Conference hydra::amiga_v1

    
    My next purchase is the VT, I hope within a month, is the paint program
    as good as the reviews I've been reading, and when you output to the
    frame buffer and then to NTSC, is it "real" clean, ie colors and res sharp?
    
    ~Ray

    re .1
    	I talked with  Mark Thompson when he dropped the Todd Rudgren video
    (sp?) off at System Eyes. The discussion centered mainly around a 
    comparison of LightWave,and Imagine. Another person that was there
    is a heavy user of imagine so it proved to be an informative session.
    He liked the user interface for LightWave, as the video played
    we discussed the different tools,and methods  used to get the effects 
    that we were viewing,and how they could be achieved in IMAGINE. As
    expected LightWave has features not yet seen in Imagine,and was missing
    several features that Imagine has. Most noted was the fact that
    lightwave does not do full raytraceing yet,and lacked Imagines object
    cycling powers. LightWave did a superior job on the reflective
    water,and mapping the spinning globes. I can't remember the term Mark
    used to discribe the mapping function(this was last weekend).
    	However When We started discussing ToasterPaint Mark stated that
    he liked to use DCTV as his paint program, and then import the pics
    into the toaster.(these were done on the toaster He did'nt get DCTV
    until recently). He said that DCTV was one of the most incredable piant
    systems he had ever seen. I expressed concerns about compatability,and
    he said that the Toaster,and DCTV worked well together.
    								bill 

    
    I guess, from what I've read, that the Toaster paint is just like Digi
    Paint 3.  According to Amiga rep, the DCTV doesn't have any better 
    digitizing capabilities than the VT.  I wonder in the future if DC
    would sell just the paint software alone?
    
    ~Ray

>>    digitizing capabilities than the VT.  I wonder in the future if DC
>>    would sell just the paint software alone?
  
	Ray,  
        The Hardware with the DCTV has to exsists. When you paint in DCTV
you have your moniter set to Composit mode,and are actually painting in NTSC.
The paint software is useless without the box. DCTV could be compared to the
Quantel paintbox, as opposed to any Amiga paint product. 
	DCTV is a single frame digitizer,as opposed to the toaster that will
grab 8 images,and then average them to eliminate movement. I saw this last
night at the dealers,and it is really a nice toaster feature. For digitizing
the toaster is the way to go. I played with it last night, but because they
had just set up the display I spent most of the time in the manual. Steve
set it so that the live video picture would allow you to see thru it to the
picture behind.(actually a partial fade with a product like supergen)It was
nice to be able to transistion that effect though.
								bill

    
    From what I've read there's 3 things that Toaster paint needs to have
    "fixed": 1. Autoscrolling   2. Whole picture on the screen (since
    there's only one res mode 736x480) with tools intact.   3. Text rendering
    is said to be in a need of a "serious overhaul".  NewTek has a rep
    for addressing problems found by users, hopefully these problems will
    be fixed.  The final word was that the output was "gorgeous"!
    
    ~Ray
              

    Mark Thompson bought bye an animation that he has done on the toaster.
    It is going to be his entry into siggraph this year. I thought it was
    pretty nice,and after he has submitted it he will give me a copy on 
    video. In comparing this video to his pics on the net I'd say he has
    come a long way in a short time. Rock Productions also sent System Eyes
    a copy of the membership drive video for the united way. They produced
    it using the toaster. Of course they are true video people,and the use
    of the toaster reflects this. In this video we see the transistions,
    and at times the live video is solorized,and then faded to color. 
    So when you sit down at the united way drive in New England this 
    year look for the effects.
    							bill

    Mark Thompson's article on using Lightwave in the Aug issue of Amazing
    computing is very good. one of the things that are explained is the
    differences between Imagine, and Lightwave. These are the things that
    Mark and I were talking about last month, that I said I could not relay
    properly. It soon becomes apparent that Lightwave has several features
    that are lacking in Imagine. However it is just as apparent that this
    is a two way street. While lightwave users are looking for "Textures"
    Imagine users have the benefit of built in textures, and these can be
    used  many different ways. I do envy the Edge Opacity feature, and am
    still trying to figure out how to duplicate this in imagine. The glows, 
    and and such are what I am looking for. 
	The reference to "Decals" can be done in Imagine without any problem.
    As the products develop they will become closer in functionally, at
    least this is my feeling. I did notice reference to "High end systems"
    using methods other than raytracing to get effects, justified by
    savings in computation time a lot. My gut feeling is that while it
    looks good on paper lightwave, and products that don't raytrace are
    not not as efficient in the respect that the raytraced image will give
    you shadows, and reflections ect; automatically, and more realisticly
    than modelers. This trace time can be offset by the time and effort
    that is needed to add the effects in lightwave.(not to mention the
    added skill needed). With the 030 products available true raytracing
    is not the burden it used to be. (it still kills me on the 68000)
    So the war goes on and in this war there are winners, the consumer.
    								bill