|
|
Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 01/19/58 11:35
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:46:25 +0000, SpaceGirl
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>>> Flash really isn't pixel based, that's why. It's a vector based system
>>> that has some support for bitmaps and excellent support for video.
>> WRONG!
>>
>> ...well, not everything you said, but parts of what you said...try and
>> guess which parts. ^_^
>Humor me.
Well let's take video for example. Unless you want to use the
Sorenson codec Flash doesn't support shit. Let me know when you can
embed specialized codecs, like Xvid into Flash...then maybe you can
say it has excellent support for video.
> You seem to be the expert.
I've never claimed to be an expert...there are ALWAYS higher levels of
understanding. Even if you memorize every single function, every
filter, every tool...that doesn't mean fuck all. There are a near
infinite numbers of ways those tools, filters, etc can be used to
achieved new techniques and designs. An expert? Nah, but I do have
quite a number of specialized techniques and designs...most of which
could only be replicated by a very limited number of people...and even
then, they would be developing their own methodologies for achieving
the end result.
>> Kid, YER the n00b, trust me on this one.
>hehe, well I'm not an expert that's for sure, but I'm not a TOTAL beginner.
To me you're a beginner, because you don't seem to recognize something
(look at what you typed right below).
>>> Given the "fucked" nature of flash,
>>> perhaps explain how a site like www.eight8.jp exists? Perhaps it's the
>>> user rather than Flash ;)
I used to be like you...until my skill level reached a point where I
came to recognize certain...truths. When you learn to analyze and
break apart other peoples techniques and methods based on the end
result you'll understand it too.
>> In your case it is. Kids like you are often easily impressed by
>> things that you don't understand. Once you know how such sites were
>> created they suddenly don't seem so impressive. Oh hey, look, I can
>> integrate video segments in Flash too:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/cbmain/
>> Ooo...how impressive. *rolls eyes*
>Um, are you REALLY comparing the two?
Yup.
>Yes getting video into Flash is pretty easy,
....yeah if you want to do a shit job of it. You know, like they did
on that link you gave (those poor bastards couldn't properly encode
video to save their lives).
>but the design and interactive elements are NOT so easy,
....well, I suppose it depends on what you're using:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Where.png
You never did explain. However on my own I found you can right click
on objects in Macromedia and convert them to symbols...quite deficient
compared to SwishMax's interface.
>not when you are starting out. Once you start getting into AS it becomes
>a little more logical (personally, I still think it's a horrible
>language tho... blah).
....what would you need any real code for? No offense but if you're
writing a butt load of code to create interactive video you're REALLY
doing something wrong. Check out the downloads section on the main
Backwater site...that didn't require any sort of serious code at all.
Again though, this is all related to what I was talking about
earlier...you see things...and for some strange reason you think
they're so complicated...when in most cases the effects are achieved
by rather simple means...simple once you understand the techniques
involved.
>>> Flash is really weird to work with, and I seriously hate it's authoring
>>> tool - even in Flash 8 it's super-sucky. But once you start to "think"
>>> like Macromedia - I mean, Adobe ;)
>> And ya see, that's the primary problem right there, it's like Adobe
>> just can't release a product unless it has a HORRIBLE interface.
>Well you have to cut them some slack there - after all they didn't do
>the interface to Flash, that was Macromedia. They only just bought
>Macromedia, so hopefully Flash will gain some of the simplicity of
>Photoshops UI.
Photoshop has a horrible interface...not as bad as say AfterEffects,
but it's right up there.
>> One
>> of the reasons I'm still using Paint Shop Pro. It's the ~little~
>> things that get to ya. Like in Paint Shop Pro if you're on a layer
>> with a transparency, you can use the selection tool, make a box around
>> an area and then click once inside the box to autoselect all the
>> active pixels on that layer...can't do that in Photoshop.
>Yes you can. Just hit CTRL and click the layer in the layer palette. All
>active pixels are selected. Tad easier, no?
Actually no and it's less intuitive. Less keyboard shortcuts is
generally a better thing in most cases and why do you need to click on
the image preview portion of the layers box in order to do it? What
does that have to do with SELECTION...you see, less intuitive. In
Paint Shop the function is tied into the SELECTION TOOL, which, you
know MAKES SENSE.
>Photoshop is a far deeper
>program -
WRONG!
Here, let me continue. The scroll wheel on yer mouse...in Paint Shop
Pro the scroll wheel can be used to zoom in and out of the image and
you get precision control over it as it'll center in on the position
of the mouse...in Photoshop all you have is the Navigator box...which
requires more movement of the mouse, is less intuitive and doesn't
give you as much direct control.
I'm not done yet. Paint Shop Pro also comes bundled with Animation
Shop...Photoshop, not even CS2 has anything like that.
Oh here's my favorite...that gawd damn fuckin "step back" piece of
shit. Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it is not to
be able to just hit Ctrl+Z for multiple undo levels? I mean,
practically every gawd damn fuckin proggie on the PLANET uses Ctrl+Z
as the universal undo shortcut and let's you undo, in most cases, as
much as you like. In Photoshop though...no, you get ONE level of undo
with Ctrl+Z and then you have to "step back" and use a three button
command shortcut - Ctrl+Alt+Z...now how gawd damn Jesus killing stupid
is that? I mean, honestly.
Oh and Paint Shop's scripting interface is like LIGHT YEARS easier and
more intuitive than Photoshop's.
>but a lot of the functionality is initially obscure because of
> just how MUCH it can do
....you seem to be confused, Honey. I'm not really talking about
FUNCTION, so much as FORM. All in all both proggies are pretty much
equal as far as what they can do...I'm just saying that in Paint Shop
what you can do is VASTLY easier to figure out and implement because
the interface wasn't designed by someone who OBVIOUSLY isn't a graphic
designer.
>- there cant be a pretty button for
>everything.
....why not? Why can't the interface be improved? Why do you think it
has to be obscure and difficult? You have a pretty backwards line of
thinking if you ask me. Hell, personally I'd like to see em include
undo and redo functions that are tied into your mouse's back and
forward buttons (well I suppose you could configure that yourself via
your mouse's setup...but it'd be nice if it was a prebuilt function).
>Anyway, I guess that's just my opinion - I know designers
>who use other tools, but most use some version of PS in their workflow.
>I dont think that's just "because" (Photoshop is very expensive after all).
The only real use I have for Photoshop is it's "Sheer"
filter...although I'm sure at some point I'll find a 3rd party filter
that can do everything it can. I also like the brush controls in
Photoshop CS2...but on the other hand I haven't used the latest
version of Paint Shop so I can't really make any direct comparisons.
>Or like in
>> Paintshop you can actually save selections as separate files and then
>> easily use them in other images...where as in Photoshop it binds them
>> into the file itself, which is just annoying and then forces you to
>> save all your files in their proprietary shit format. I guess if you
>> "grew up" with Adobe products that stuff doesn't matter much...sorta
>> like if you were born blind, you wouldn't miss not seeing.
>I guess I did because I know the above isn't true.
....you're claiming you can save selections in Photoshop as individual
files, eh?
>Perhaps you used older versions of PS?
No, I've got CS2.
>PhotoShop has smart objects that can be embedded
>PhotoShop or Illustrator files.
....those aren't selections, Honey.
>They can be stuck into other files.
>Update the smart object and all files that use that image are updated
>without you ever having to open them.
*snicker*
Yeah, and how does THAT seem like a good idea. *shakes head*
Typical Adobe, trying to make their products "think" for you. I don't
want any program updating or altering ANY file of mine. If *I* want
to change something then *I'LL* change it. That sort of functionality
that you described is just a disaster waiting to happen.
>>> - it does sort of make sense. You
>>> really have to plan well before you start a Flash project,
>> ...well, not if you're using Swishmax. You can easily manipulate any
>> object you've added, move them around on the timeline with ease,
>> encapsulate objects as sprites, group them, break them apart, etc,
>> etc, etc.
>I'll take another look at it. It's been ages! Anything that will save me
>time is fine :)
The way SwishMax works is just elegant:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Where.png
It's so smooth in operation that often times you don't even need the
preview window. You have the timeline, the outline and the transform
box. It's very easy to make complex, interactive content via the use
of sprites, scenes, groups, containers, buttons, etc. You give each
object on the outline a name and then it works off a very simple
hierarchy structure...in Macromedia you have to like...convert each
object in a "symbol" or something before you can even see it on the
outline.
>>> and it DOES handle bitmaps just fine if you are careful.
>> Yeah I hear you talkin, Kiddo...lots of kids like you talk though.
>> Let me know when you put up a Flash file that uses split form images,
>> then maybe I'll take you seriously.
>I cant think of a good reason why anyone would actually want to do that
>- especially if your project is for the Internet. The results would be
>to large, or to slow to play on an old computer. I tend to avoid bitmaps
>in Flash if I can help it.
Because you don't know how to do it. The nifty split form loader I'm
working on:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Scraps/Flash_Limitations3.png
Total size of all the image content is only 15 Kilobytes...so even on
dialup it won't take the loader more than 3 seconds to load.
....of course my skill in image encoding methodology is nothing short
of God like, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for your average
user...well at least that's what I think anyway. The people who make
the PNG format think otherwise, they said that most of the stuff I'm
doing is impossible from the perspective of average users...but I
dunno...maybe they just need a tutorial or something. It's not THAT
difficult to make content with fully cross compatible PNG alpha
transparencies without the use of Flash...
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/transmove/
*shrugs*
>>> Well before you give up, why not send me your FLA file and I'll take a
>>> look. I know how frustrating Flash was when I started out. I spend a LOT
>>> of time with it now working on interactive videos and other scary stuff
>>> with my clients. Even now I get completely lost in it fairly regularly!
>> At this point my problem isn't with Flash, it's with SwishMax, for
>> some reason turning off image smoothing (on the image properties, not
>> under "view") doesn't seem to have any effect. Basically, my current
>> method works great when previewing within Swish and keeping image
>> smoothing turned off under "view", but when you export...yeah, not so
>> good (unless you zoom in at 200 percent or higher).
>Weird :| Well I'll grab a trail of Swish over the holidays and have a
>play myself.
Careful, its interface will spoil ya rotten.
>>> JS is not really an alternative for this sort of thing. In *theory* more
>>> people have Flash enabled than JS enabled.
>> Most people who have JS disabled probably have Flash disabled too.
>I'm not so sure, but I don't have evidence either way other than
>personal experience.
Every person whom I've talked with that's had Javascript disabled has
had Flash disabled too...that's been my personal experience.
>> ...I'm already one of the best:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/
>heheh okay. When you get a site on here, I will believe you
>
>http://www.thefwa.com/
>
>Until then, you're just playing with Flash like me regardless of what
>you might say :)
I would never submit any of my sites to a screw job like that. Their
own site looks and operates like shit and to me what their doing is no
better than the sort of tweenage muppet fuckery that produces crap
like this:
http://members.tripod.com/JCouchenour/award004s.jpg
>> Not too worried about it...take that site you posted, hell they
>> weren't even doing anything with alpha transparencies fer fuck
>> sake...*shakes head*...pathetic.
>lol. There were a few, when the Japanese girl appears.
....uh...yeah I'd like to see the source footage, that's loading WAY
too fast to be on the fly alpha transparent video, looks like it's
been prerendered to me.
Here ya go, kiddo, here's a REAL example of on the fly alpha
transparent video:
http://dev.themakers.com/fp8/video/alpha.html
Standard works pretty good, but even on my dual Xeon system it starts
gettin jittery with the higher end filters.
>Also, lots of video-alpha going on (but of course... you know all about chroma keying
>being a Flash expert and all :P)
....what does it have to do with Flash?
>Talking of which, we're doing some blue-screen stuff just before new
>years - I'll try remember to post the Flash demo here. Unless it's
>totally rubbish anyway (there's a fair chance of that).
If it is, put up yer source stuff, I'll show ya how to do it up
proper. `, )
--
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog
Hatter Quotes
-------------
"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."
"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."
"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"
"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."
"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."
"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."
"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."
"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."
"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."
"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."
"Those who record history are those who control history."
"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|