Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jporter313

  • Rank
    MoGraph Superstar
  • Birthday 03/13/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco, CA
  1. I'll just leave this here. http://gizmodo.com/5992781/a-pretty-little-map-of-all-the-san-francisco-apartments-you-cant-afford Seriously. Fuck this stupid city.
  2. I love Nuke for compositing, had a license at my last job. As with all node based compositors though, the immense power and flexibility comes at the cost of less fluid sequencing and layering. It's more focused on making single shots look awesome which are then passed off to an editor. It's an incredible program, and really great for some special case motion graphics, but I wouldn't use it as a replacement for After Effects in a motion graphics workflow.
  3. Wow, Pixelmator looks great, too bad I'm on a PC at home
  4. Chris, I'm going to guess that you owned your copy of Creative Suite before Adobe started pushing CC. That advice is great for new users, but for those of us who have invested thousands of dollars maintaining our licenses already, the situation isn't nearly that rosy. Not to continue beating on the Spotify thing, but ownership of entertainment media is an entirely different situation with a much less serious set of ramifications than not owning the primary tools with which you generate income.
  5. No, you don't, same thing with Autodesk's subscription program. You pay a yearly fee which entitles you to upgrades at no extra charge, but you then own those licenses outright, you own them no matter what you do, that's the major difference here. CC seems to be more of a long term rental. And as we all know, renting long term is always a great deal.
  6. Hey Todd, I'm pretty reluctant to move from traditional licensing to Creative Cloud, I was wondering if you could address my biggest reservations: -The pricing seems unfair to those who have already purchased and maintained Creative Suite licenses. Currently, it costs me about $350 a version to upgrade my copy of Production Studio. Assuming the feature releases would be equivalent to about on upgrade per year, under creative cloud, I'll be paying about $600 instead of that $350 to maintain my software. This also assumes I would have otherwise never skipped a version. Adobe's answer to this seems to be the first year discounted rate of $30/month, but assuming this is going to be a long term solution, a savings of roughly $240 for one year is really underwhelming. -There is no permanence to the licenses, if I disapprove of the way CC is being handled and stop paying, I lose my access to the software. This is a significant disadvantage over owning a license. Are you guys hearing this as a common concern, and do you have an answer for it? -What's to guarantee that Adobe won't significantly raise the price of subscription once everyone's signed up, or that development won't stagnate? I've seen this happen with Maya under Autodesk's care, once they went to a subscription model, development on Maya seemed to slow down to a crawl with only 2 or 3 new features per version, and often poorly implemented ones at that. I'm also hearing a rumor at work that Adobe will continue to sell licenses, but only as download, no boxed versions. My understanding is that you are doing away with the concept of license ownership entirely. Which of these scenarios is accurate? If you are still going to sell licenses, how would that work in a system with no version numbers? Thanks in advance for any clarification you can give me.
  7. That's interesting information. I had heard that Adobe was going to an annual release cycle, but I've heard things like that from software companies many times before, only to be let down. I guess I had the releases wrong, and I was operating on the fact that i haven't heard a peep about CS 6.5 or CS 7 or whatever it'll be next, despite the anniversary of the CS6 release drawing near. I had also read a few things on the internet stating that the next version was expected in 2014. As far as the rest of it, I'd be much more interested in Creative Cloud if it operated in such a way that if you wanted to stop paying, you didn't lose access to all the software you had been paying to use. The difference with something like Autodesk's subscription is that it requires an initial purchase, and continuous subscription after that. I appreciate that Creative Cloud allows you to start the subscription without paying a hefty upfront fee, but maybe if it worked in such a way that you built up credit and after paying for a year you owned the current licenses, I'd be more interested. So if you stopped paying after a certain amount of time, you would lose access to the extended Creative Cloud features, but get to keep the software itself. The idea that you invest all this money and are left with nothing is the major blocker for me. Being a current owner of Creative Suite, I'm reluctant to sink the money that I would otherwise invest in the upgrade to try out Creative Cloud and then be left with nothing, and no money if I decide it's not right for me, as well as non-upgradeable licenses with Adobes one version upgrade policy change if I stay on Creative Cloud too long. I'd imagine there are a lot of people who feel the same way as me.
  8. Does anyone have a good argument to justify buying into Adobe Creative Cloud? As far as I can see, the economics of it just don't work at all. Let me break it down: Right now I'm on Production Premium CS 5.5. If I chose to upgrade to CS 6, it would cost me somewhere between $300 and $400. Now let's assume that adobe released a new version every year, which they don't, I would still be paying $720 for that upgrade every year ($60 x 12 months), about twice as much as it would cost me to just keep upgrading. In addition to this, if I decide to stop paying, I'm left with nothing, whereas with upgrading, I'm left with the current licensed version of my software. In real life, they release about every 2 years, so with creative cloud, you're paying roughly $1440 for a single subscription dependent license upgrade of their software. This just seems like a horrible deal. Compare this to other graphics software with subscription models like Maya (I can't believe I'm playing Autodesk as the good guy here) or Cinema 4D: You pay a set subscription fee, and you get unlimited support and permanent upgrades every year, plus it's cheaper to subscribe than it is to upgrade a la carte. In other words, they incentivise the subscription. Why would anyone do Creative Cloud? Can anyone provide a counterpoint?
  9. Ahh, that totally makes sense now, thanks, I'll try it out in a bit.
  10. I'm trying to create an expression that will attach each dimension of the position of a layer in After Effects to the position of another layer separately. I figured I could modify this expression I found to do it: w = wiggle(1,50); [value[0],w[1]] as it addresses each dimension individually. The problem is, whenever I change that wiggle to anything else, for example: w = 0; [value[0],w[1]] it throws an error: Afer Effects warning: Class 'number' has no property or method named '1' Expression disabled. Error occurred at line 3. Comp: XXXXX Layer: 2 XXXXX Property: 'Position' This doesn't make any sense to me. Anyone have any idea why it wouldn't allow me to use anything but a wiggle?
  11. Sorry guys it's been really busy this week. I figured out the problem a bit after posting this. In case anyone needs the answer, the expression I used was: lay = PICKWHIP TARGET LAYER; lay.toWorld(lay.transform.anchorPoint); The problem seems to have been the "pos =" part, don't know where that came from in the examples. iline, I did search for this, didn't have much luck, maybe I was just searching using the wrong terms. Thanks for the help guys.
  12. Hi, I have a hierarchy in After Effects and I'm trying to lock a position parameter of a spherize effect on another layer to a Null that I have parented into the hierarchy, getting the sphere to follow the Null. Because the null is parented, I need to find it's world space for the expression to work since it's position values con't change when it moves. I've found several references to this expression: lay = (pickwhip the child null layer) ; pos = lay.toWorld( lay.anchorPoint); Such as here: http://www.videocopilot.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24113 Seems to work for everyone else, but when I implement it, I get this error: After Effects warning: Function lay.toWorld is undefined Expression disabled. Error occured at line 2. Comp 'XXXXXXXX' Layer 17 ('HelmetReflectionAnimated') Property: 'Center of Sphere' Any ideas what I might be missing?
  13. Hi. I'm trying to create a C4d scene where I have a number of cubes, each with different textures and UV maps on each side. The basic effect is so that if I have a grid of cubes and I turn the cubes to different sides, as a whole they will make up a different image depending on which side is facing the camera. When I used to do things like this in Maya, I would rotate all the cubes in the grid so they faced one direction, select the front facing face on all of them, then create UVs:Planar from the direction they were facing, this would automatically assign UV coordinates to all the front faces so they would show their part of the image when they were rotated this way. I would then repeat this process for each of the remaining sides of the cubes. I'm trying to replicate this process in C4d, problem is that when I try to apply the UVs, Cinema4d won't let me select faces on more than one object at the same time when I'm in the UV mapping environment. How would I do this?
  14. I'm trying to create a tree in Cinema4d for an illustration I'm doing. Ideally I'd like it to be made of polys because I want to show the facets in the design, otherwise I'd use particles and tracer. Does anyone know how I can do this without spending several hundred dollars on a plugin?
  15. Jesus, I'm so lost here. Ok, so I tried doing that and it worked, but the segments would pop in, so I figured I just need to add a delay effector set to blend, great, it worked, no problem. Now to solve the problem mentioned earlier, that they weren't scaling from the center of the circle, but from the center of each individual polygon. I take Myleniums advice and add a small segment of a disc to a radial cloner object so it's a bunch of small slices making up the circle in the cloner. I then add the same effectors to it, and voila', the cloner won't recognize the step effector's falloff in that context. I can't figure out why it wouldn't do this, so I experiment a lot with it, to no avail, I can't get the cloner to respect the spherical falloff, no matter what i do. I can get the cloner to recognize the step effector's parameters, but no spherical falloff. So I decide to approach this from a different angle, What I really want is to have the movement sequenced in order of each objects index within the cloner, that way it isn't dependent on finding the right shape of falloff, and I can have any group of things in any arrangement do something in sequence no matter how they're arranged in space. My initial approach is to keyframe the animation scaling from 0 to 1 on the cloner source object (circle slice), then turn off fix clone in the cloner, and add a step effector with all transform attributes turned off and time offset turned up. Wow, this works, but now I want to stack a delay on it to make the animation jiggle a little bit, and i can't because the animation is keyframed rather than being generated by mograph, but as with many things today, I can't seem to figure out how to get mograph to do this motion and then offset it, any ideas? It seems weird that this is so difficult, I was always under the impression that this was what mograph was really good at, but I can't seem to ever get this time offset thing to work right and it's something I want to do pretty frequently, it would open up a lot of possibilities with this program for me to figure this out.
  • Create New...