🚀 go-pugleaf

On 02-Apr-96 17:02:09, Anthony R Pierre <apierre@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3753.6663T1132T646@execpc.com> jeffsj@execpc.com (Jeffery S. Jones)
>>  If someone is going to buy Lightwave, I'd assume that they will get
>>the latest version, or update to it.  In any case, you could always
>>make RAM-playable animations from LW if you rendered single frames and
>>combined them into an animation, with something like Rend24.

>Yes, you can make ram based anims this way, but it is 'easier'? And you
>have to obtain the program to make it unless you have the latest
>version and a 4000 to go with it. Most people dont.

  The original questioner was using a A1200, which would also mean using
the stand-alone Lightwave.  And the A1200 can do HAM8 as well as the
4000, and the stand-alone does generate animations in several formats.

  If you have Lightwave and a Toaster, the only reason not to have the
latest version is because you didn't want to pay the upgrade cost.

  Rend24 isn't too hard to use, because it is a background process. It
isn't as easy to use as simply selecting an animation format, but it
does give you more control.

  It also works for things like running frames through an image
processor, like ADPro, before compiling them into an animation.

>>  But, in your opinion, which is easier to use to create animations,
>>Imagine or Lightwave?  Try to ignore your experience using Imagine;
>>which has the easier learning curve, is faster to set up animations,
>>is more productive?

>I cant really speak too much on LW. I own it (I have a Toaster), but
>use Imagine because I know how. I have no problem at all in creating
>animations. I am sure that you have to them up (paths and motion) on LW
>too, it is just a matter if you know how. As for learning curve, once
>again, I havent taken the time to 'learn' LW yet, so cant really speak
>on the learning curve. But taking the time to learn LW is
>counterproductive to me. Time is money. Whether a product is 'more'
>productive is subjective. LW is not productive for me because I dont
>know it... you get what I am saying.

  I get what you are saying.  But LW uses a "movie set" scene setup,
which lets you easily set up animation motion paths, and allows you to
always see what the scene will look like, from the camera view.

  Similarly, for setting up lights, surfaces, etc., all done via a
mouse-controlled interface, moving the objects around until you are
happy with them, then setting the keyframes for them.

  I find it easier to teach people how to use Lightwave than to use
Imagine, though I'll admit I haven't used Imagine since 2.0.

>>Cost is a factor, naturally.  But I do think that the cost difference
>>between Imagine and Lightwave definitely favors LW.  Though if you
>>have enough money, you can get both, and Imagine is a good second
>>program, for its texture-generation if nothing else.  Yes, there are
>>other add-on programs for LW for that, and lightwave includes many of
>>its own, but Imagine is really quite good at it.

>There is a large cost different between Imagine and LW for the Amiga or
>PC. About twice as much for LW. Anyone can get the latest version of
>Imagine for the PC from their web page for $200. And as you said, by
>the time you add those add-ons, the price goes up more. Dont get me
>wrong, I am not firmly entrenched in anything where I wont change. I
>own a PC now (in addition to 2 Amiga's). But Imagine has been very good
>to me. I know enough people that also run it instead of LW, there is
>their web page and excellent phone support, and, constant upgrading.
>But like I said, I own both and will be taking a look at it.

  And Lightwave is about $750 US, a significant bit more.  But
proportionately, you could treat Imagine as an add-on to Lightwave,
while the converse wouldn't happen.

  Big pluses for using Lightwave:  there is a very strong online support
group, in the comp.graphics.applications.lightwave newsgroup and the
lightwave mailing list.  Newtek reps, including the main programmers,
have a presence there.  LW is used in many broadcast applications, and
seeing how the pros do it inspires your own work -- and you can get
detailed info on how TV and movie effects are done via LW.

  I have been very happy with LW, and extremely pleased with its output.
Especially, compared to the time spent setting up the scenes.  For some
simple video work (the classic flying logos, cliche but everyone uses
them); I can do the basic modelling and scene setup in a few minutes,
and turn out a finished animation, or several, in less than an hour.
Just like those photo services ;)


--
*-__________________________ | *Starfire* | _________________________-*
Jeff Jones  email:jeffsj@execpc.com  *//* Amiga Lives! |Born
*TFG* *Starfire* Design Studio        *\\//* 1985-1994,    |again 1995!
--