|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 04:25:11
Message: <46d52d67@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi, me again, sorry, ...
"...NOT!" ;)
Well, i'm almost ready to upload now (assuming the final video
compression later today works out), but how long can/should the text
description be? Checking my production notes and the writeup following
the old IRTC form, I'm afraid i already got a bit of logorrhea there...
;) (i.e.: you'll have to scroll the page... several times...)
Maybe, for the webpage, something like a "... more >" link that cuts in
after ... 500? 1000? characters of a text would be a good idea?
-M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 04:28:09
Message: <46d52e19$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Markus Altendorff wrote:
> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
>
and one more thing...
how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in
shape and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old
IRTC...
-M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
> Markus Altendorff wrote:
> > Hi, me again, sorry, ...
> >
>
> and one more thing...
>
> how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in
> shape and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old
> IRTC...
>
> -M
I had the problem the other way. How to make the preview intelligible but
obscuring the nudity. I think that I made it 200x150.
in the stage to metal which I like but the render time has gone through the
roof 20 mins + time for a memory leak, per frame.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: St
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 05:16:23
Message: <46d53967$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message
news:46d52d67@news.povray.org...
> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
>
> "...NOT!" ;)
Heh... :)
>
> Well, i'm almost ready to upload now (assuming the final video compression
> later today works out), but how long can/should the text description be?
> Checking my production notes and the writeup following the old IRTC form,
> I'm afraid i already got a bit of logorrhea there... ;) (i.e.: you'll have
> to scroll the page... several times...)
>
> Maybe, for the webpage, something like a "... more >" link that cuts in
> after ... 500? 1000? characters of a text would be a good idea?
Good idea Markus! Something like this?
http://smartwebby.com/DHTML/textbox_characters_counter.asp#explanation
~Steve~
>
> -M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: St
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 05:16:24
Message: <46d53968@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message
news:46d52e19$1@news.povray.org...
> Markus Altendorff wrote:
>> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
>>
>
> and one more thing...
>
> how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in shape
> and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old IRTC...
I think if you send a 320x240, it will still be automatically resized
to 100x100, which is why some of them look a little distorted. I'll see if I
can get the thumbs changed to at least 160x120.
~Steve~
>
> -M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 05:23:04
Message: <46d53af8$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
>> how big can/should the thumbnail be? The current ones are square in
>> shape and rather compact - i've gotten used to the 320x240 of the old
>> IRTC...
>>
>> -M
>
> I had the problem the other way. How to make the preview intelligible but
> obscuring the nudity. I think that I made it 200x150.
Ah. Well, the server setup is to crop it down to 140x140 anyway, which
is what bothers me - i'm used to putting the title etc. in it, like with
the IRTC... it'll be unreadable and no use if it gets pressed into 140x140.
> in the stage to metal which I like but the render time has gone through the
> roof 20 mins + time for a memory leak, per frame.
Yes, metal can do that... that's why i've got a "losing the shiny
armour" scene at about the middle my clip :) - metal + reflection of
"media" material in it (if i'm using the povray term right? that
half-transparent plasma stuff...?) isn't good for the render rate.
Textures going "boink" isn't, either, though for different reasons ...
the last location i used is a walk back to daylight through an
underground passage that had the occasional decorative doorway left and
right, but the texture there was "hopping" between frames - i guess i've
either messed up the texture space orientation when i declared the
material or it wasn't properly fixed to the object. The render is
running for the third time now, because i've kicked those objects from
the scene to just get it over with... should be done about the time i
get home from work today.
-M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 05:33:33
Message: <46d53d6d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. schrieb:
> "Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message
> news:46d52d67@news.povray.org...
>> Hi, me again, sorry, ...
>>
>> "...NOT!" ;)
>
> Heh... :)
>
>> Well, i'm almost ready to upload now (assuming the final video compression
>> later today works out), but how long can/should the text description be?
>> Checking my production notes and the writeup following the old IRTC form,
>> I'm afraid i already got a bit of logorrhea there... ;) (i.e.: you'll have
>> to scroll the page... several times...)
>>
>> Maybe, for the webpage, something like a "... more >" link that cuts in
>> after ... 500? 1000? characters of a text would be a good idea?
>
> Good idea Markus! Something like this?
> http://smartwebby.com/DHTML/textbox_characters_counter.asp#explanation
*shriek* No! Actually, the opposite - people can enter as much as they
want, but the display in "viewing mode" starts with only the first one
or two paragraphs or 200/300 characters, whatever happens first, and the
remaining text is initially hidden, but "unfolds" when clicked upon. Like:
"Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the .... [more >]"
Clicking "more" turns it into:
"Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the scenery
for the second half of the video. Working time: about 6-8 hours today.
[< less]"
i.e. Just initally hiding long texts, not discarding them entirely :)
like those (the tiny +/- below the headers would be the "more/less", and
i'd start with at least part of the text visible instead of entirely
hiding it)
http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/archives/blog_last_visited/
-M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: St
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 06:07:08
Message: <46d5454c$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Markus Altendorff" <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote in message
news:46d53d6d$1@news.povray.org...
> St. schrieb:
>> Good idea Markus! Something like this?
>> http://smartwebby.com/DHTML/textbox_characters_counter.asp#explanation
>
> *shriek* No! Actually, the opposite - people can enter as much as they
> want, but the display in "viewing mode" starts with only the first one or
> two paragraphs or 200/300 characters, whatever happens first, and the
> remaining text is initially hidden, but "unfolds" when clicked upon. Like:
>
> "Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
> August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the .... [more >]"
>
> Clicking "more" turns it into:
>
> "Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah...
> August 16th: Rendered the first part, and built the scenery
> for the second half of the video. Working time: about 6-8 hours today. [<
> less]"
>
> i.e. Just initally hiding long texts, not discarding them entirely :)
>
> like those (the tiny +/- below the headers would be the "more/less", and
> i'd start with at least part of the text visible instead of entirely
> hiding it)
> http://www.splintered.co.uk/experiments/archives/blog_last_visited/
Ah, I see. Ok, that's a good idea. I think we can get that implemented
somehow. Thanks again for your input Markus! :)
~Steve~
>
> -M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Markus Altendorff <maa### [at] panoramasde> wrote:
>
> Ah. Well, the server setup is to crop it down to 140x140 anyway, which
> is what bothers me - i'm used to putting the title etc. in it, like with
> the IRTC... it'll be unreadable and no use if it gets pressed into 140x140.
But do you really need a title in the thumbnail? If it is short it will
appear above the thumbnail. Mine was truncated, oh dear.
>
> Yes, metal can do that... that's why i've got a "losing the shiny
> armour" scene at about the middle my clip :)
LOL
> - metal + reflection of
> "media" material in it (if i'm using the povray term right? that
> half-transparent plasma stuff...?) isn't good for the render rate.
the metal.
> Textures going "boink" isn't, either, though for different reasons ...
> the last location i used is a walk back to daylight through an
> underground passage that had the occasional decorative doorway left and
> right, but the texture there was "hopping" between frames - i guess i've
> either messed up the texture space orientation when i declared the
> material or it wasn't properly fixed to the object. The render is
> running for the third time now, because i've kicked those objects from
> the scene to just get it over with... should be done about the time i
> get home from work today.
I generally do test animations of any materials I am going to use. Just to
see if there is any flicker. If that is what you mean? Recently I tried
changing turbulence to warp turbulence to se if it would help. But it made
things worse. I think this problem is one of the worst in making
animations.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Markus Altendorff
Subject: Re: Only 48 hours, and: how long should the description be?
Date: 29 Aug 2007 07:25:47
Message: <46d557bb$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I generally do test animations of any materials I am going to use. Just to
> see if there is any flicker. If that is what you mean? Recently I tried
> changing turbulence to warp turbulence to se if it would help. But it made
> things worse. I think this problem is one of the worst in making
> animations.
Well, i did test it, sort of, uhm... but not this time - the whole
object group is copied straight from the IRTC "Escape" ("Escape^2")
short i did (2003? 2004?). And it's not so much "flickering" as in
"in-texture antialiasing too weak", but it's actually "jumping around"
on the object... weirdest thing i've seen so far. It's OK for a few
frames, then it shifts a bit to the left/right, then it's back to where
it started. At first i thought i had accidentally animated some mapping
parameter in a loop, but there's nothing in the timeline that would
indicate such a thing, and i'm out of production time... i'll look into
converting the cubes that build the doorframe to polygon meshes, maybe
this'll help.
The "usual" flicker of interpolation doesn't bother me as much because i
compress the video to death anyway, so my problem is there's always
worse MPEG artefacts than the grainy pulsing of texture edges :)
-M
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|