Jump to content

SaintEfan

Members
  • Content Count

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaintEfan

  1. Are those points redeemable for AE plugins?
  2. It looks like a more pattern is forming on your ground plane. If you had a plane solid color plane you would still notice some banding, but combing that normal banding with that noisy looking texture and you get an ugly more pattern. Have you tried adjusting the texture on your ground plane? Does it look as bad if you blur it a bit, or if it is just a sold, or a less dense texture? I don't know why this would be happening if accept lights is off though. That truly is odd.
  3. The way that would afford you the most control over easing would be to just hand keyframe the lower arms rotation just like you do the top. Just forward kinematics. To simply right an expression for it may not give you the control and subtlety that you want in order to avoid it looking like it was just following an expression. Usually doing something by hand will help you get a more natural or organic feel. if you're looking for a systematic way to get started then you could try this: Set simultaneous keys for the upper and lower arms and then offset the lower arm's keys. Once they are offset you can go in and tweak the easing and timing until they look right.
  4. A lot of really interesting work in there. Some really intriguing moments. A few observations: - Some of the work seems so dense with detail that it's being held back by the small format. Nothing you can really do about that really, but perahps removing some of the textured overlays, dust, and scratches, at least for the real to help some of that detail show through. - The music felt out of place. A lot of the work, especially at the beginning, has a very surreal quality to it and the track you chose is a little mundane by comparison. - Generally things feel a little slow. At first I thought that it was just the work, but as I watched it became clearer that the shots drag on a little long sometimes (particularly the yellow orchard). Adding some energy through tighter editing will really help with the impact. Good stuff!
  5. I feel your pain. We were working all weekend on a project and lost the ability to post files. As well as the ability for anyone to visit out site. I don't know of a better alternative yet, but we're looking into it over here as well.
  6. I will try to stay on topic. Keeping my discussion to the "economy in crisis...". Though many of the other topics that arise naturally are important, related, and especially important to issues of freedom it could sometimes go beyond the strict scope of the "economy" proper. The Federal Reserve is a rather insidious institution. I agree with you that by writ of law the Federal Reserve is considered a private enterprise. However it's actions and its relationship with the federal government is not the type of relationship that one would expect form a supposedly private organization. To begin with the chariman of the Fed is appointed by the president of the United States. The FEDERAL Reserve, despite its status as a private bank, has full control of the United States' money supply, the printing of new currency and the manipulation of interest. Assuming that this is a private organization, as it purports to be, then it, and the state, are guilty of perpetuating a government sponsored monopoly. There is no other private organization that could exist to compete with the Federal Reserve in its role. This isn't even taking into account, yet, the fact that a, quasi, private organization has the power of the printing press! Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional institution. There is no place in the Constitution that grants Congress, or any other branch of the government, the power to delegate the responsibility of currency to a private organization. If we are to assume that the Federal Reserve is lawful and constitutional then we must assume that A) Congress had the power to delegate this role to the Federal Reserve and that the Federal Reserve is thus answerable to Congress which, as you pointed out to me previously, it is not and that C) printing Federal Reserve notes (paper money) is the same thing as coining currency. (Article 1, Section 10 says: “No State shall, ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts; ...”) I'm not sure I understand your reply in regards to Congresses' role in precipitating the crisis through inaction. To assume that the entire private sector is unable to fund itself is to assume that all capital and credit are one and the same, that all private enterprises making up the private sector (market) are credit/debt driven and that this is the natural state of a free market rather than the result of an artificial credit bubble. How did we get to a point in history where we genuinely think that borrowed money (debt) is a perfectly healthy form of capital and that this is how it's always been and will always be? If much of the private sector were not dependent on borrowing how could a bubble like this form and how would that be a bad thing? I don't disagree that it's theoretically possible to measure success of a non-profit-driven program. I was trying to point out how, when it comes to public program funding, there is little motivation to run a program under-budget, thus efficiently. Spend every penny or lose it is usually the mantra of public programs (university departments run the same way too, much to their fundraiser's chagrin). With a perspective like this there's almost no conceivable way that a budget can be truly balanced, adhered to, or even slashed.
  7. a cheap PSU will always go out at 2am when you can't go get a replacement.
  8. you could probably hide your mortgage with the strategic use of a lens flare.
  9. I just wanted to thank everyone on Mograph.net for providing a place to have such intelligent and respectful discussion about everything from motion design to economics. I'm continually impressed by the calibre of people involved in this community. What do you suppose this would have deteriorated into on cgtalk or the cow?
  10. To say that the private sector is unable to finance itself is a bit of a distortion. What we're talking about here is not a complete failure of the entire private sector and the free market. We're talking about a specific area of the private sphere. An area, historically, fraught with heavy government participation. I'm not denying the fact that businesses can be run poorly and inefficiently. What I take issue with is the concept that said inefficient, poorly run, business cannot be allowed to fail. If a bank fails is there going to be large problems? Yes there are. WIll people lose money? Yes they will. Will the world as we know it come to an end? No. If a business, no matter ho large fails, then there will be problems but ultimately, with time, the market will absorb that loss and keep moving forward. To try desperately to prop up a dead or dying business is an invitation to failure and a waste of resources. The credit crisis did not manifest itself because of congress' unwillingness to meddle. The credit crisis has been an inevitability for quite some time and the real estate bubble/crisis was formed precisely BECAUSE of the federal governments interventions. I don't recall saying that profit was the focus when dealing with people's lives. If that was the inference you made then I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Or perhaps that wasn't directed at me? What I did say about profit is that it is a good indicator by which a private enterprise can measure it's success. A non-for-profit is a distinction that we make because actual businesses use this as a measure. In contrast I was pointing out that the public sector lacks many of the quantifiable tools to measure the relative success or failures of its programs. I also don't recall saying that money was more important than human beings and I think that your tone and implications on this point are rather unfair. You seem rather hung-up on my use of the words moral, immoral, and morality. I applied those terms to very specific things, but I will avoid the morality issue in the future as it seems to causing both confusion and consternation. When I was referring to banks being not entirely private what I was referring to was their relationships with the Federal Reserve, Freddie Mac, and Fannie May. Despite the fact that the Federal reserve is un-auditable by congress, and by extension the American people, it is still a public organization. I don't know of any other supposedly private business that can borrow money, have loans guaranteed by, or generally deal so closely with a federal organization like the banks can. People often point to the bank/mortgage fiasco and say that it is "a failure of capitalism" or "a failure of the free market" while entirely ignoring the governments guilty role in the whole mess. The banks did not do this on their own. I'm glad you mention the healthcare system. HMOs are another fantastic example of the federal government's wonderful track record with setting up efficient and productive additions to, what was once, a private sector. Energy distribution is yet another example of a supposedly "private" enterprise with strong government support for their monopolies. I agree that in order to fund government programs taxes must be extracted. That's just logical regardless of my opinions on the matter. No money no programs. I do not concede that the constitution itself grants such authority, however. What I take serious issue with is the implication that my government owns me and the fruits of my labors. There was a time, before fairly serious tax revolts, that taxes were being assessed on individual pieces of property within a house (ie furniture). It sounds ridiculous to us today, but what caused it was a broke government. If we accept that the government has an inherent claim to our money and personal property then we accept that when it gets desperate, due to mismanagement and flaws, it can take from us whatever it claims is necessary for the common good. It's a slippery slope. A command economy is exactly what I'm hearing from our government's plans. Bandying about ideas like buying up private businesses' toxic assets or becoming a part owner of a business or entirely running a business is not ABS that is taking complete command. Once we were over the hump they would, at the very least, leave behind an occupying, peacekeeping, force to make sure things continued to run smoothly.
  11. OMG! the interwebs weren't loading it fast enough. This is ridic!
  12. I think we could get Adobe behind something like that. And we'll let Microsoft and Apple fight it out for the position of State Operating System.
  13. @robot0 - When I referred to wealth, and resource, redistribution I meant to make a distinction between the "market economy" and top down state intervention. I agree that a market is a massive distribution mechanism. In a truly free market that is a healthy and expected function. A government program, package, plan, or scheme is not the same as the free market and its version of redistribution is not normal, healthy, or welcomed as compared to the free market. Trying to top down manage an economy is a fool's errand. Based on what I said I don't think it's fair to attribute to me the view that we should just stop paying taxes all at once. You are right, however, to assume that I have some fundamental philosophical and constitutional concerns regarding taxation as we know it. I never accused a specific public works program of being immoral, that's taking what I said a bit out of context. But I do see a basic flaw and, yes immorality, in diverting resources from productive sectors to unproductive ones simply to try to maintain a status quo that the market has clearly deemed unproductive and broken. I think that the idea, the assumption, that the state has an implied claim to its citizens' earnings that it can choose to "pool" for what it deems as being the common good is one of the most immoral, unconstitutional, and outrageous concepts. I don't know what facet of the private sector you're referring to being less efficient than the public sector, but i it's the banks and the real estate markets then I think you need to take a closer look at just how "private" those were/are. It's not hard to see why a public program has no motivation to be efficient. There is no such thing as profit to measure efficiency or productivity. There are usually no quantifiable criteria drawn-up to measure productivity. Without these measure in place budgets are inevitably going to be spent (even if it means waste) in order to ensure that the program will be given at least as much money in the next cycle. The fundamental difference is that in the private sector a program is rewarded for coming in under budget while the public sector programs are only rewarded with additional funding if they go over or completely spend their alloted budgets. @Govinda - I really appreciate the clarity with which you explain your points. While I may not agree with you on some things I am always able to understand and trace the logic you're using in your posts. Thank you. I think that where we diverge on the economics of this situation is in the Keynes vs. Austrian schools of thought. I know that Keynes' approach is the most widely taught in and adhered to by contemporary economists, but I don't think that makes the theories, models, or tools that it proposes the right ones. The Austrian school of economic thought predicted this situation and is continuing to be predictive and informative. If the Keynsian tools and methods were as valid as proposed then we would have seen this situation coming and made the necessary Keynsian adjustments sooner. I take some issue with the concept that what our economy has become now is the way America's economy has "traditionally" been. What we have now reflects an economy driven by, as you point out, spending and consumption. This spending and consumption, in order to keep going, must be fueled by debt because it's simply out paced anyone's earning ability. The attempt to keep this system afloat and to try to maintain prices on goods (ie houses) at the levels they are now is unrealistic and a stubborn denial of the market forces. Is it really such an awful thing to see housing prices return to reasonable levels? A house was never meant to be an investment, it is a place to live and that's it. As demand decreases then so to will prices. You're right that it will mean a squeeze on consumption based businesses like WalMart and Crate & Barrel, but in the end the market will shift, readjust, and those displaced from that sector will be acquired by another. It's not a pretty or easy process and it's not 'fair' in the sense that those people, individually, did anything wrong, but it's a necessary readjustment. It's unreasonable to think that every person who loses a job in an unproductive sector will spend the rest of their days jobless. The thing that will keep the job pool from shifting is government sponsored jobs-for-jobs-sake programs.
  14. Simply setting up public works programs by handing money over to states is not going to generate the kind of employment that is going to help solve this crisis. The basic premise of diverting and redistributing money is a flawed one at best and immoral at worst. The government doesn't have any money of its own so ANY money it spends is a redistribution of money extracted from some segment of its populace. Simply fabricating a job digging a ditch or laying some cable does not a strong economy make. Working to build America's infrastructure, while nice for the state projects, does nothing to increase or even address the wealth and savings of the nation. For each person that is hired to one of these projects there is someone else that already has work that is unable to build up their savings or get out of debt because their earnings is being diverted to the first individual. Much like a snake eating its own tail.
  15. Our government's sure done their history homework. I mean it's ALWAYS worked in the past to take money from productive sectors and redistributing it to problematic ones right?
  16. Some interesting work in there. I didn't see very much in the way of motion design or video, but perhaps the portfolio is still in development? The other possibility is that I wasn't navigating correctly. I found the site to be somewhat frustrating to get around. I felt like I was missing something the whole time. Like there would have been more to check out if I could have understood any ot he text on the site. The fonts, while clearly appropriate given the style of the work, is largely unreadable and makes it difficult to want to read anything on the site or even stay to look around. Just my first impressions for what it's worth.
  17. This piece isn't poorly executed. I think you've got a better handle on details than some folks' "first crack" work. The concept itself is a little bland though. To answer your question about how it strikes me at first: It feels very safe and familiar. Everyone's seen this type of thing before. To be completely honest it strikes me more as an election update bumper for CNN rather than a sports related piece. Check out what blur put together a couple years ago for NFL on FOX. It's got a football feel, it's got action, and it's managed to shift the color palette away from red white and blue.
  18. You did a good job integrating the design elements into the footage. I think you chose a good pallet (bleu). I like the rack focus effect on the wine bar section. Ultimately I agree with mjoshua, though, about how the motion graphics elements feel a little superfluous. It fills a bit like they were added for portfolio purposes rather than to serve the message's needs. I think a piece like this, with a mood like Bleu's, would be better served by subtlety. If there are going to be graphic elements, like titles such as "wine bar" they should probably be incorporated in a much more subdued fashion and not seek to steal the focus from the footage.
  19. Since, as mentioned earlier, jellyfish don't actually move their tentacles you may not actually need to use a simulation and could probably get away with some hand keyframing and a lattice deformer. Alternatively if you know the jelly's path of travel you could setup a lattice deformer that the fish moves through and appropriately squashes and stretches as it goes. In fact looking at example 2 of the jellyfish you posted I'd say that could have been a way they went about it The fluidity would just come from good timing and frame curve manipulation.
  20. I think I'll put my money into gold teeth. Soon my mouth will be worth millions.
  21. Did CA get jealous about the attention Illinois' governor (former) was getting?
  22. Ignore the labeling and let the work (whatever approach it may be) speak for itself.
  23. Everyone starts out at a different place and we're ALL learning and growing. If you keep pushing yourself you're never going to get worse, you're only going to improve your skills. It takes time. A little secret: you're never going to be completely happy with your own work. That's just how it goes. The designers that you probably look up to as being where you want to be aren't even happy with their own work. It's what makes them great, always pushing.
  24. There's some well made work in there. As it runs right now it feels a little bland and plodding. It's not because the work is bad, but because it's a little bit long and filled with a lot of long cuts. I think you could trim down many of the shots to add a little bit of life to it. You're proud to show every frame of your hard work, but in a reel you want to keep it short, sweet, and give just a enough of the good stuff. Almost like a teaser trailer in a way.
  25. It's not a bad reel for a first go. One thing I think you should definitely look at is making sure that what work you are putting in is presented as best as possible. By that I mean, see if you can get rid of the interlace problem on some of the shots. It makes it pretty hard to appreciate the hardwork you put into those shots because they just look broken. As for 'elegance' and 'sophistication' I would say that a lot of it comes with time and experience. You're already halfway there by being able to recognize a lack or problem with your work. The next step is to really try to identify what is missing. Look at your shot and say to yourself what would a director think is wrong with this? If this was a spot for Nike or a VFX piece for the new Star Trek movie what would put off the audience? It's not cheating to look at other, similar, work and try to figure out what they did better or differently. Perhaps a specific critique would be helpful: The shot where the comets are striking the ruined building. -it has some trouble functioning as a VFX piece because it's too obvious that it's a still photo with some meteors composited over it -if this was a vfx piece for a movie you'd want to have depth right? so maybe try breaking the photo up into layers (foreground, middleground, background) to give it some depth -the meteors really standout form the photo plate. Maybe some color correction would help. Try to match them closer to the look of the photo These are just a few examples of some things you can do to add some subtlety to this shot. Above all make sure your ALWAYS asking 'why?' Why is this element included? Why is it placed here? Why is it this color? Why is it moving this way? and so on. Really question everything you do and if you don't have a good answer to a question then maybe it doesn't belong or by finding a better answer you'll fix it bit by bit. Just my rambling 2 cents. I hope it was at least somewhat helpful. *Just out of curiosity, what is your educational background? There have been many discussions on this board about where to acquire knowledge and training (self taught vs. university vs. online) but whichever road you take make sure to seek out new knowledge.
×
×
  • Create New...