England is being invaded!!!

[99sproth]

Here is all the evidence you need!!!!

All the proof!!! (http://www.rothdomain.freeserve.co.uk/Untitled.WMV)

Heres what happens if I spend too long in a dark room.

(sorry about the rubbish compression)

si xxx ;)

[jeremyhardin]

got a syntax error. couldn't watch.

[jman66]

looks like the turrets are spinning too fast... a slight movement (perhaps no more than 30 degrees rotation, only one direction) would seem more realistic. or maybe no movement at all other than perhaps some azimuth corrections.

[99sproth]

I agree, its a bit too speedy. I have a slower one but I cant find the webspace to post it. (20mb)

[iandavis]

Just a suggestion, of course to all people posting links to animations... make it cross platform friendly. A great deal of designers use a macintosh, and a WMF just isn't viewable.

I would say a nice friendly .mpg or .mov would do the trick.

:eek:

[scott tygett]

That was so much fun.

Good for you.

[Zarathustra]

They have a Windows Media Player for OSX. I could see it.

I still would prefer another format, but I can still view it.

I have to agree with the turrets comment - makes them more like Daleks.

[toby]

Use Quicktime! not just cross-platform, but a much better player and useful for other 3d/video stuff

Ian! where've you been!?

[Baldo]

pls post some screenshot of video, to show quality and "story " of video..

[iandavis]

Hey, I'm using a mac G4 (quicksilver) and running quicktime, and the movie appears as... well... blank white.

Quicktime is a much better player then it's window's rival (IMHO) However even currently there are some codecs quicktime just will not play.

My comment was from the viewpoint as a media developer, as a general practice I find it better to provide video in a codec that MOST people will be able to play, even those running old cranky OS8 machines, or people who refuse to upgrade past WinMedia player 5.

In my experience I have had the least problems with platform related codec woes with MPG2.

cheers.

[toby]

So most PC's / Win-Media-player can read MPG-2? That would be great - I thought mpg-1 was all you could do, making hi-res impossible

[JoeJustice]

One word; DIVX (I think that's a word anyhow)

www.divx.com

[toby]

oh yea
I've been using 3ivx, one of the mac divx versions, and it makes files smaller and better than I can possibly manage to make with MPEG-2 or 4, but doesn't 'scrub' very well.

It's been on the mac a lot longer than the real divx, but the files aren't compatible on PC. Do the Mac Divx movies play on PC's?

[Zarathustra]

Windows Media Player 7.1.3 is what I have on OSX and I could see his clip.

Divx FINALLY balanced their efforts so PC and MAC have the same codecs and can view the same things.

I personally have a mix of Sorrenson QTs and DIVX AVIs on my site.
Sorrenson seems better for small (half scale) clips and DIVX is better with large (full scale) clips.

[iandavis]

My understanding is that MPEG1 was the codec used with DVD, mpg2 would be the streamable/playable version used for computer playback via Quicktime and Windows media player.

Don't get me started on DIVX. Yes the quality is slightly better then MPEG2, and yes it does take some serious hardware to get the super MPEGs, BUT I have had nothing but trouble with DIVX and don't usually recommend it where compatibility is an issue. And Macintosh support for divx is spotty at best.

Sorensen doesn't work without quicktime. Windows users (a lot of them) I find detest Quicktime and you can't depend on a windows box having quicktime installed. (i learned that the hard way). Quicktime on windows is NOWHERE near as slick as on a the mac. Just as I find windows media player on a mac is a shadow of it's windows functionality.

The one codec I can depend on other then MPEG2 to be playable on EVERY computer fresh out of the box (no plugins installed) is cinipak... but we all know how good THAT IS. he he

Anyway, I don't want to detract from the artist's work here by making this trhead about codec use and platform choice... I just wanted him to know that a .wmf or .wmv will NOT be playable on a large percentage of macs. I mean, I'm currently (though not always) running OS9 with Quicktime 6 and I CANT VIEW IT... Arguing about semantics is silly. From my perspective as an artist, if I found out that my film was giving ONE PERSON difficulty I would take it pretty seriously. Of course I'm a bit up-tight about that sort of thing.

cheers.

:D

[Zarathustra]

I'm uptight if the fault lies with another. If the fault is mine to avoid, then I have no right.

For a long time WMV and divx were virtually inacessible on Mac but now they aren't.
OS9 is dead. It's time to move up and on.

No sense adding to the stereotype that us Mac users are perpetual whiners. Apple doesn't even support 9 anymore, so let it go. Embrace X and you can eliminate some of the experiences of being left out, like being able to see this fella's clip.

Size and quality issues made me put divx on my site. The result is an AVI that you can view with anything you want.

btw - it's "Cinepak"
:)

So where's the next update so we can talk about invading England instead of clip formats and codecs?

[js33]

Originally posted by iandavis
My understanding is that MPEG1 was the codec used with DVD, mpg2 would be the streamable/playable version used for computer playback via Quicktime and Windows media player.


No Mpeg 2 is what is used for DVD. Mpeg1 is not a streamable format but is used for web playback and VideoCD's due to it's smaller files as opposed to the same movie in QT or AVI format. Mpeg 4 is streamable and is now the replacement for Mpeg1 for web viewing. It is built-in to QT and WMP now.
Yes WM9 can play just about everything except DivX :>)
It supports WMV, AVI, Mpeg1, 2, 4 and HDTV. Audio only formats of WAV, MP3, midi, etc...

Cheers,
JS

[iandavis]

zarathustra,

don't kid yourself about OS9, I figure it will be in pro use for some time to come. I know several digital musicians that use OS9 simply because OSX does not support the THOUSANDS of dollars worth of ProTools plugs they own. (yet) Apple never does anything 'just for the hell of it' and the reason they are selling dual CPU G4s that support OS9 is they don't wish to face the potential backlash of alienating hundred's of thousands of pros currently stuck with OS9.

That's only developers, home users are even worse. Once someone has a functional OS they don't like to change. I have lost track of how many clients I have talked into upgrading after using the same OS for YEARS. Sometimes they are running systems as old as 7.1 (no joke)
I would be very surprised if more then 50% of functional macs are running OSX. Another reason being that most G3s or older wont even Run OSX very well, or at all.

Not to mention legacy hardware issues, my 6x8 tablet is not supported by OSX and never will be.

Many of my designer friends are using OS 8! or Windows 98! yeah, it would be nice if everyone would upgrade, but the sad fact of the matter is that when you are busy you just can't afford to. A friend of mine currently runs win98 and Illustrator 7, Photoshop 5! Why? Not enough time to learn new stuff, busy making money.

The reality of this business in my experience is that one should develop for and target the OS of 3 years ago. (in this case OS9) Many of my clients dont want interface design larger then 640x480 and 256 colour so that ALL of their customers will be able to run it.. think about that.

It entirely depends on the target. Using this video as an example. Frankly I don't have time to restart my computer into OSX in order to watch this video. So, it will not be watched by me. Big deal? Well it may be if I would have offered him a job or work. Every viewer counts IMHO.

[iandavis]

OK,

I finally had a chance to watch it, now I can comment on the actual animation rather then the fact I couldn't get it to play.

I agree with the turret issue, movement speed can be used to indicate size to the viewer. for example, if godzilla moved with the same fast twitchy motion as a small lizard, the scale would just not translate to the viewer. Moving the barrel, and the tanks themselves slower and more deliberately will make them more convincing as tanks.

The second thing I did notice was how they moved. Are they driving on a perfectly flat plain? Watch a few videos or a movie with real tanks... you will notice that due to their incredible weight and the fact they have many wheels they have a distinctive bobbing motion. Every dip seems to make the tank dip front to back. Some suggestion that the terrain they are travelling over being uneven would add to the feeling of a 'war-like' setting.

interested in seeing v2

cheers.

[jarrodlott]

Lighting is off there, the tanks show up really "computery" looking (know it's not a word, Public school in the south, lucky I'm wearing shoes) too shiny and don't take the local light. Maby a little texturing and lighting work to make them fit in.

[Zarathustra]

the reason they are selling dual CPU G4s that support OS9 is they don't wish to face the potential backlash of alienating hundred's of thousands of pros currently stuck with OS9

The reason is they still have them in their warehouses and want them GONE because they now have G5s which will not ship with OS9. They are not caring one bit for anyone stuck with an OS9 box.

I would be very surprised if more then 50% of functional macs are running OSX.

Well that may be true due to the print world waiting for Quark, but it's gone OSX so that will gradually be changing. The potential of having over 4gig of Ram with Panther should appeal to print houses.

The reality of this business in my experience is that one should develop for and target the OS of 3 years ago.

You're out of your gord. That applies to business software and what consumers might use at home but not PROFESSIONAL animation applications. Print houses might have 3+ year old computers, but a serious, professional post/animation house won't unless they're severely upgraded or in a renderfarm.

You struck a professional tone when chastising 99sproth, so as a pro in THIS field I would figure you would be running OSX.
Glad to see you were finally able to view the clip.

[iandavis]

zara,

I'm not so much out of my gord really... I have been developing software titles since 1993 and it was a hard lesson to learn as an interface designer.

Of course it does depend on the title, but those titles which demand at least a radeon 9500 to function properly appeal to a select gamer's market. Or the educational titles that are Mac only... same thing.

Once again, I think it's a really good habit to publish your work in the simplest format possible, so that EVERYONE should be able to view it.

I've come full circle even with my own website. not too long ago it was an uberfancy flash based extravaganza (he he) now... no more. I would rather ma and pa client be able to view it. I got too many emails telling me my website didn't work, or the animations were slow... etc. I just recently lost a contract because my demo CRASHED THEIR MACHINE. I think it was quicktime for windows at fault... but hey at the end of the day... I still lost the job.

I do believe that as a professional it is important to have access to the newest tools, etc. i do run OS10.2.6 most of the time, but when I have scanning (SCSI) or painting (Wacom ADB tablet) to do... it's back to OS9. I think MOST pro mac users are facing the same issue... Things will change to be sure... but when?

Should I publish my images using ping? or jpg2000? How about AAC? should I be sending audio to clients encoded with AAC even though it is newer and more effective then MP3? My belief is a resounding no. Even Flash is commonly shunned over more universal methods. If even 1% of end users can be included by simply encoding your files in an older format I don't understand what the issue is! Personally i will continue to use whatever technology ensures the highest penetration of my work to potential clients.

and THIS above any other technology discussion was my original intent in THIS thread. I didn't mean to come down on anybody... simply get my point across. i do have considerable development experience with public CD-ROMs and Web. I figured maybe I could save at least one person the trouble... It might be worth it. One lost job is... well one lost job too many! :)

Thanks for your comments though.

cheers.

[toby]

I have to go with Ian on the compatibility thing. It's really embarrassing to make a video for a client that won't run, even though the client is running Win95, like my client was last year, it makes YOU look bad. If the machine works fine for everything the client does except what you give him, the first thing they assume is that you don't know what you're doing.

Encoding for PC is the hardest thing - Intel codecs aren't backwards OR forwards compatible - I have to make an mpg and a wmv, and maybe a Cinepak as a last resort

[iandavis]

Right, that reminds me... for all those lowest common denominator people out there (like myself) I forgot to mention that after extensive testing for a client running every windows OS under the sun the one codec that seems to look decent AND runs on all windows out of the box (so to speak) is... drum roll.....
intel i263... not the best, but it sure is reliable.

for my art stuff I do use .mpg

www.codecolibrary.com/downloads
(this is a client's download site where the codec is posted at the bottom of the page, if anyone is interested)