and you can
use sky and ground with this no problem.  From what I know of rendering
engines, all this will do is make the engine narrow down it's "field
of view" in relation to solid objects and constructs.  Ground and sky
are infinite nonmaterial constructs which have definition but no bearing
on worldsize.

Also, Frank McPherson writes:
---
       I haven't yet had a lot of experience with Imagine; where does
one set the world size to (0,0,0)?

---

To set the world size, go to the stage editor, and press Amiga-A to
get into the Action editor. (This is under 1.1 or earlier, I believe
2.0 has the action editor as a separate module.)  World is the second
'object' listed, and it has a size, just as every other item in the
list.  There should not be any bars next to the globals section.  Now,
you just add a size from frame 1 to frame 1, and set it equal to 0,0,0.
You may add this 0,0,0 size to all the frames of a multiple frame
project, it will work just the same.  Adding the size just to frame
one lets Imagine know that you want optimal size on all the frames
of the project.  If you have a positive world size to begin with then
enter 0,0,0 as an adjustment, then your world will shrink down to
0,0,0 as the frame count progresses.  As mentioned earlier, this could
produce some pretty cool effects, though I havn't had a chance to try
it out for myself.  TRON derezzing comes to mind (remember the big ol'
ship at the end?)  Anyway, happy rendering!  (And now fast as hell! :))

---joe

##

Subject:     potential 0,0,0 world size problem
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 1992 17:01 EST
From:        GREG GRANVILLE <[e-mail]>

I haven't tested it, but picture this:
You have an outer space - type animation with no ground, and no very
large static objects...
You set the world size to auto-set with 0,0,0 on the first frame of the
anim. However, as the animation progresses, one or more of the objects
(a spaceship for example) moves outside of the world-boundaries that
were calculated in frame 1. Now, as I discovered recently, you can't
have a global world size timeline that exceeds one frame or the world
size will morph to a literal 0,0,0 at the end of the size bar.
Anyway, like I said, I haven't tested this scenario, but it could be
that this situation would require a user defined world size that takes
into account the max distance from the orgin that any object reaches
at any one frame in the animation.
I'd be interested to hear the results if anyone checks this out.

...Greg
[e-mail]

##

Subject:     Re: Color0 on object
Date:        Mon, 02 Mar 92 17:35:11 EST
From:        Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

Juan Trevino writes:
> The problem is that the squiggle is RED. It is supposed to be invisible until
> it is drawn in.
> I wonder if any of the other 3D packages for the Amiga are
> capable of doing this...any experienced biters? Stephen? Mark?

If I understand correctly, you are asking how I would tackle the problem
of making a red squiggle draw itself in LightWave. This would be trivial
because LightWave has animated texture maps. You would simply select
a procedural texture for transparency and give it a velocity at which
it should travel across your squiggle line. You could even use a graduated
falloff to make the travelling edge soft. A far more complex problem would
be to make the path travelled something other than a straight line. Then
an image sequence is required. I have used the latter a great deal for
commercial clients.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  |
| --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   |
|      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   |
|     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   |
|                                                                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

##

Subject:     STUDIO BBS
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 17:42:04 -0500
From:        Elizabeth E Sack <[e-mail]>


Okay, I'm home know so here is the information for Studio BBS.


Old phone number:    817/467-3658 (still in use)
New phone number:    817/557-2111 (was supposed to go into service March 1st
)
Sysop:            Jody Reimers
Address for sending    5524 Yaupon
charter member dues:    Arlington, TX 76018

I checked about the UL/DL ratio and found out that it is based on files not fil
e size.
For $5, charter members get:
                No UL/DL ratio
                5 calls a day instead of 3
                Discounts on hardware and software (wish I coul
d tell
                                    you more ab
out
                                        this one)
B
Before sending in charter membership dues, log on and become a new member.  Yo
u
will need to indicate you user ID when sending in the dues.

Hope to see all of your wonderful 3D objects up there soon.

Jeff Hanna
Studio J Video Productions
[e-mail]

##

Subject:     Starfields...
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 1992 18:45:15 -0700
From:        Stacey Brewer <[e-mail]>

I have come across an interesting feature or two in the last few days.

First> When rendering a project without lights. (Even when rendering a range)
imagine will ask if you are sure you wanr to render without lights..
But it asks on every frame... I finally added a light with all levels set
to zero's.

Second> When Rendering a Scene with low lighting, and a starfield(
(Mine was at .02) if global illumination is turned all the way off, the star
field will show through the object. Real strange.

Stace

##

Subject:     Fonts -> Imagine 2.0
Date:        Mon, 2 Mar 92 19:33:43 PST
From:        "Kevin W. Hobbs" <[e-mail]>

I'm interested in getting fonts into Imagine 2.0.  Which fonts work the
best? How does one go about converting fonts into Imagine format? I'd
like to do 3d flying logos, etc, with some good fonts.  I know about the
menu command that imports fonts from within Imagine, but the fonts on the
Workbench disk don't cut it.  Should I just forget about fonts untill I buy
Pixel 3D? Thanks for your time.
                                -Kevin

##

Subject:     Fonts -> Imagine 2.0 (fwd)
Date:        Tue, 3 Mar 92 8:25:24 CST
From:        camelot![e-mail]

Forwarded message:
> From uucp Mon Mar  2 22:04 CST 1992
> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 92 19:33:43 PST
> From: ingr![e-mail] (Kevin W. Hobbs)
> Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Fonts -> Imagine 2.0
>
>
> I'm interested in getting fonts into Imagine 2.0.  Which fonts work the
> best? How does one go about converting fonts into Imagine format? I'd
> like to do 3d flying logos, etc, with some good fonts.  I know about the
> menu command that imports fonts from within Imagine, but the fonts on the
> Workbench disk don't cut it.  Should I just forget about fonts untill I buy
> Pixel 3D? Thanks for your time.
>                                 -Kevin

    I'd like an answer to this one also.  I posted a message just like
    this one a few weeks ago and never got a reply.  I ordered
    the font set from UniliGraphics (Avid magazine).  I should
    have them in today's mail.  With the plethora of fonts out
    there, it would be expensive indeed to constantly keep
    buying sets of produced fonts.  Is Pixel 3D, or
    significantly modifying the imported fonts, our only options.

    -Dale


        ____________________________^__________________________________

        dale r. rogers               Email:  ingr!b24a!camelot!dale
                                     Internet:
                                     ingr!b24a!camelot![e-mail]

##

Subject:     Fonts -> Imagine 2.0 (fwd)
Date:        Tue, 3 Mar 92 08:28:01 PST
From:        "Glenn M. Lewis ~" <[e-mail]>

>>>>> On Tue, 3 Mar 92 8:25:24 CST, camelot![e-mail] said:

> From: ingr![e-mail] (Kevin W. Hobbs)
> Subject: Fonts -> Imagine 2.0
> I'm interested in getting fonts into Imagine 2.0.  Which fonts work
> the best? How does one go about converting fonts into Imagine format?
> I'd like to do 3d flying logos, etc, with some good fonts.  I know
> about the menu command that imports fonts from within Imagine, but the
> fonts on the Workbench disk don't cut it.  Should I just forget about
> fonts untill I buy Pixel 3D? Thanks for your time.
>                                 -Kevin

Dale>     I'd like an answer to this one also.  I posted a message just
Dale> like this one a few weeks ago and never got a reply.  I ordered
Dale> the font set from UniliGraphics (Avid magazine).  I should have
Dale> them in today's mail.  With the plethora of fonts out there, it
Dale> would be expensive indeed to constantly keep buying sets of
Dale> produced fonts.  Is Pixel 3D, or significantly modifying the
Dale> imported fonts, our only options.

    Since there have been two more questions about this I hope you
understand that I am not trying to make a commercial advertisement.

    But if you register for the Shareware package TTDDD, you will
receive a disk with TSTeX on it, which reads any TeX font (all of which
are in the public domain and are on several FTP sites), and produce an
Imagine object.  Yes, the fonts are simply extrusions.  Yes, they are
rasterized from the original bitmapped fonts.  So if you don't want
"jaggies", you simply pick a higher-resolution version of the font.  No
biggie.  Of course, the higher the resolution, the bigger the resulting
object file... the classic tradeoff.

    How do you register?  Send $79.95 to...  Ooops, make that $10.00
:-)  to:

Glenn M. Lewis
8341 Olive Hill Court
Fair Oaks, CA  95628

    Thanks.  Meanwhile, if you haven't already, check out TTDDD on
ab20.larc.nasa.gov [128.155.23.64] and TTDDDLIB24 on hubcap.clemson.edu
[130.127.8.1].  You will find some object manipulation goodies in there.

                            -- Glenn

Glenn Lewis | [e-mail] | These are my opinions...not Intel's

##

Subject:     Re: Imagine 2.0 & Fonts
Date:        Tue, 3 Mar 92 12:50:37 -0500
From:        "Michael B. Comet" <[e-mail]>

    There are a number of ways of getting fonts into Imagine.
However, 2.0 has it's own special "font" feature.  From the detail
editor choose the Font choice.  (I forget its exact name or what menu it
is under since I made a custom button for this one).  You will then be
presented with a list of all the amiga fonts in the fonts drawer of your
amiga.  If you have WB 2.0 you will have 2 new fonts (large ones) that
go up to around 75 in point size.  The larger the better.

    Anyways, click on the font and size you want, and then on okay.
Then Imagine will load it in.  Next Imagine will want to know if you
want it to add faces to your text.  YES will make a flat faced object,
and NO will just add the points and edges but no faces.  I ususally hit
yes.  Then, in a moment, the text you typed will appear in that font as
an Imagine object.  You can now extrude it, set attributes and
everything else.

    The other method most commonly used, ( I use this for company
logos all the time) is to digitze a logo in Black and White.  Then use
Imagine's Convert IFF/ILBM function to convert the bitmap to an object.
This is the same as pixel 3D.  Imagine will also ask if you want to add
faces.

    I have to admit, I do have pixel 3D, and it does offer more
control in the conversion process, but if you are short on money, you
can use imagine 2.0 to do the same thing without pixel 3D.

    Between the previous methods, I don't think I would ever by font
objects, since I can always get the results I want myself without
wasting more money.  Hope this helps.

                        Mike Comet
                        [e-mail]

##

Subject:     worldsize/trace
Date:        Tue, 3 Mar 92 12:56 EST
From:        [e-mail]

When I tried to set the size at 0,0,0 for trace, i got an error message saying
that the world octvolume was too large. Is there any way to remedy this problem
? I have a 3000/25 with 6 megs. I suppose the problem is that my world is REALL
Y big, but is there a way to trace it without shrinking things?


                                                               RG
                                                           at PSUVM

##

Subject:     Re: Fonts -> Imagine 2.0 (fwd)
Date:        Tue, 3 Mar 92 18:28:54 EST
From:        Dan Drake <[e-mail]>

>
>     Since there have been two more questions about this I hope you
> understand that I am not trying to make a commercial advertisement.
>
>     But if you register for the Shareware package TTDDD, you will
> receive a disk with TSTeX on it, which reads any TeX font (all of which
> are in the public domain and are on several FTP sites), and produce an
> Imagine object.  Yes, the fonts are simply extrusions.  Yes, they are
> rasterized from the original bitmapped fonts.  So if you don't want
> "jaggies", you simply pick a higher-resolution version of the font.  No
> biggie.  Of course, the higher the resolution, the bigger the resulting
> object file... the classic tradeoff.
>
>     How do you register?  Send $79.95 to...  Ooops, make that $10.00
> :-)  to:

I tried one of those fonts in imagine 1.1,( I have it archived somewhere)
and imagine refused to recognize them.  Did I miss something.  I now have
imagine 2.0, does that make a difference?

dan.

##

Subject:     Re: Fonts -> Imagine 2.0 (fwd)
Date:        Tue, 3 Mar 92 15:37:43 PST
From:        "Glenn M. Lewis ~" <[e-mail]>

>>>>> On Tue, 3 Mar 92 18:28:54 EST, [e-mail] (Dan Drake) said:

Dan> I tried one of those fonts in imagine 1.1,( I have it archived
Dan> somewhere) and imagine refused to recognize them.  Did I miss
Dan> something.  I now have imagine 2.0, does that make a difference?

    Hmmm... That is weird.  No, they should work for both.  Did you
try the TeX_Roman font on hubcap.clemson.edu, or did you generate your
own?
    Please reply directly to me, and we will get this figured out,
and then I can post a summary to the Imagine mailing list, as I am sure
most people probably don't want to see this stuff.

                            -- Glenn

##

Subject:     NCC 1701-A object
Date:        Tue, 03 Mar 92 23:07:35 EST
From:        "Bob Lindabury, SysAdm" <[e-mail]>

rutgers!ecn.purdue.edu!sacke (Elizabeth E Sack) writes:

> On February 29th, Scott Krehbiel had posted about an Enterprise object he was
> All I can say is that if you want the BEST NCC 1701-A object for imagine call
> the Studio BBS  817/557-2111 and download the object EPRIZEA.LZH.  There are
> models for the Enterprise NCC 1701-D, a Ferengi cruiser and a Romulan WarBird
>
> Studio BBS is devoted entirely to 3D objects and renderers.  It works on a 1:
> upload/download ratio (or you can have unlimited downloads by becoming a char
> member for $5.00 american)  I urge all Imagine artists to logon.
>
> Jeff Hanna
> Studio J Video Productions
> [e-mail]
>
> I am in no way affiliated with Studio BBS, I just think it is the greatest BB
> 3D artists.

Ah ha!  Well, there is another such BBS for those of you interested
in 3D objects and renderers..as well as a host of other graphics
utilities, texture-maps, JPEG images, GIF images and MORE!

It's called "The Graphics BBS" and it's run by yours truly! <grin>

The phone number is 908/469-0049 and it operates 24 hours a day 7
days a week.  We also run a Hayes V-Series 9600 V.42 modem and will
be upgrading to a V.32bis modem as soon as Supra releases it's new
SupraFax Modem!

We also run a 10:1 ration (10 downloads for every 1 upload in K).
However, we also run a Graphics File Server that is mail-based so you
can obtain the files from the system via e-mail by sending a message
to "[e-mail]" with the following in the body:

HELP
/DIR

This will send you a help file and a complete directory listing for
the system.

I am hoping to upgrade to multiple lines as well as more storage in
the very near future.  I will be working out charter membership
benefits in the near future.

-- Bob

 The Graphics BBS  908/469-0049  "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!"
 ============================================================================
  InterNet: [e-mail]                | Raven Enterprises
      UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl      | 25 Raven Avenue
    BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc           | Piscataway, NJ 08854
    Home #: 908/560-7353                          | 908/271-8878

##

Subject:     Please help !
Date:        Wed, 4 Mar 92 16:59:11 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>

 Hallo everybody out there.

 I'd like to open a new series of articles on an italian paper (Amiga Magazine)
, talking about Imagine's "Tips & Tricks".

 I'd like also let italian people who cannot access this list, know about featu
res and hints that I'm getting from you all.

 So please help writing me or to the list everything you think can be interesti
ng or just funny about Imagine features and utilities.
 Italian Imagine users will appreciate it !

                                         Thanks in advance.

                                         CIAO

--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     OCTD parameter ...
Date:        Wed, 4 Mar 92 17:00:27 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>

 What kind of relationship is there between OCTD (level in octree) parameter, i
n the PREFERENCE EDITOR, and world-size ?
 I mean, I found that varying one or both these values, rendering time changes
frequently; the problem is that I still haven't found the optimum values.

                                         Please help.
                                         CIAO.

--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     Re: OCTD parameter ...
Date:        Wed, 4 Mar 92 11:18:16 EST
From:        John Rosner <[e-mail]>

>  What kind of relationship is there between OCTD (level in octree)
>parameter, in the PREFERENCE EDITOR, and world-size ?   I mean, I
>found that varying one or both these values, rendering time changes
>frequently; the problem is that I still haven't found the optimum
>values.
>   Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]

Let's start at the beginning, what is the OCTD paramiter?  It is
undocumented in Steve's book, and actually I haven't looked in the
imagine manual.

Later, John Rosner

##

Subject:     Re: How to do it ...
Date:        Wed, 04 Mar 92 11:55:34 CST
From:        Michael Linton <[e-mail]>

Just out of curiousity, what is the octree levels and such for in Imagine 2.0?
 It doesn't say anything in the manual about it, as far as I can tell.  Anyway,
 any insight would be appreciated.  Thanks.



--
Reply to [e-mail]

##

Subject:     Re: world size
Date:        Wed, 04 Mar 92 11:59:34 CST
From:        Michael Linton <[e-mail]>

You are only supposed to place the world size on the first frame of an animatio
n, and not the rest.  As I found out the other day.  You probably already know
that, but I thought I might mention it anyway.




--
Reply to [e-mail]

##

Subject:     Re: OCTD parameter ...
Date:        Wed, 4 Mar 1992 17:29:48 -0500
From:        John J Humpal <[e-mail]>

John Rosner writes:
>
> Let's start at the beginning, what is the OCTD paramiter?  It is
> undocumented in Steve's book, and actually I haven't looked in the
> imagine manual.
>
    I'm guessing that it has to do with the way Imagine carves up
its world, but I too would like some info on setting this and the
related OTRL and OTFL variables.

    BTW, when the manual gets to the OCTD parameter in its discussion
of the Prefs editor it says (and I quote) "ASK ZACK FOR MORE HERE".  Okay,
Zack, we're waiting ;-)

##

Subject:     DCTV <--> WideScreen
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 92 07:17:06 -0800
From:        Edward Chadez <[e-mail]>

Greetings, earthlings.

Does anyone know of an easily automated method to take a 640/200
Interlaced picture and convert it to a 640/200 Interlaced DCTV pic,
WITHOUT stretching the picture to the full length of the screen??

The IFFTODCTV util doesn't seem to address converting pictures that are
anything less that full screen length.  It IS possible to read in a
640/200 Interlaced picture as a brush (into DCTVPaint)....

And, anticipating your next question (WHY?)--this is part of "70mm Film"
project, as outlined in Mr. Worley's fine Imagine companion.

-->Edward Chadez  =Amiga3000=
   Computer Animation(DCTV)/Pixel Pusher and
   Intuition Programmer.

--
  //                                                               ()__()
\X/   [e-mail]/Edward Chadez     CARL Systems(303)758-3030       (  )
      [e-mail]                                               MM

##

Subject:     Imagine and DCTV
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 92 16:18:30 +0100
From:        LACOMBE Bruno <[e-mail]>

Hello,
>is there any difference in display quality between rendering to DCTV format in
 Imagine 2 and rendering to 24 bit and using AdPro or DCTVPaint to convert ...?

Yes. Imagine render DCTV pictures only in 4 bitplanes and does NOT make any col
or filtering to remove RGB artifacts. So you have large file with some 'glitche
s' in fine details. I prefer using IFFtoDCTV, it allow you to convert IFF24 to
DCTV 4 or 3 bitplanes, with or without filtering to remove RGB artifacts, givin
g you a much better looking picture. I say I prefer using IFFtoDCTV but I use i
t only for the final rendering, because there is too much manipulation before y
ou can see your picture. Imagine offer a much more direct way to display it :-)

A wonderful addition in a future release of IMAGINE will be to include the choi
ce of 4 or 3 bitplanes and color filtering in the DCTV format.

A last word, AdPro 2.0.5 convert IFF24 to DCTV the same way Imagine does it :-(

                              Frangois GASTALDO

---------------------------------------------------------
\\\_______\            F.G.P.               /_________///
///       /  Frangois.GASTALDO.Production   \         \\\
---------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject:     Imagine bug and PC clones
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 92 16:19:15 +0100
From:        LACOMBE Bruno <[e-mail]>

    Hello imagine users !

Christopher Stenvenson have found a bug I discover three years ago with Turbo-S
ilver 3.0. When you make a glass with glass refraction, you have opaque part on
 object ( or white part with Turbo-Silver or REAL 3D ( yes, REAL 3D has the bug
 too)). As everybody knows, in some conditions (angle of ray, index of refracti
on) refraction turn to reflection. In this case, Imagine make reflection, but w
ith the intensity of RGB reflec in the Attributes. But for a realist look, you
must have low reflects, so the parts seems black . I hope Impulse solve the pro
blem in a future release.

    I receive the Impulse Gazette saturday the 29 feb.. Inside a very stran
ge news : IMAGINE 2.0 will be available on PC platforms in May or June 1992. I
don't know what I have to think about this news. Of course, whith Imagine PC, w
e will be hendreds of thousands to use this wonderful software, the IMAGINE mai
ling list will grow to be the most important mailing list in the world, books a
bout Imagine will be best-sellers, and piracy will be so large that we don't ha
ve to buy Imagine anymore ;-)

    Seriouly, what Imagine PC can do for us ? There are about 200 millions
PC in the world. According everybody, the PC are perfect for word processing, a
ccounting, and other boring stuffs; But there are NOT made for creative use. I
never see a good graphic software on PC, even DPaint wasn't so easy and powerfu
l as the AMIGA Version. The PC users don't worry about that, they don't need a
really good graphic software to make word processing. Anyone who want a compute
r for creative mind have a Apple Macintosh ( for DTP ) or an AMIGA ( for video
). But I don't know anyone doing such jobs on PC. And the PC platform is the la
rgest platform for piracy. All the people I know never buy any software, they j
ust have to wait one month or two, and they have the soft for free... The AMIGA
 only survive because the AMIGA software are the best of the (video) computers
market, if the software goes PC, the AMIGA no longer need to exist. And We have
 to pay plenty of $$$$ to buy similar configurat!
ion. I hope that Imagine 2.0 PC is not the beginning of the end of the AMIGA :-|

    The only positive point of Imagine PC is that I can make the AMIGA rend
er large animation along days since I play with Imagine on the BridgeBoard  :-)

    Hey Impulse! How about an IMAGINE UNIX for running on my 200Mips workst
ation?


                              Frangois GASTALDO

---------------------------------------------------------
\\\_______\            F.G.P.               /_________///
///       /  Frangois.GASTALDO.Production   \         \\\
---------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject:     Re: Imagine bug and PC clones
Date:        Thu, 05 Mar 92 12:20:58 EST
From:        Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

> According everybody, the PC are perfect for word
> processing, a ccounting, and other boring stuffs; But there are NOT
> made for creative use. I never see a good graphic software on PC

I would be willing to bet that around 70% of the commercial outfits
doing animation in the states on small systems are using PC clone
systems. The Toaster has made a big impact and the Mac is gaining ground,
but for professional use, the PC was the only answer for quite some time.
Companies like Digital Arts, Truevision, and AT&T Graphics Software Labs have
been capitalizing on this market for years. Today, Autodesk's 3D Studio
is a phenominal 3D package on the PC that in many ways blows away everything
on the Amiga. Imagine may be a great price performer, but it is not bringing
anything radically new to the PC market. And given the choice, I would pay
the extra money for 3D Studio over Imagine. And if you had a chance to work
with it, you probably would to. The real problem is the cost of the graphics
hardware to use it with (while the even the very fast PC boxes are cheap).
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  |
| --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   |
|      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   |
|     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   |
|                                                                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

##

Subject:     Re: DCTV <--> WideScreen
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 92 11:07:42 PDT
From:        "John T. Grieggs" <[e-mail]>

> Does anyone know of an easily automated method to take a 640/200
> Interlaced picture and convert it to a 640/200 Interlaced DCTV pic,
> WITHOUT stretching the picture to the full length of the screen??

Actually, yes.  Use ADPro 2 and AREXX to repeat this sequence:

    generate a color 0,0,0 736x241 backdrop
    composite and center a 640x200 picture on it
    save the composite as a 736x241 picture

Then run ifftodctv on the resulting picture, and away you go!  I use this
method to make pseudo-letterboxed anims of work-in-progress.  Naturally,
you can tweak the numbers to suit...

_john

##

Subject:     Re: Imagine bug and PC clones
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 92 13:24 EST
From:        Marc Rifkin <[e-mail]>

In-Reply-To:  mark AT westford.ccur.com -- Thu, 05 Mar 92 12:20:58 EST

If what you say is true about Imagine not matching up to 3D Studio, etc.
then is Imagine going to become another Sculpt-4D?

Marc Rifkin- Graphics and Multimedia / [e-mail]
"The future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
-John Connor, Terminator 2

##

Subject:     total internal reflection
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 1992 14:19:44 -0500
From:        Christopher Stevenson <[e-mail]>

Hello-

Frangois Gastaldo writes that (I gather) he seems to have noticed a bug
in Imagine 1.x (I don't know about 2.0, so I can't say anything yet), and
TurboSilver 3.0 (and REAL-3D) concerning total internal relection.
In short, I've run
tests to see if any of the renders I've tried do this, and I'm afraid that
they don't. It seems that programmers of ray tracers don't like "conservation
of energy" at interfaces. This note of FG's made it clear that I'm not the
only one interested in seeing Imagine more physically-accurate. Here are
some suggestions, for those willing to listen;

1) Imagine 1.x doesn't do total internal reflection. This process is trivial
to implement, and reasonably vital to having realistic-looking solid trans-
parent objects. In a nutshell, imagine a ray on it's way OUT of a slab of
glass, impinging upon the surface of the slab at some angle. If this angle
is small enough, the direction of the refracted ray won't even be back into
the air! Hence, conservation of energy takes over and instead the ray is
reflected perfectly off of the interface as if it were a PERFECT mirror
(100% in all bands r, g, and b for which this condition is met - in a
monochromatic ray tracer like imagine, the index of refraction is identical
for red, green, and blue. Sigh... no prisms here (unless you get crafty)).
Ever been snorkeling and looked up at the
underside of the water through your face mask?
Ever looked at the bottom of your scotch and soda from the side,
at the thick slab of glass
that makes up the base of the tumbler, and noticed that you couldn't see the
table through it (unless there's water between the glass and table top)?
The bottom line here is that the light in what WOULD have been the transmitted
ray in such a circumstance should be dumped into the reflected ray that's
calculated at every surface *anyway* (assuming even vaguely reflective objects)

2) Imagine's shadow-generation algorithms are a start, but real substances
absorb a certain fraction of the light passing through them *every unit
distance*; twelve miles of very clear glass will still be pretty darn opaque
(unless it's pretty special fibre optic cable). A thin pool
of red wine can look clear if it's thin enough, but the same wine looks
blood red or almost black if it's in a glass. A touch more math is required
to handle this one, though (calculate the distance the ray travels between
surfaces in a substance, look upthe absorption coef per distance specified
by the user, work out the absorption), and the benefits are reaped only for
transparent objects, so maybe not. Without forward-raytracing (which is only
now being experimented with) to properly send light FROM light sources TO
(and through) objects ONTO other objects (eg. caustics in swimming pools)
shadows of things like wine glasses will always be inadequate, regardless.
See SIGRAPH ('90?) on pencil-beam tracing if anyone's interested. If asked,
I'll get the reference.

3) It's always puzzled me why people want to be able to specify 100%
reflection AND transparency AND color... why not just handle things so
that the percentages all add up to 100%? The name of the game is to make
realistic looking images, afterall (this requires no additional overhead
other then a little checking in Attributes when people pull the sliders
around). For example, if you specify that some substance should reflect 30% of
the light incident upon it, should absorb 10% (meaning the color is set to
90%), then automatically one knows that the transparency should be 60%. The
*present* hiarchical interpretation of these sliders is a touch confusing.
Minor in the extreme, but you know...;-)

Caveat: Some of this might require differentiating between surfaces and
volumes, so it might not be easy to just "add it to the code".

Just some ideas. 1) and 3) could be added easily; certainly, 1) would make
things that much more realistic, by replacing the AMBIENT terms traditionally
given to rays that fail to make it out of transparent solids (I think this is
what's done) with what should be there.  Anyway; I've rattled on long enough.

-Christopher S. ("long live physics!")

##

Subject:     Re: total internal reflection
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 92 14:43:35 MST
From:        Steve Koren <[e-mail]
         ***.com>

> TurboSilver 3.0 (and REAL-3D) concerning total internal relection.

> tests to see if any of the renders I've tried do this, and I'm afraid that
> they don't. It seems that programmers of ray tracers don't like "conservation
> of energy" at interfaces. This note of FG's made it clear that I'm not the

The old QRT ray tracer I wrote eons ago did this (total internal
reflection).  The internally reflected rays would just bounce around
in there until they hit the recursion limit.  However, I don't recommend
that anyone actually use this, since making good looking glass surfaces
in it is, although possible, hideously difficult to get right.  It one
point there was a QRT image floating around called "Table.ilbm" which
had a really nice looking glass surface.

   - steve

##

Subject:     Re: total internal reflection
Date:        Thu, 5 Mar 92 17:14:20 EST
From:        [e-mail]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but it kinda sounds like the problem being addressed
is many ray-tracers. An example is water caustics, where light patterns dance
at the bottom of a swimming pool, etc. If this is so, then I remember reading
something that this can be achieved by doing backward raytracing. Well, back-
ward from how a ray-tracer works. This would take longer to render images, but
could it solve the problem?? Or maybe I'm talking about something that has no
meaning to what has been said.

Jason Kitch

##

Subject:     Impulse's Laser Traced objects
Date:        Fri, 6 Mar 92 08:26:43 -0500
From:        Elizabeth E Sack <[e-mail]>


I was just wondering if anyone else has looked at Impulse's "Laser Traced
Objects for Imagine Vol. 1"?  My local dealer showed me the sample program
on it yesterday.  It's nothing but a bunch of models of cars and trains, and
airplanes and dinosaurs.  The really strange thing is that  the cars only
have one wheel. You have to copy that wheel around the object yourself.

After showing me the sample my dealer said "Well, Jeff you're doing video work
so you need this.  It's only $99.95"

I laughed in his face!  My $5.00 (optional) subscription fee to Studio BBS
gives me access to many more objects (and most are of a higher quality).
I haven't logged onto Graphics BBS (the other BBS that was mentioned here a
few days ago) but I'm sure that I can get plenty of good objects off of that
one too.

My advice to everyone is SAVE YOUR MONEY and support Studio BBS and Graphics BB
S
you'll save money, support 3D rendering, and get better objects.

Jeff Hanna
Studio J Video Productions
[e-mail]

##

Subject:     Re: 3D Studio,Textures
Date:        Fri, 06 Mar 92 09:27:35 EST
From:        Mark Thompson <[e-mail]>

Marc Rifkin writes:
>If what you say is true about Imagine not matching up to 3D Studio, etc.
>then is Imagine going to become another Sculpt-4D?

Gads, lets hope not. But from my impression of Impulse, I don't think that
is the case. As for Imagine matching up to 3D Studio, while I like 3D Studio
better than Imagine, that does not mean that that 3D Studio can do everything
that Imagine can. 3D Studio does not currently support ray-tracing for example
and I don't believe it has procedural textures either. However, Autodesk is
about to release its latest version and I am not sure what that will include.

Kevin Kodama writes:
> is 3D studio by autodesk done by the same Yost (Gary ?) who did the old
> forms in flight program ? what does 3D studio have that Lightwave does not ?

Not sure about the program's author. I once heard that the original author
of DPaint (Daniel Silva) had something to do with it. As for what it has
over LightWave... the major addition is complete support for spline curves
and surfaces for objects and spline motion paths (in addition keyframes).
I work with a guy who uses 3D Studio and we each envy one another for
different features. Fortunately, 2.0 LightWave can load 3D Studio objects
so I should be able to create a nice spline surface object in Studio and
import it into LW for animation and rendering. I hope to try this out soon.
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|      `       '        Mark Thompson                 CONCURRENT COMPUTER  |
| --==* RADIANT *==--   [e-mail]        Principal Graphics   |
|      ' Image `        ...!uunet!masscomp!mark       Hardware Architect   |
|     Productions       [phone] [phone]   & General Nuisance   |
|                                                                          |
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

##

Subject:     Re: Imagine bug and PC clones
Date:        Fri, 06 Mar 92 17:44:50 EST
From:        "Bob Lindabury, SysAdm" <[e-mail]>

Mark Thompson <rutgers!westford.ccur.com!mark> writes:

> I would be willing to bet that around 70% of the commercial outfits
> doing animation in the states on small systems are using PC clone
> systems. The Toaster has made a big impact and the Mac is gaining ground,
> but for professional use, the PC was the only answer for quite some time.
> Companies like Digital Arts, Truevision, and AT&T Graphics Software Labs have
> been capitalizing on this market for years. Today, Autodesk's 3D Studio
> is a phenominal 3D package on the PC that in many ways blows away everything
> on the Amiga. Imagine may be a great price performer, but it is not bringing
> anything radically new to the PC market. And given the choice, I would pay
> the extra money for 3D Studio over Imagine. And if you had a chance to work
> with it, you probably would to. The real problem is the cost of the graphics
> hardware to use it with (while the even the very fast PC boxes are cheap).

Very true.  And if you'd like to get into Autodesk 3D Studio and need
a frame grabber/buffer board, then I have the low-cost solution for
you!

I'm selling my TrueVision TARGA 16 Overscan board for the low price
of $900.00.  Comes complete with all original packaging as well as
all manuals and even some custom cable sets with BNC connectors.

If you don't know what the TARGA 16 is, then I suggest you either
call Truevision and find out that new boards cost $1795.00 or read
any computer graphics rag and read the ads.  This is a great board
and it is in perfect condition.  Fits into any PC XT AT or clone with
8 or 16 bit slots.  Will work in an Amiga with BridgeBoard.  Will
also work with Caligari Broadcast.

Call or write me.

-- Bob

 The Graphics BBS  908/469-0049  "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!"
 ============================================================================
  InterNet: [e-mail]                | Raven Enterprises
      UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl      | 25 Raven Avenue
    BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc           | Piscataway, NJ 08854
    Home #: 908/560-7353                          | 908/271-8878

##

Subject:     3D Studio, InterChange Plus, and TIO
Date:        06 Mar 92 18:37:52 EST
From:        "Syndesis Corp/J. Foust" <[e-mail]>

To: >INTERNET: [e-mail]

3D Studio was created by a team that included Tom Hudson, Dan Silva
and Jim Kent, headed up by Gary Yost.  Together, they call themselves
"The Yost Group."  Of course, they were aided by team at Autodesk.

You might recognize Tom as the primary author of the CAD-3D and Cyber
tools from the Atari ST, Dan from Deluxe Paint, and Jim from
Zoetrope, et al, on the ST and Amiga and PC.  Autodesk's Animator Pro
is the latest incarnation of Kent's animation programs.  The new 3D
Studio is a few days from release.

LightWave 2.0 includes the TIO (Toaster Input/Output) system, a way
to load several different 3D formats, such as Mac Swivel 3D,
Wavefront, 3D Studio, and AutoCAD DXF.  Buy Toaster 2.0, get $1000 of
Syndesis high-end converters for free.  :-)

Actually, with Toaster you can only load those formats, not save
LightWave objects in those formats.  To write, you need InterChange
and our sold-separately converters.  The Wavefront and DXF converters
have been available for about a year and a half now, and they do both
read and write.  We also licensed to NewTek the ability to load and
save Mac PICT bitmap files into Toaster Paint.

We're about to release InterChange Plus, the upgrade to our
InterChange conversion system.  We're breaking away from the
sold-separately approach for our Amiga-related tools.  It will
include Imagine, LightWave, Turbo Silver, Sculpt, VideoScape,
PAGErender, CAD-3D, the InterFont Converter and a number of fonts, and
all the old Tools plus some new ones, and a new system for setting
and controlling surface definitions during translations.  If old
InterChange's surface translation was modeled on Sculpt and
VideoScape, the new InterChange Plus is modeled on LightWave and
Imagine.  All the old limits are gone - objects can hold up to
4.2 billion faces, for example, which should hold us for a while. :-)

One new feature of particular interest to this mailing list is the
ability to convert Imagine hierarchical objects to LightWave scenes,
meaning all the parent-child info is preserved, as well as all the
surface information.  It works the other way, too - you can read
LightWave scenes and convert them to Imagine objects.

TIO is an extensible system, meaning we can make and sell new
converters to load other formats directly into LightWave.  Although I
believe InterChange Plus's direct conversion of Imagine objects to
LightWave scenes would be superior, it would be possible for us to
make a TIO converter that could load Imagine objects as a single
LightWave object.  If there's any interest, please drop me a line
via Internet mail.

How do you get this new InterChange?  We'll be sending out a
newsletter in a few weeks with details of the upgrade.  If you've
registered your copy, be sure we have your current address.  Send us
a postcard with your address, phone and Syndesis serial numbers if
you haven't.  Or, FAX it to [phone].  Our address is Syndesis
Corporation, N9353 Benson Road, Brooklyn, WI 53521.  Please write,
don't call - your call will delay shipment by another 15 minutes.

If you don't own InterChange yet, send us a postcard and we'll add
you to the mailing list.  We're going to have a special price on
InterChange for first-time buyers.

John Foust
President
Syndesis Corporation

##

Subject:     IMAGINE and a 22MHZ combo board
Date:        Fri, 6 Mar 92 21:54:56 -0800
From:        Geoff Hanoian <[e-mail]>

    Well, my current system consists of a B2000 and a 22MHZ combo board
    with 5 megs. of 32 bit mem.  I bought the accelerator card thinking
    that my animation would speed up considerably...  any tips

    a sample trace revealed this (a simple scene with a brush map and
    three lights)

    68000            22MHZ            50MHZ combo
                            a friends comp.

    25 mins.        14 mins            10 mins.

    I tried shutting down the input.device while imagine was making the
    frame and on my system it finished in 13:50 (mins:sec).


            HELP@@!!!!!!!!!! to [e-mail]

            thanx


                            boing

##

Subject:     Re: IMAGINE and a 22MHZ combo board
Date:        Sat, 7 Mar 1992 07:44:03 -0500
From:        John J Humpal <[e-mail]>

Geoff Hanoian writes:
>
>
>     a sample trace revealed this (a simple scene with a brush map and
>     three lights)
>
>     68000            22MHZ            50MHZ combo
>                             a friends comp.
>
>     25 mins.        14 mins            10 mins.
>

    Er, did you use the FP version of Imagine with the accellerrated
Amigas?  Sorry if this is a stupid question...

##

Subject:     Fog objects
Date:        Sat, 07 Mar 92 12:27:44 MST
From:        Guy <[e-mail]>

I had a dream the other night, or maybe it was something I saw on TV;
sometimes it is hard to tell the difference...

At any rate, there was this flying logo (I believe it was the IBM logo) on
the screen.  It was approaching the camera along an arced path.  And while
we have all seen our share of flying chrome logos, this one was just a bit
different - it started out of focus, as it approched the camera the focus
began to sharpen as if it were traveling through the camera's depth-of-field.

I said to myself, "Self, how could that be done in Imagine?"  And since I
rarely ask myself anything I don't think I already know, I replied with
what I think might be a solution to simulating depth-of-field.

Fog Objects.  If a object was applied with the correct Fog setting (of
which I have no idea, as I've never been able to comprehend any explination
of 'Fog Length') giving it soft fuzzy edges, and placed in the background of
a scene, wouldn't it appear to be out of focus?  Additionally, a transition
from a Fog Object to a non-Fog Object during movement toward the camera
might simulate traveling into focus...

What do you think?


----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                  |                           |
|  Guy Mullins, Media Specialist   |                           |
|  University Media Systems        |  voice: [phone]    |
|  Arizona State University - USA  |    fax: [phone]    |
|                                  |                           |
----------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject:     Accellerated Machines + Imagine
Date:        Sat, 07 Mar 92 17:11:02 EST
From:        [e-mail]

Geoff Hanoian writes:
>
>
>       a sample trace revealed this (a simple scene with a brush map and
>       three lights)
>
>       68000                   22MHZ                   50MHZ combo
>                                                       a friends comp.
>
>       25 mins.                14 mins                 10 mins.
>

There are a lot of factors that can be affecting your render time
other than sheer CPU speed. The fact that using the same processor
with double the clock speed (22Mhz to 50 Mhz) does not procuce half
the rendering time implies that the rendering time is not completely
CPU determined. Most notably, RAM speed and disk access must be taken
into account as well. Your simple scene takes time to load, which is
pretty much a constant no matter what CPU you use. If you are using
slower 16 bit RAM you'll probably be choking your CPU's access to data
so it will spend a lot of its time twiddling its thumbs.

Also, be careful you have equal loads on their machine. As long as you
aren't doing anything else in the background, this should be easy. The
render time that Imagine records is the real-world time, not CPU time.
This doesn't mean bipping Imagine's priority to 20 will help, the WB and
input.device are DESIGNED to be efficient and fast. Just don't run Vista
Pro while you're rendering.

These numbers are still interesting, though. It shows that the
super-dooper-fast RAM on the GVP G-Force and PP&S Mercury 040 boards
are probably going to make a major contribution to the speed of
rendering.

-Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Worley                                        [e-mail]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject:     Sunbeams...
Date:        Sat, 7 Mar 92 16:50:05 CST
From:        Christopher Ice <[e-mail]>

I saw this the other day, and am looking for ideas...

Imagine (no pun intended) a room which is sparsely furnished...lots of white
contrasted by a hardwood floor.  Through a 4 paned window, to the right, the
sun shines in and onto the floor.  Now, this is like a time-lapse deal so the
sun moves through its orbit very quickly, and the beam of light coming thorugh
the window sweeps across the floor "pivoting" at the window opening.

Now, the catch here is that the light source itself is not directly
visible...only the shaft of light can be seen, and its projection onto the
floor.  How would one simulate dust or smoke in the air to make this light
shaft visible????

Is this possible using Imagine, and if so how???

Thanks in advance.
--
+--------------------------------------///-------------------------------------
+|    Chris Ice                        ///         Bradley University
 |
|    [e-mail]   \\\///          Peoria, IL, USA
|+----------------------------------\XX/---------------------------------------
-+

          "We are programmed just to do....anything you want us to."

                                               --The Robots

##

Subject:     Re: Sunbeams...
Date:        Sat, 7 Mar 92 23:30:09 -0500
From:        "Michael B. Comet" <[e-mail]>

>I saw this the other day, and am looking for ideas...
>
>Imagine (no pun intended) a room which is sparsely furnished...lots of white
>contrasted by a hardwood floor.  Through a 4 paned window, to the right, the
>sun shines in and onto the floor.  Now, this is like a time-lapse deal so the
>sun moves through its orbit very quickly, and the beam of light coming thorugh
>the window sweeps across the floor "pivoting" at the window opening.
>
>Now, the catch here is that the light source itself is not directly
>visible...only the shaft of light can be seen, and its projection onto the
>floor.  How would one simulate dust or smoke in the air to make this light
>shaft visible????
>
>Is this possible using Imagine, and if so how???
>
>Thanks in advance.
>

    Well, there are 2 ways.  The most elegant way is to use Fog
objects in Imagine 2.0.  The second way is to make objects (the same as
in 2.0 for fog objects) and to then use a filter map to simulate the
beam.  Since in my opinion fog objects look better, I will describe
that.

    Basically, make your room, you window and so on.  Great.  Now
all you need is a light source (from the window) and it's beam.

    The light source can simply be a cylindrical light placed
outside the window.  You can then tell it to track to whereever you want
for whatever frame.   That is, you can make it arc to reay get the light
in the room to change.

    Then, you could then make 1 square fog object (a cube) for the
window, or 4 smaller cubes since you have paned glass.  Then, for the
animation, you can set these in different positions and angles to
simulate the fog or dust particles.

    The only trick part is going to be to get the fog objects all
aligned to the light beams actual angle.  To do this you could either
guess, or make a small straight object which you could place in the same
direction (track) as the light.  You could then use this angle to set up
your fog objects.

               Michael Comet
               [e-mail]

##

Subject:     Tell me about hubcap??
Date:        7 Mar 92 21:14 -0800
From:        Aaron Ramsey <[e-mail]>

Hi there.... I'm a relative beginner to all this, and I have what will
probably seem to be a rather basic problem to all of you. I just got
added to the list here yesterday, and have had a chance to read most
of the previous archives of the discussions going on here. One thing
that I don't understand is this hubcap business.... I don't understand
how to go about uploading/downloading to hubcap, and I'm hoping that
somebody out there can take a few seconds, and give me a quick lesson
on the finer points of it.  8)   Thank you kindly!

Keep rendering until your Amiga turns blue!

\                                                                     /
 \ \             /   [e-mail]   \             / /
  \\ \       ,`///                                   \\\' ,      / //
  ,\\ \_   ,\\///         Aaron Ramsey                \\\//,   _/ //,
   ,>\\ \  `\\ _/         Kelowna,BC  Canada          \_-//' /  //<,
    '\\> \\\  /           [phone]                 \ ///  <//`
_\__'///  <<  \                                         /  >>  \\\`__/_
 /// , '/<<^-(.\     "Hey... wait a second...          /,)-^>>\` , \\\
    ///\ //   \)      how did that raison get          (/   \\ /\\\
  ////\\_ \\          in here????????????????"             // _//\\\\
        )) '))                                           ((` ((

##

Subject:     Re: 3D Studio,Textures
Date:        Sun, 08 Mar 92 09:28:40 EST
From:        "Bob Lindabury, SysAdm" <[e-mail]>

Mark Thompson <rutgers!westford.ccur.com!mark> writes:

> Not sure about the program's author. I once heard that the original author
> of DPaint (Daniel Silva) had something to do with it. As for what it has
> over LightWave... the major addition is complete support for spline curves
> and surfaces for objects and spline motion paths (in addition keyframes).
> I work with a guy who uses 3D Studio and we each envy one another for
> different features. Fortunately, 2.0 LightWave can load 3D Studio objects
> so I should be able to create a nice spline surface object in Studio and
> import it into LW for animation and rendering. I hope to try this out soon.

A couple of nice things it has over Lightwave is the complete
interactive adjustment of camera lens angle and field of view.  It
can be done in the triview or the perspective windows I believe.  It
is represented by a fan type outline in front of the camera.

Also, it has complete interactive control of light range, angle and
cone angle that can be seen in the triview and perspective view I
believe.  These are a couple of things I would have LOVED to see in
the 2.0 Lightwave software not to mention the ability to bend, twist,
squish, etc, objects in the scene interactivly.

-- Bob

 The Graphics BBS  908/469-0049  "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!"
 ============================================================================
  InterNet: [e-mail]                | Raven Enterprises
      UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl      | 25 Raven Avenue
    BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc           | Piscataway, NJ 08854
    Home #: 908/560-7353                          | 908/271-8878

##

Subject:     Re: Tell me about hubcap??
Date:        Sun, 8 Mar 92 14:45:47 EDT
From:        Doug Dyer <[e-mail]>

> Hi there.... I'm a relative beginner to all this, and I have what will
> probably seem to be a rather basic problem to all of you. I just got
> added to the list here yesterday, and have had a chance to read most
> of the previous archives of the discussions going on here. One thing
> that I don't understand is this hubcap business.... I don't understand
> how to go about uploading/downloading to hubcap, and I'm hoping that
> somebody out there can take a few seconds, and give me a quick lesson
> on the finer points of it.  8)   Thank you kindly!
>

OK.  This will differ depending on how you access hubcap, but if you are
using a machine with ftp, here are some helpful tips for getting what
you want:

1) enter "ftp hubcap.clemson.edu" and if that don't work,
   enter "ftp 130.127.8.1"

   note: these will fail if hubcap is down, or any machine along
         your critical path to hubcap is down.

   hubcap will prompt you for your system id. you enter
   "anonymous" without quotes,  hubcap will then ask you for your
   password.  this MUST be your userid, or your login will fail.
   if I was on another machine, I would enter "[e-mail]"
  (I think you need your address in there. not sure)

   now, you have entered hubcap.

2) once in, type help for a list of ftp commands.  ls, dir, cd are
supported. you are "logged on" to hubcap.

the files on hubcap are located at:
cd pub/amiga/incoming

note: in the imagine directory I regularly maintain a file called FILES
that lists all files in our archive... most recent files listed first.

3) to list what files are recent, try "ls -tl"

4) to send and receive files, you must know if they are text or binary:
   enter "binary" for transfering binary files.

5) mget - to get multiple files (for instance, "mget *.Z")
   get - to get a single file

6) send - to send a single file
   mput - to send many files ("mput ULTRAPICS*.*")

ftp is very fast, but some large files (or congestion on the net) will
cause delays.

7) to exit, enter "bye"



these are just a few things you can do to grab files you want. Good
luck, and upload some stuff :)

bye,
Doug

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Dyer     *      Clemson University     *     [e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject:     Laser Scanning
Date:        Sun,  8 Mar 92 19:28:16 PST
From:        [e-mail]

I know that the objects included with 2.0 Imagine are laser scanned.  I also
heard that the actors in the Abyss and T2 had to be laser scanned for the 3D
models for the animations.  My question is, how is laser scanning done?  Are
the subjects put in a pedistal and turned while a laser refects off them?
    Any enlightenment would be valued.
    Paul J. Furio
    [e-mail]

##

Subject:     Found minor bug in Imagine 2.0 !
Date:        Mon, 9 Mar 92 13:07:34 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>

Hi everybody,
I found a very very minor bug in Imagine: just try to specify a picture (or oth
er kind of file) in the texture requester of the attribute menu ......
.... it just end up in a guru !
No comment, that's all!
                                        CIAO.

--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     DCTV Infos.
Date:        Mon, 9 Mar 92 13:27:29 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>

Hi everyone,
can anybody tell me anything about DCTV, i.e.:

- What is DCTV ?
- Why do I need DCTV ? (I produce graphics just for fun at the moment, but I'm
                         getting really bored looking at my HAM pictures......!
)
- What kind of hardware do I need to use DCTV ?
- What kind of software do I need to use DCTV ?
- How much is DCTV ?

                                Thankyou in advance.
                                CIAO.

--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     refracted stars
Date:        Mon, 9 Mar 92 9:08:51 EST
From:        Dan Drake <[e-mail]>

I'm designing a room, and created a winodw in a wall.  I have a moon
visible through the window, and set the star density to .3.  It seems
that the stars are not visible through the glass in the window.  Do I
have to adjust the refraction level to a higher number?

dan.

##

Subject:     A few questions....
Date:        Mon, 9 Mar 92 10:37:04 EST
From:        George Browning <[e-mail]>

I am using Imagine 1.1 (in case that makes a difference) and have been having
a great time.  While playing around I have run into a few items that I figure
those of you who are experts might be able to help with...

I have an anim in which one of the objects is 'ground'.  I used the action
editor to assign the 'ripple' f/x to it.  I didn't notice any affect in the
animation...  Did I set the parameters wrong or (as I suspect) can you not
apply effects to ground?

Also I saw references in the manual to 'zooming in and out' with the camera.
The only way I could guess to do this was with the cameras 'size' in the
action editor.  When I played with those numbers I couldn't quite figure out
what was going on...  Any body have any hints?

The other part of the anim is a logo (America Onlines for those who might
have seen the logo).  It is kindof like a circle inside a triange, but all
connected (ie one piece with some cutouts).  I drew it in dpaint then
imported it.  There were a bazillion points, so I took a while and cleaned
them up.  I then 'auto faced' it following the method in the tutorial.  It
renders rather slow now on the 'work' screens, would it hurt anything if I
deleted a bunch of faces?  Finally I want part of the object smoothed and
part not...  Is there a simple way to do this?  (I seem to remember reading
in this list that I could do it with 2.0...  I am waiting for Impulse to send
me the upgrade info)

Thanks much,
George Browning

##

Subject:     Brush mapping?
Date:        Mon, 09 Mar 92 10:05:22 MST
From:        Guy Mullins <[e-mail]>

I am working on a rather complex (by my standards) object of a state seal.
The object is basically circular with fluted edges with a couple of
concentric rings of text.  The center contains a sheild shape with an
illustration on the surface...this is where the trouble begins.  The whole
object is extruded in various layers giving it the appearance of a gear cog.
Most of the object is done with various textures and attributes giving it a
nice sculpted metalic finish...okay fine.  However, the illustration on the
center shield was much too complex to model (I did try) so I thought some
brush mapping would be appropriate.

First I tried Altitude mapping a Black & White (2 color DPaint) onto the
shield.  No luck; I don't quite understand the Y-axis length associated with
the brush map.  Next I tried a straight Color map to get everything positioned
propperly.  That worked fine except the result was B&W which lost the
sculpted metal appearance.  It seemed that a Fileter map might be a nice
compromise.  A Filter map right on the shield object generally yeilded no
visible results.  So I tried putting the Filter map onto a flat Filter object
just above the sheild.  (see illustration)  For the most part this worked, but
I am wondering is this necessary?  Does a Filter map need to be on a Filter
object?  Also, does a Reflect map need to be on a Reflect object?

SIDE VIEW OF SHIELD AND BRUSH MAP OBJECTS

                                 ----------------  <-- Filter Object with
    extruded Shield Object -->  ||||||||||||||||||     Filter brush map
    with Texture and metal
    Attributes

Now, assuming that this is all correct, the next problem that I am having is
that the Filter Object (onto which the Filter brush is mapped) seems to be
interfering with the color of the Shield beneath it.  The attributes of the
Filter Object have been set with everything at 0 except for 'Filter' which
was cranked all the way up.  I would assume these settings would create a
completely invisible object allowing only the characteristics of the Filter
map to come through.  This was not the case.  Apparently the color of the
Filter Object affects the Filtered image (ie. Black object yeilds Black
mapping in the Black areas of the brush map, Yellow object yeilds Yellow
in the Black, etc.)  Additionally, a lighter color appears to lighten the
value of the extruded Sheild Object visible beneath the Filter Object and
a darker color darkens it.  This seems odd to me, as the Filter setting is
100%, it should be completely transparent, color should not be a factor.
It is as if the Filtering were being done backwards.

Where have I dropped the ball on this solution?  Any other solutions?

Thanks.


----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                  |                           |
|  Guy Mullins, Media Specialist   |                           |
|  University Media Systems        |  voice: [phone]    |
|  Arizona State University - USA  |    fax: [phone]    |
|                                  |                           |
----------------------------------------------------------------

##

Subject:     re: waves and ground
Date:        Mon,  9 Mar 92 17:38:23 PST
From:        [e-mail]

The wave effect can only be used with faceted objects, not grounds or perfect
spheres.  Only objects made of points.  Ahh.  I forget your other questions.
Ahh.  Camera zooming: I forget how that works.  I just usually play around wit
the numbers every time I want to do that.  Usually I really just move it backd
forth!

##

Subject:     Re: refracted stars
Date:        Mon, 9 Mar 92 23:11 EST
From:        Marc Rifkin <[e-mail]>

Unfortunately Imagine does not include the built in stars in its rendering,
so they won't show through transparent objects.  This really stinks.

One solution is to make a starfield object that you can put out where your
sky should be.  A quick way is to use DPaint to draw stars (use 640x400 and
a 2x2 pixel brush), then Import IFF in Imagine, and then Conform to Sphere.
Make it white and Bright.  Scale is important- if the stars are too far away
they will not be consistently visible- they may blink in and out on some
frames.  Be carefull not to scale your stars object too much or your stars
will look like hail stones coming at you.

I also tried putting everything inside a sphere and mapping a star picture
inside it.  But Imagine 2.0 interpolated the brush to fit the huge sphere
making the stars blur to become huge blotches.

The problem with both solutions is that in DPaint I was only making a
640x400 bitmap and then putting that into an object that was thousands of
units in size.  The next star field I need I am going to try a big 1
bitplane superbitmap.

Marc Rifkin- Graphics and Multimedia / [e-mail]
"The future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
-John Connor, Terminator 2

##

Subject:     Amiga world?
Date:        Tue, 10 Mar 92 11:19:34 CST
From:        Michael Linton <[e-mail]>

After picking up this months special issue of Amiga World, I was rather distres
sed to find this in the review of the 3-D modeling programs, that Imagine has n
o phong shading, and it doesn't allow index of refraction on objects?!?  Seems
to me there is a function in the Attributes editor called PHONG, and it seems t
o me there is also one called INDEX... Mmmm... I wonder what those do...  The o
nly programs, according to them that have one of the two, or both are: Caligari
2, JourneyMan, LightWave, Real 3-D, and 3-D Pro. Now is it just me, or does som
eone have thier wires crossed?  And Imagine has NO object primitives, you can't
 spin objects, or extrude them, or slice them, or and you can't split triangles
 off of objects...  Mmmmm.. Seems to me I've done all those before...

##

Subject:     Apologies are in order.
Date:        Tue, 10 Mar 92 10:03:56 PST
From:        "Glenn M. Lewis ~" <[e-mail]>

    I hereby extend my sincerest and most humble apologies to all
who spent time downloading "TeX_Roman_Font_Object.lzh" from hubcap, and
discovered that the fonts previewed OK by the detail editor, but then
did not render.

    I am truly very sorry for the wasted time.

    I made a very stupid mistake.

    I made each object have the line "SHAP Shape = 1" (a "Stencil", which
Imagine does not support), instead of "SHAP Shape = 2" (an "Axis", which is
of course what it should be).

    When I fix all the objects, I will reload it to hubcap.  In the
meantime, I have deleted the file from the archive.  I left the PostScript
preview of the letters there, since that will not change.

    Once again, I hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive me!

                            -- Glenn Lewis

##

Subject:     Fire
Date:        Tue, 10 Mar 92 15:30:23 EST
From:        [e-mail]

I know this is probably a stupid question, but is it possible to simulate
a burning torch, or such in an amigation with Imagine?? I know most fires on
bigger systems are done with particle systems, and that is out of the question
with imagine. But I was thinking... could it be possible to make an cycled
object that was made up of different layers of various transparency. And cycle
this so that it moved in a simplified motion of a fire burning, and have the
light it provides, be changed to various intensities while it cycles??? Maybe
this is too complex, I don't know because I have little experience with the
cycle editor. Would anyone let me know if this is feasible, I'm out of my mind,
or is there a different way that I don't know of???

##

Subject:     Re: A few questions....
Date:        Wed, 11 Mar 92 09:22:18 -0800
From:        [e-mail]

To play with the focal length (zoom) of the camera, the number to use it
the Y in the size bar.  I believe it defaults to 640.  Numbers smaller than
that give you a wider angle and bigger numbers will zoom in.

More accurately, the ratio of Y to X is the crucial factor.  Thus the default
is 2:1.  Making it smaller (e.g.: 1:1) zooms out, and making it bigger (3:1)
zooms in.

Hope this helps

Stefon

##

Subject:     Leaving the list
Date:        Wed, 11 Mar 92 22:22 EST
From:        Marc Rifkin <[e-mail]>

A while ago I asked everyone what they're doing with their Amigas in
an attempt to get Penn State motivated to using it.  Unfortunately
I have failed.  One person is no match for a conservative bureauracy
that has been bought out by Apple.  My failure has culminated with the
termination of my job for budget reasons.  I managed to reach many
people but could not affect those high in power.

Thank all of you very much for responding to my survey and for the
valuable information you send through the imagine@athena.

I won't have regular enough access to my account so I am getting off
the list.  I will make every effort to get back through some way.

My joblessness has become an opportunity to start a new and better
career.  I am returning to my home town near Philadelphia, which
happens to be very close to West Chester.  Hmmm.

Later,

Marc Rifkin- Graphics and Multimedia / [e-mail]
"There was no limits for anybody."
-The Odyssey demo, an Alcatraz production.

##

Subject:     Movie anim splitter
Date:        Thu, 12 Mar 92 14:21:30 PDT
From:        Aaron Tucker <[e-mail]>

    Greetings. Does anyone know of a PD/Shareware or Commercial
software package that will split a MOVIE file into its seperate frames?
I need this to take some existing HAM animations and map them onto some
objects.

    Second, I am wondering about a piracy question. I have two Amigas
now doing rendering connected via the parallel port running DNET. That way
I don't have to transfer entire projects over to the other hard drive.
Anyways, my understanding of software running on machines is that one
program may not be installed on more than one machine at any one time. Well,
I am not violating this...it is only on one hard drive. I am running it
through the parallel network. Is this legal or should I by another copy of
Imagine?

Lastly, has anyone heard anything further on the modeler that is supposed to
be released this summer by Axiom Software? (makers of Pixel 3D) It supposed
to be a very advanced modeler with features that even most high end
workstations do not have. e.g. Object creation from digitized bitmaps of
different views.

Juan Trevino
[e-mail]
"Wake up. Time to die."  -Leon from BladeRunner

##

Subject:     Re: Movie anim splitter
Date:        Thu, 12 Mar 92 18:40:55 -0500
From:        "Michael B. Comet" <[e-mail]>

    [Stuff I can't answer deleted]
>
>
>Lastly, has anyone heard anything further on the modeler that is supposed to
>be released this summer by Axiom Software? (makers of Pixel 3D) It supposed
>to be a very advanced modeler with features that even most high end
>workstations do not have. e.g. Object creation from digitized bitmaps of
>different views.
>
>Juan Trevino
>[e-mail]
>"Wake up. Time to die."  -Leon from BladeRunner
>
>
>

    I heard a while ago, the new object editor is to be called
"Polyform".  One "feature" will be the ability to take 3 bitmaps, a top
view, a side view and a front view and make a 3D object based upon that
data.  This would be truly amazing if it becomes available on a pc
platform.  You could essentially digitize 3 views of a head, and get a
3D object from it.  Note:  This is only a rumor, but I have reason to
believe that this may be implemented in polyform.

               Michael Comet
               [e-mail]

##

Subject:     Re: Fire
Date:        Thu, 12 Mar 92 18:50:50 CST
From:        Wayne Haufler 283-4160 <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (no name?) wrote:

> I know this is probably a stupid question, but is it possible to
> simulate a burning torch, or such in an amigation with Imagine?? I know
> most fires on bigger systems are done with particle systems, and that
> is out of the question with imagine. But I was thinking... could it be
> possible to make an cycled object that was made up of different layers
> of various transparency. And cycle this so that it moved in a
> simplified motion of a fire burning, and have the light it provides, be
> changed to various intensities while it cycles??? Maybe this is too
> complex, I don't know because I have little experience with the cycle
> editor. Would anyone let me know if this is feasible, I'm out of my
> mind, or is there a different way that I don't know of???

Very interesting idea.  Something like that may be feasible.
Your idea reminds me of those silly old-fashioned 'scenery lights' that I
enjoyed on my grandparents' TV.  You know, the ones that simulate
animated water or fire motion by moving concentric cylinders (2?),
perhaps in opposite directions, within a stationary cylinder.  Each
cylinder is painted with a scene and has transparent or translucent or
cutout areas that interact in such a way that water (or fire?) appears
to move.  The cylinders were moved by attached fans that were driven
by hot air rising from the light bulb in the center.  Is that hard
to describe or what?  They fascinated me as a kid.

Perhaps this idea would be useful for modeling fire.

I don't know if it necessary to use the cycle editor.  Perhaps just
use the Rotation F/X.  However, I don't remember if Rotation F/X can be
applied to a child object apart from the group object.

Another thing this reminds me of is the techniques that a friend of mine
described in modeling rocket plumes.  He is a professional animator at
JSC/NASA using Silicon Graphics machines.  From what I remember, he had
one varying (altitude?) bump texture map applied to a parabolic cone
and he had it rotated randomly each frame, so there was no obvious
pattern to the movement.  This I think is quite clever.

Unfortunately, random rotations are not a feature of Imagine, but something
like that could be obtained by Rotating each 'layer child object'
many degrees, in different directions, and way out of sync with the
frames, so a rotational pattern does not show up.

Hope this helps.  Let me (us) know how your experiments go.


P.S.  I am sending this to both Imagine and GodlyGraphics mailing list
since the GodlyGraphics list may be modeling fire in our joint project.



         __      Wayne A. Haufler   [Christian/SW Engineer/XWindows/Amigan]
\\ /\\ /\\ //_    [e-mail]    McDonnell Douglas-Houston
 \/--\// \//__    Hobby:"Exploring the Use of Computer Graphics and
     //                  Animations To Support Christian Endeavors"

##

Subject:     Which anim player do you use?
Date:        Thu, 12 Mar 92 20:18:29 EST
From:        Sandy Antunes <[e-mail]>

Hi folks.
Side question here, which anim player do you generally use for
showing things you make.  I rarely use playianm, and have been
using "showanim" for all the ones I do (dpaint, imagine, whatever).
However, I hate it.  I haven't found one player I like.
  Actually, I'd be willing to collect a list-- feel free to email
me your favorit and I'll post a summary in a couple of weeks.
Sound okay?
                    sandy
mail to: [e-mail]  (just in case you're confused)
----------------------------
[e-mail]  Sandy Antunes  "Lights! Camera! Action! Timber!"

##

Subject:     Re: Which anim player do you use?
Date:        Fri, 13 Mar 92 16:25:53 MET
From:        Marco Pugliese <[e-mail]>

I apreciated the question "which anim player do you generally use for
showing things you make?", because it this is a real problem for me!
I could't find an anim player which allow to play IFF-sounds, while playing
animations.
I tried MOVIE (Byte by Byte), but it seemed not able to play Imagine's
opcode5 anims.

Any suggestion?

--
===============================================================================
  Marco Pugliese   *| Dipartimento di Scienze |* [e-mail]
  via Roncaglia 13 *|    dell'Informazione    |* [e-mail]
  20146 MILANO     *|        ---------        |* [e-mail]
  ITALY            *|  Universita' di MILANO  |* [e-mail]
===============================================================================

##

Subject:     Re:  Movie anim splitter
Date:        Fri, 13 Mar 92 08:22:02 -0500
From:        "ESTES,JON-PAUL" <[e-mail]>

As far as the anim splitter goes, I know that there are some commercial
packages that do that, but I cannot remember their names.

On the piracy issue, I can be a little more help.  Most packages have a
standard practice of allowing you to have the software loaded on more than
one machine, but not running on more than one at a time.  That way, a person
who does alot of work at home can buy one package, have it at work and home
and never have to worry about piracy issues, because they cannot be using
it in more than one place at once.  I have asked several vendors about this
for clarification, and this was the response that I got.  However, not
every company is the same, and it is usually a good idea to check with them
if you are not sure.  In either case, running Imagine on two machines the
way you described is definitely not legal, since it is going on both at
the same time.  Hope this helps.

-Jon-Paul Estes

##

Subject:     Re: Which anim player do you use?
Date:        Fri, 13 Mar 92 9:22:01 MST
From:        Steve Koren <[e-mail]
         ***.com>

> Side question here, which anim player do you generally use for
> showing things you make.  I rarely use playianm, and have been

I use RTAP for playing IFF anim5 files directly from HD.  It
works well if your controller is fast enough had takes little
enough CPU time during disk transfers.

   - steve

##

Subject:     Re: Which anim player do you use?
Date:        Fri, 13 Mar 1992 13:04 EST
From:        GREG GRANVILLE <[e-mail]>

[Marco Pugliese writes:]

>I apreciated the question "which anim player do you generally use for
>showing things you make?", because it this is a real problem for me!
>I could't find an anim player which allow to play IFF-sounds, while playing
>animations.
>I tried MOVIE (Byte by Byte), but it seemed not able to play Imagine's
>opcode5 anims.

>Any suggestion?

"MOVIE" doesn't play anim-5 format animations. Byte by Byte had their
own "anim" format that used somewhat more advanced compression methods
than the Aegis "anim" format did at that time.

Eric Graham (sp?), the author of the Sculpt3/4D programs, released
several additional movie utility programs (called Pilbm and Dilbm)
at about the same time that Ken Offer updated the movie player to
allow frame triggered playback of sound samples. (I hope I have my
ancient history correct here) The Dilbm and Pilbm programs would
(will still) allow you to write a script that would compress any
palette-locked sequence of ILBM images into an animation playable
with the "movie" program from Byte-by-Byte. The real beauty of these
utilities (at that time) was that it would allow you to program an
animation that would do sequenced looping. (i.e. play frames 1-60,
then play frames 61-90 three times, then go back and play frames
40-70, hold the last frame for 10 seconds, and then exit or start
the loop all over again... you get the idea) The ability to be
able to trigger a sound sample at any point in the script was really
a way-cool feature at that time.
I haven't used this program in years, and I'm sure that their are
several others out there that can do the same type of thing now.
Unfortunately, I really can't help much with them, since almost
all of the anims w/wo sound I've done in the past few years have
been single frame recorded with sound dubbed in later.

...Greg Granville

##

Subject:     Re: Movie anim splitter
Date:        Fri, 13 Mar 92 11:19:26 -0800
From:        [e-mail]

As to the piracy issue:

    Sometimes companies will sell you multi-terminal use licenses (or some
other pretentious name) for situations such as yours.  Ideally, if you're
only using it on two machines, the license to use your one copy would be
substantially less than another copy of Imagine.  In any case, you should
probably call Impulse.

Best o' luck
Stefon