In article <CwCGIJ....@lexmark.com> jmcc...@lexmark.com (Jim McCabe) writes: >What are the major differences between the two Autodesk >programs, "Animator Pro" and "3D Studio"?
AAPro is an animation program. 3DS is a 3D modeler/renderer. 'nuff said.
Glyn Williams <gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote: >> What are the major differences between the two Autodesk >> programs, "Animator Pro" and "3D Studio"? >> > Thanks, >> > Jim >> jmcc...@lexmark.com
>Answer: One d
>Animator Pro is a deeply weak 2D painting/animation package.
>3DS is a 3D rendering package.
>Glyn Williams
I think that Ani Pro is a great program, I use it often to make taextrue maps, edit fli & flc files that are produced in 3d-studio. There is a poco program that enables second party programs expand the capabilities of Ani-pro, too bad this hasn't been utilized. I'm waiting to see what the new version offers.
Note the name!
-- Joe McCabe, P.E., Multimedia Manager Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology (CREST) www: http://solstice.crest.org/ for my home page add this: staff/jcpm/joes_home/jcpm_homepage.html
In article <CwJ2yn....@cix.compulink.co.uk> gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Glyn Williams") writes: >From: gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Glyn Williams") >Subject: Re: Animator Pro vs. Studio 3D >Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 11:08:46 GMT >> What are the major differences between the two Autodesk >> programs, "Animator Pro" and "3D Studio"? >> > Thanks, >> > Jim >> jmcc...@lexmark.com >Answer: One d >Animator Pro is a deeply weak 2D painting/animation package. >3DS is a 3D rendering package. >Glyn Williams
Glyn, I would agree with your assessment that 3D Studio is a 3D rendering package, but why would you say Animator Pro is "deeply weak"?
> In article <CwJ2yn....@cix.compulink.co.uk> gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk > ("Glyn Williams") writes:>From: gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Glyn > Williams")>Subject: Re: Animator Pro vs. Studio 3D > >Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 11:08:46 GMT > > >> What are the major differences between the two Autodesk > >> programs, "Animator Pro" and "3D Studio"? > >> > Thanks, > >> > Jim > >> jmcc...@lexmark.com > > >Answer: One d > > >Animator Pro is a deeply weak 2D painting/animation package. > > >3DS is a 3D rendering package. > > >Glyn Williams > > Glyn, I would agree with your assessment that 3D Studio is a 3D > rendering package, but why would you say Animator Pro is "deeply weak"?
1) The worst graphical user interface in history. Conforming to no standards apart from its own. Almost all simple operations require referring to the manual to make them work. 2) No support for 24 bit modes, TGA or alpha channel making it useless for professional work. 3) Weak drawing tools which do not support anti-aliased or translucent inks. 4) Confused palette editing tools stemming from its 16 colour origins. 5) A load of other stuff which I have forgotten about because it is so bad I never used it again. 5) It is in fact *so* bad that Autodesk have decided to kill the program and start from scratch, rather than continue to work on this turkey.
Animator Pro is a 2D animation program with a few 3D effects using flat surfaces (things appearing to move to or from you, or spinning). 3D Studio is a full 3D modeling and rendering program. You build a 3D object and use a camera and light sources to view the image. 2D and 3D are as different, if not more so than, bit mapped graphics and vector based graphics. Neither will ever replace the other. -- msad...@netcom.com
In article <CwLD1H...@cix.compulink.co.uk> gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Glyn Williams") writes: >> In article <CwJ2yn....@cix.compulink.co.uk> gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk >> ("Glyn Williams") writes:>From: gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Glyn >> Williams")>Subject: Re: Animator Pro vs. Studio 3D
[deleted much]
> 1) The worst graphical user interface in history. Conforming to no > standards apart from its own.
That's a highly subjective opinion. I'll grant that it's different than Windows CUA etc. I actually think it's a fairly efficient interface with a lot fewer mouse clicks or what have you required to do a task than you'd have to do with a CUA type interface. I personally like it.
> Almost all simple operations require referring to the manual to make > them work.
Only because one's mind is closed and/or you don't try to learn it. Once I'd been through the tutorial and used it a bit, I've found little reason to refer to the manual at all.
> 2) No support for 24 bit modes, TGA or alpha channel making it useless > for professional work.
Two points: 1.) I'm not aware of any professional canon that requires 24 bits or you'll be de-barr'd. 2.) 24 bit animations do get big, big files and play very slowly. Admittedly not a problem if one is going to tape, but not everybody in this world goes to tape. The original purpose of the program was NOT to go to tape.
> 3) Weak drawing tools which do not support anti-aliased or translucent > inks.
That just an opinion. Others may disagree. I do about the translucent ink, or maybe we have a different definition of the word 'translucent'.
> 4) Confused palette editing tools stemming from its 16 colour origins.
Animator never had a 16-color origin. The original Animator was 256 color, the same as today's version. The palette editing tools are part of the interface which you don't like anyway. Incidentally, did you know that if you don't like the supplied pallette edit tools, you could just write your own using the built in POCO language?
> 5) A load of other stuff which I have forgotten about because it is so > bad I never used it again. 5) It is in fact *so* bad that Autodesk have > decided to kill the program and start from scratch, rather than continue > to work on this turkey.
From what I've seen on the Autodesk forum on Compuserve, Autodesk is saying that Animator Studio (the "new" version) is actually complementary to Animator Pro and *does not* fully replace Animator Pro function for function. Improved color depth to be sure but *lesser* capabilities in other areas.
> Apart form that its great.
Actually, I think it's great - period. Geez, this looked like it belonged in an .adovcacy group.
George, I was asked why I thought Ani Pro it was weak and I consequently answered.
> > > Almost all simple operations require referring to the manual to > make> them work. > > Only because one's mind is closed and/or you don't try to learn
it. > Once I'd been through the tutorial and used it a bit, I've found little > reason to refer to the manual at all.
I find the tools palette confusing and obscure. I find the number of modal featured confusing. I cannot understand the thinking behind little switches marked "T". This kind of user interface belongs in the past and clearly Autodesk thinks so too. I reserve the right to dislike stuff for being unfriendly.
> > > 2) No support for 24 bit modes, TGA or alpha channel making it useless > > for professional work. > > Two points: 1.) I'm not aware of any professional canon that >
requires 24 bits or you'll be de-barr'd. 2.) 24 bit animations do get > big, big files and play very slowly. Admittedly not a problem if one is > going to tape, but not everybody in this world goes to tape. The > original purpose of the program was NOT to go to tape.
> In my opinon a 256 colour animation is simply not suitable for
broadcast material. I think your last point is interesting. What exactly *is* the purpose of this program?
> > 3) Weak drawing tools which do not support anti-aliased or translucent > > inks. > > That just an opinion. Others may disagree. *All* other paint
packages I am aware of, Photoshop, Fractal and even the anciant DPaint permit all primitives to be anti-aliased.
> > 4) Confused palette editing tools stemming from its 16 colour origins.
> > Animator never had a 16-color origin. The original Animator was
256 > color, the same as today's version. The original program was actually on the Atari ST - which only allowed 16 colours on screen at once.
I may be wrong but didn't Autodesk say they were freezing and future development on Ani Pro. If this new title is complementary to Ani Pro wouldn't they continue to develop the product?
> Actually, I think it's great - period. Geez, this looked like it >
belonged in an .adovcacy group.
*You* were advocating it. I was criticizing it, or is that what you meant?
In article <CwpE96....@cix.compulink.co.uk> gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Glyn Williams") writes: >From: gl...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Glyn Williams") >Subject: Re: Animator Pro vs. Studio 3D >Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 20:58:18 GMT >George, I was asked why I thought Ani Pro it was weak and I consequently >answered.
Lee > I asked that question. I often speak to Autodesk Multimedia reps and one of the major things I have complained about is the user interfacte to Animator Pro. However, remember that in its early days as a 320 X 240 program it was one of very few programs with the kind of power it offered. Only Deluxe Paint III on the Amiga was in its price/performance range. So I feel that their move to Windows with a redesigned interface is just a natural evolution.
>> > > Almost all simple operations require referring to the
manual to>> make> them work.>> > Only because one's mind is closed and/or you don't try to learn >it.
> Once I'd been through the tutorial and used it a bit, I've found >little > reason to refer to the manual at all.
Lee > Same here. If I don't use the program for a period of time I may have to refer to the manuals to rember a technique but once again I am not defending the interace. It does need work and the the Studio should solve some of those problems
>I find the tools palette confusing and obscure. I find the
number of >modal featured confusing. I cannot understand the thinking behind little >switches marked "T". This kind of user interface belongs in the past and >clearly Autodesk thinks so too. I reserve the right to dislike stuff for
>being unfriendly.
Lee> Can't really disagree there. The thing I do like though is the power this program offers for the price once you do learn how to get by the user interface.
>> > > 2) No support for 24 bit modes, TGA or alpha channel making
it >useless>> > for professional work.
Lee> At this point I don't believe 24-bit color nor 32-bit alpha channel is necessary for professional work. That depends on your final output and purpsose. I know of a lot of professional work that is being done in 16-color (ucchhh) so it can be played back on machines with this limited capability.
>> > Two points: 1.) I'm not aware of any professional canon that > >requires 24 bits or you'll be de-barr'd. 2.) 24 bit animations do get > >big, big files and play very slowly. Admittedly not a problem if one is > >going to tape, but not everybody in this world goes to tape. The >
>original purpose of the program was NOT to go to tape.>> In my opinon a 256
colour animation is simply not suitable for >broadcast material. I think your last point is interesting. What exactly >*is* the purpose of this program?
Lee> IMHO the purpose of this program was 256-color animation on the DOS platform at a time when no other program could offer that capability on DOS. The FLC format (of which the origin was on the Amiga under a different name I believe) was a breakthrough on the PC. AA Pro was the first to provide this capability at 640 X 480. I don't disagree that this program is not suited to creating broadcast quality videos, but it certainly is usable for creating very effective instructional, informative, advertising, scientific, etc. etc. aniations.
>> > 3) Weak drawing tools which do not support anti-aliased or translucent >> > inks. >> > That just an opinion. Others may disagree. *All* other paint >packages I am aware of, Photoshop, Fractal and even the anciant DPaint >permit all primitives to be anti-aliased.
Lee > Can't disagree with this opinion at all. Feel that this was an error of exclusion on the designers part.
> > > 4) Confused palette editing tools stemming from its 16 colour >origins. >> > Animator never had a 16-color origin. The original Animator was >256 > color, the same as today's version. > The original program was actually on the Atari ST - which only allowed >16 colours on screen at once.
Lee> I'll have to check with my Autodesk contacts on that one.
>I may be wrong but didn't Autodesk say they were freezing and future >development on Ani Pro. If this new title is complementary to Ani Pro >wouldn't they continue to develop the product?
Lee> AA Pro has obviously had its days, but it still has provided a powerful tool at a time when few others were capable of doing so. I think it deserves a 21 brush salute.
>[deleted much] >> 1) The worst graphical user interface in history. Conforming to no >> standards apart from its own. > That's a highly subjective opinion. I'll grant that it's different >than Windows CUA etc. I actually think it's a fairly efficient interface >with a lot fewer mouse clicks or what have you required to do a task than >you'd have to do with a CUA type interface. I personally like it.
More power to you, but I have to agree with #1. The interface to Ani Pro is obscure and awkward. Why do they use JIFFYs instead of Frames per second? Why so many mouse operations for simple actions. I find DeluxePaint to have a superior and more intuitive user interface. DeluxePaint is much older.
>> Almost all simple operations require referring to the manual to make >> them work. > Only because one's mind is closed and/or you don't try to learn it. >Once I'd been through the tutorial and used it a bit, I've found little >reason to refer to the manual at all.
I have to agree again with the complaint. Just to pick a color from the picture to draw with requires me to go to the manual, but I don't know what to look under, or what they call it. Their right/left button functions are bewildering. Nothing is intuitive, if it were, I wouldn't complain. Being open-minded doesn't mean you have to accept stupid things. I picked up DeluxePaint cold and had no problems with it. Ani Pro was a disaster.
>> 2) No support for 24 bit modes, TGA or alpha channel making it useless >> for professional work. > Two points: 1.) I'm not aware of any professional canon that >requires 24 bits or you'll be de-barr'd. 2.) 24 bit animations do get >big, big files and play very slowly. Admittedly not a problem if one is >going to tape, but not everybody in this world goes to tape. The >original purpose of the program was NOT to go to tape.
Ok, I have to agree with you there. When this program was written, 256 colors was all that was expected.
>> 3) Weak drawing tools which do not support anti-aliased or translucent >> inks. > That just an opinion. Others may disagree. I do about the >translucent ink, or maybe we have a different definition of the word >'translucent'.
No, that's a fact. No antialiased lines in Ani Pro. Why not, I don't know. DeluxePaint II had antialiased lines years before Ani Pro was written. This alone makes Ani Pro nearly useless. Both programs have translucency.
>> 4) Confused palette editing tools stemming from its 16 colour origins. > Animator never had a 16-color origin. The original Animator was 256 >color, the same as today's version. The palette editing tools are part >of the interface which you don't like anyway. Incidentally, did you know >that if you don't like the supplied pallette edit tools, you could just >write your own using the built in POCO language?
I don't know about its origins. But palette manipulation is about the only reason I use Ani Pro at all. I finally figured that part out.
>> 5) A load of other stuff which I have forgotten about because it is so >> bad I never used it again. 5) It is in fact *so* bad that Autodesk have >> decided to kill the program and start from scratch, rather than continue >> to work on this turkey. > From what I've seen on the Autodesk forum on Compuserve, Autodesk is >saying that Animator Studio (the "new" version) is actually >complementary to Animator Pro and *does not* fully replace Animator Pro >function for function. Improved color depth to be sure but *lesser* >capabilities in other areas.
I hope to God that isn't true.
>> Apart form that its great. > Actually, I think it's great - period. Geez, this looked like it >belonged in an .adovcacy group.
There are several people at Origin that use Ani Pro with no problem. I am not one of them. I found Deluxe Paint II enhanced and Deluxe Paint Animation to be the tools I used to create art and animations. The speed and ease of use made them the primere painting packages for games well into the 90s. Ani Pro was used primarily to string animations together, extract images from backgrounds, and manipulate the palette.
In article <dloubet.79.004CE...@origin.ea.com> dlou...@origin.ea.com (Denis Loubet) writes:
(snip..)
>There are several people at Origin that use Ani Pro with no problem. I am not >one of them. I found Deluxe Paint II enhanced and Deluxe Paint Animation to >be the tools I used to create art and animations. The speed and ease of use >made them the primere painting packages for games well into the 90s. Ani Pro >was used primarily to string animations together, extract images from >backgrounds, and manipulate the palette.
Can you describe Deluxe Paint II enhanced, and even more so Deluxe Paint Animation? Are these for the IBM clone market? IE if I would like to see the Amiga Deluxe paint IV ported to the pc. (I can't stand Animator Pro, and I used to love deluxe paint when I had an Amiga..)
-- Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Centre (B.C. Canada eh!) g...@smos.bc.ca
> > Can you describe Deluxe Paint II enhanced, and even more so Deluxe > Paint Animation? Are these for the IBM clone market? > IE if I would like to see the Amiga Deluxe paint IV ported to the pc. > (I can't stand Animator Pro, and I used to love deluxe paint when I > had an Amiga..) > > -- > Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Centre > (B.C. Canada eh!) > g...@smos.bc.ca >
Deluxe Paint on the PC was ported from the Amiga Version 2. This stilll makes it a fine (probably the best) 8 bit paint package around. There are some aspects of it which are dated, but for creative work - including the generation of texture maps, it is outstanding. The support for super VGA modes is excellent too. The animation version is almost identical except it is limited to 320x200x256c mode.
|
