|
|
Posted by SpaceGirl on 12/26/05 18:40
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> 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.
>
Because you are living in client-side land. If you want to do anything
with services, or use XML, process user input etc, you cannot do ANY of
this without coding. But really, your statement demonstrates a real lack
of knowledge about how Flash works beyond animation and perhaps stop();
?? All the really creative sides are as much about good use of AS as
design-smarts.
> 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.
It's not brilliant I admit, but then there's nothing that really does
what it does quite so well.
>> 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.
You can ALSO do it from the select tool honey. It's a choice. When you
become a PhotoShop poweruser you run full screen with NO TOOLS visible
at all. That's how everyone in our studio works. It's so much faster.
>
>> 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.
Have you ever use PhotoShop? Scrollwheel zooms the image in PhotoShop.
Duh :)
>
> I'm not done yet. Paint Shop Pro also comes bundled with Animation
> Shop...Photoshop, not even CS2 has anything like that.
Photoshop comes shipped with ImageReady (since version 6, and we're now
on version 9). It's a fully fledged animation/web tool.
> 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.
That's because unlike many other editing programs PhotoShop has
non-linear undo. So if I wanted to undo an effect I did 4 hours ago but
NOT change the things I did after that, I can with a few clicks. How
else would you do it? You cant use CTRL+Z to magically select an event
out of 10000s of events to undo. It cant read your mind just yet :)
>
> Oh and Paint Shop's scripting interface is like LIGHT YEARS easier and
> more intuitive than Photoshop's.
>
At some things yes. There are a few things I like about it.
>> 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).
Because there would be a 1000 buttons on the UI.
>> 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.
Dont believe you :) You list of things you claimed PhotoShop didn't do
proves you cant have had more than a casual glance at PhotoShop, or
you're just a beginner :p
>
>> PhotoShop has smart objects that can be embedded
>> PhotoShop or Illustrator files.
>
> ...those aren't selections, Honey.
But they can contain selections. So it's a whole new level of
functionality. You can save 100s of selections, objects inside objects
etc and contain them in files that can be "included' inside other files.
>
>> 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.
Its useful. Imagine this; you are working on designs for a company web
site. You integrate their pretty logo into letter heads, web sites,
brochures etc. The company then changes their mind about their logo. Do
you really want to have to edit ALL those documents by hand? No - with
objects you can. You simply edit the logo file and all of their
documents are updated. It's not "thinking for you", it's helping your
workflow. If you ever work on large projects you'll find this sort of
thing invaluable - and certainly the "must buy" feature in CS2 I think.
Well, that and the improved camera raw support.
> 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.
I do know how to do it, but that doesn't mean I'd want to. I've done
several shorts that are bitmap based, but to me that's not where the
real elegance of Flash lays.
> ...of course my skill in image encoding methodology is nothing short
> of God like,
Oh really lol.
>> 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
Well, that's one way to look at it, but you're aiming pretty low. My
freelance clients range from record labels and popular bands for
Universal to interactive sites for Yell. Home-bru sites have their
market, but not if you're after the kind of clients that are willing to
let you play with more cutting edge stuff (and pay for the time it takes
to do it).
>> 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
More of the same.
> Standard works pretty good, but even on my dual Xeon system it starts
> gettin jittery with the higher end filters.
Yeah, that's where careful design comes in and avoiding frame-based
content. Scripting movies tends to be smoother as it's not tied into the
timeline as much.
>> 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?
Lots. You can't do video-alpha without it. Unless you think video-alpha
is simply adding an alpha fade to the video object? Video alpha is
filming your video against a blue/green background then letting Flash
replace that background with anything (another video, for example). The
same trick they use in movies. Flash can do all of this real-time now,
but you need a video that has an alpha channel before you can begin.
>> 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. `, )
>
Sounds fun :) I'll try post when we're done filming. Not that we've even
started yet! :o
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|