Hedging a little?
Terry Palfrey
in .advocacy all the time, in a recent post an X-Man
pretender brought up a new completely unmentioned
application that blows away photoshop with no details
as to OS/Hardware requirements or a feature sheet.
But the real hedging occurred in this passage:
}I had ImageFX since the day it can out. I only got rid of
}it fairly recently as time goes. I would say it is a safe
}bet I know more about it than a pathetic flaming loser like
}you ever will.
}Your ImageFX is nothing special. Even the new release is
}nothing special, well I guess if you have been hindered
}by owning an Amiga these things would seem special.
}Unfortunately all these items are old news to Photoshop
}or Satori Paint. Of course Satori Paint BLOWS Photoshop
}away, and well, ImageFX just can't compete period with
}Satori.
Date you last owned a working Amiga.
Date you sold your final bits of Amiga software off.
What version of ImageFX you sold off.
Terry
Psyl...@xavier.com
Palfrey) wrote:
>We have flame wars complete with potty mouthed rants
>in .advocacy all the time, in a recent post an X-Man
>pretender brought up a new completely unmentioned
>application that blows away photoshop with no details
>as to OS/Hardware requirements or a feature sheet.
So good to see you have not lost your poison personality Terry. The
fact that you have not heard of Satori Paint comes as no surprise
really, it is a product known mostly to the professional world of
filmmakers and production houses. An area where Amiga once had some
sway. Past tense.
>But the real hedging occurred in this passage:
>
>}I had ImageFX since the day it can out. I only got rid of
>}it fairly recently as time goes. I would say it is a safe
>}bet I know more about it than a pathetic flaming loser like
>}you ever will.
Casper is lucky if he is even capable of putting his own pants on
without help. Provoking him to flames is certainly entertainment.
>}Your ImageFX is nothing special. Even the new release is
>}nothing special, well I guess if you have been hindered
>}by owning an Amiga these things would seem special.
>}Unfortunately all these items are old news to Photoshop
>}or Satori Paint. Of course Satori Paint BLOWS Photoshop
>}away, and well, ImageFX just can't compete period with
>}Satori.
>
>Date you last owned a working Amiga.
>Date you sold your final bits of Amiga software off.
>What version of ImageFX you sold off.
I do not need to have a working Amiga to be able to read a feature
list Terry. Odd that you would think this is necessary. ImageFX is
just catching up to current technology in other platforms. There is
little there that is extraordinary or special.
I believe it has been what about a year? and it was ImageFX 3.0 I
believe.
Terry Palfrey
Psyl...@Xavier.com writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <37a86b12...@news.earthlink.net>
> References: <96558-9...@paralynx.com>
> Posted: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:25:18 GMT
After your little foray into defamation and slander I took the
time to collect up some posts.
Do you want to recall a little harder or should I post the datestamps?
Ask me the last time I was in Anaheim I recall the period well.
As for the backpeddaling in that paragraph on IFX features....
gosh, don't get me wrong....but I think we are saying that we
are still here not industry leaders.
Oh, and what is the price point for Satori Paint on the Alpha?
Terry
Psyl...@xavier.com
Palfrey) wrote:
>After your little foray into defamation and slander I took the
>time to collect up some posts.
I'll remind you that you were the one who got majorly belligerent and
threatened people with violence. I still have the emails saved if you
would like them reposted here.
>
>Do you want to recall a little harder or should I post the datestamps?
>Ask me the last time I was in Anaheim I recall the period well.
Be my guest. I can do the same.
>As for the backpeddaling in that paragraph on IFX features....
>gosh, don't get me wrong....but I think we are saying that we
>are still here not industry leaders.
>
>Oh, and what is the price point for Satori Paint on the Alpha?
For starters, I assume you have heard of a film called the Matrix?
Satori Paint was used heavily in the production of the Film. (One of
the few paint packages that does affordable 64 bit painting to
accomodate the high resolutions required by theatrical film.
As for Price, you'll be sorry you asked that one.
A few months ago Satori ran a rather large promotion. PhotoXL 2.5 for
70.00. (PhotoXL is a 'Meager" program. But they hads a deal running
for anyone purchasing PhotoXL, they got a free upgrade to FilmFX 3.0
when it was released. (retail 795.00) with as impressive a feature
list as it had, 70.00 was hard to pass up. A few months later they had
a promo where refferrals got you a free upgrade to FilmFX 64, full 64
bit painting and tons of other features, most unknown to most
programs. (Including ImageFX and Photoshop) (retail 1695.00) AS it
stands, I am using a very high end studio package, used in many major
motion pictures for a whopping 70.00. ImageFX costs what these days?
And yes, I got Alpha native versions. supports film resolutions,
rotoscoping etc.
Terry Palfrey
Msg-ID: <37a7dcc7...@news.earthlink.net>
References: <96591-9...@paralynx.com>
Posted: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 06:33:07 GMT
On Tue, 03 Aug 99 17:13:57 -0700,
Terry_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Terry Palfrey) wrote:
>>After your little foray into defamation and slander
>>I took the time to collect up some posts.
>I'll remind you that you were the one who got majorly
>belligerent and threatened people with violence. I still
>have the emails saved if you would like them reposted here.
Those will go good with the police reports you made.
>Do you want to recall a little harder or should I post
>the datestamps?
>Be my guest. I can do the same.
Do you think that's fair, you have an Alpha and I only have
an o4o Amiga.
My take is, over two years without an Amiga running on your dime.
>>As for the backpeddaling in that paragraph on IFX features....
>>gosh, don't get me wrong....but I think we are saying that we
>>are still here not industry leaders.
>>Oh, and what is the price point for Satori Paint on the Alpha?
>For starters, I assume you have heard of a film called the Matrix?
>Satori Paint was used heavily in the production of the Film. (One of
>the few paint packages that does affordable 64 bit painting to
>accomodate the high resolutions required by theatrical film.
High resolutions required by theatrical film? Please, explain
that one for me and the other humble non pro people here. I know
35MM 70MM, what is theatrical and what is resolution in this case?
Can you name some other packages that can operate at that level?
Are you talking hardware when you say affordable?
>As for Price, you'll be sorry you asked that one.
I don't think so. Let's hear the good news why a working film
professional should opt for an Alpha and certain software
packages over an SGI, an Amiga Toaster/Flyer or a PC
Pinnacle type system.
>A few months ago Satori ran a rather large promotion.
>PhotoXL 2.5 for 70.00. (PhotoXL is a 'Meager" program.
>But they hads a deal running for anyone purchasing PhotoXL,
>they got a free upgrade to FilmFX 3.0 when it was released.
>(retail 795.00) with as impressive a feature list as it had,
>70.00 was hard to pass up.
Especially considering the limitations of photoshop and other
packages that don't quite cut it when you get down and dirty.
>A few months later they had a promo where refferrals got you
>a free upgrade to FilmFX 64, full 64 bit painting and tons
>of other features, most unknown to most programs. (Including
>ImageFX and Photoshop) (retail 1695.00) AS it stands, I am
>using a very high end studio package, used in many major motion
>pictures for a whopping 70.00. ImageFX costs what these days?
ImageFX is around $300 US with no upgrade options.
Talk about blind dumb luck, too bad all the packages you
need to use weren't as cheap.
>And yes, I got Alpha native versions. supports film
>resolutions, rotoscoping etc.
Makes sense, did they throw in the NT versions as well so that
you can use one of them cheap PIII500MHz's as well when deadlines
press?
Terry
Terry Palfrey
Msg-ID: <37a86b12...@news.earthlink.net>
References: <96558-9...@paralynx.com>
Posted: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:25:18 GMT
On Sun, 01 Aug 99 10:33:40 -0700,
Terry_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Terry Palfrey) wrote:
>>We have flame wars complete with potty mouthed rants
>>in .advocacy all the time, in a recent post an X-Man
>>pretender brought up a new completely unmentioned
>>application that blows away photoshop with no details
>>as to OS/Hardware requirements or a feature sheet.
>So good to see you have not lost your poison personality Terry.
It's nice to see that you have re-acquired some civility
and calmness while participating in C.S.A.A.
>The fact that you have not heard of Satori Paint comes as
>no surprise really, it is a product known mostly to the
>professional world of filmmakers and production houses.
That's cool, because we haven't heard from other pro's like
John Sheehy and Jack Andrews about this wonderful software.
In fact, stuff like Fractal Paint isn't mentioned anymore
either. You'll have to list off the contents of the pro
video/film types toolbox/hardware for single person or small
houses vs the toolbox/hardware you would use if you got hired
into a major's operation for a big high budget production.
>An area where Amiga once had some sway. Past tense.
Yup, we had this discussion before. I won't say more because
you take offence with the label "applications user only " and
the assertion that you are an Amigan, past tense.
But, so you do have something to screech onabout, I'll repeat
my assertion, "An Amiga was not just a video production box."
>>But the real hedging occurred in this passage:
>>}I had ImageFX since the day it can out. I only got rid of
>>}it fairly recently as time goes. I would say it is a safe
>>}bet I know more about it than a pathetic flaming loser like
>>}you ever will.
>Casper is lucky if he is even capable of putting his own
>pants on without help. Provoking him to flames is certainly
>entertainment.
I'm not worried about that, if you are into another campaign
of stalking some individual and harassing them to the point
where they flee the forum that's on your head.
>>}Your ImageFX is nothing special. Even the new release is
>>}nothing special, well I guess if you have been hindered
>>}by owning an Amiga these things would seem special.
>>}Unfortunately all these items are old news to Photoshop
>>}or Satori Paint. Of course Satori Paint BLOWS Photoshop
>>}away, and well, ImageFX just can't compete period with
>>}Satori.
>>Date you last owned a working Amiga.
>>Date you sold your final bits of Amiga software off.
>>What version of ImageFX you sold off.
>I do not need to have a working Amiga to be able to read
>a feature list Terry.
You are not going to say that the hype on the box, in the ads
and in the reviews sometimes doesn't measure up to the actual
performance of an application/hardware are you?
You are not going to say that even you a working professional
haven't been burned by the odd product that is in late gamma
either in hardware or software are you?
And you haven't mentioned what you use Satori Paint for that
Photoshop cannot match its performance. Somebody already
defined PhotoShop as an image manipulation program. Where
does Satori Paint slot in?
>Odd that you would think this is necessary. ImageFX is
>just catching up to current technology in other platforms.
>There is little there that is extraordinary or special.
See, now here we go from cannot "match" to "just beginning to
catch up". Over a number of posts your credibility slowly
drops off to the point where people begin to question what it
is that you are on about.
As for actually running or using a product before becoming an
expert speaker on it, we'll let .advocacy decide that credibility
issue just like it has for everyone that has tested UAE.
>I believe it has been what about a year? and it was
>ImageFX 3.0 I believe.
Oh, it might have been upgradeable to 3.0 but I believe the
version you ran on your machine was 2.6. And the machine went
well before the Toaster + Tools sell off last year about
this time.
Terry
Psyl...@xavier.com
Palfrey) wrote:
>Psyl...@Xavier.com writes Re: Hedging a little?:
>
>>The fact that you have not heard of Satori Paint comes as
>>no surprise really, it is a product known mostly to the
>>professional world of filmmakers and production houses.
>
>That's cool, because we haven't heard from other pro's like
>John Sheehy and Jack Andrews about this wonderful software.
You're joking right? Sheehy and Andrews are a pair of amateurs. Jack
wouldn't know a professional "artist" if one walked up and introduced
himself.
>>An area where Amiga once had some sway. Past tense.
>
>Yup, we had this discussion before. I won't say more because
>you take offence with the label "applications user only " and
>the assertion that you are an Amigan, past tense.
I have nothing against application user only. I do have a problem with
screwballs like Andrews, Giovanella and his Amiga...worlds fastest
computer, Casper and a few other notable idiots who have no concept of
reality.
You can rationalize all you want about how your 5+ year old apps,
shareware and aging hardware are just fine. Great, good for you. This
does not change a lot of very basic realities.
Amiga is dead. there is little to no market for the classic, and I
hear another amiga biggie Village Tronic is also pulling out of the
Amiga market.
No professional studio will risk using an Amiga for anything that is
critical. It does not have any kind of support organization, no speed
and no really reliable apps that are supported anymore.
It is a hobbyists machine.
And frankly, the shit Amiga has been drawn through is rather pathetic.
It should have bveen left for dead years ago, and come out with
something new instead of jerking everyone around all these years.
10 years ago I could call Amiga special, but that was a long time ago
and it got passed up years ago.
This new wonder machine is not an Amiga. The only thing Amiga about it
is the name. Oh there are some semblances of Amiga, some vague
similarities, but only a few. The Cpu is a nice touch, but all the
released specs are nothing extraordinary, nothing particularly
special. I saw people going on about the new video modes. Big deal.
ATI is supplying Amiga with the equivalent of it's Rage Fury 128
cards. Old news.
>But, so you do have something to screech onabout, I'll repeat
>my assertion, "An Amiga was not just a video production box."
No, but since you did not have the benefit of being around when Amigas
actually came out, it was the graphics artists choice of computers.
Video was a natural extension. That the current so-called Amiga users
have turned it into a fanatically popular religion and an expensive
alternative to the Playstation does nothing to change Amigas roots.
Your rants in the past have proven over and over that while you claim
to be an Amiga advocate, you really don't have a clue about Amigas
roots.
>>Casper is lucky if he is even capable of putting his own
>>pants on without help. Provoking him to flames is certainly
>>entertainment.
>
>I'm not worried about that, if you are into another campaign
>of stalking some individual and harassing them to the point
>where they flee the forum that's on your head.
If Casper leaves, it could only benefit the newsgroup. I know how you
like to spin reality, but it was Casper who started with vulgarities
and mud slinging personal insults. Apparently he can dish it out but
he can't take it.
>>I do not need to have a working Amiga to be able to read
>>a feature list Terry.
>
>You are not going to say that the hype on the box, in the ads
>and in the reviews sometimes doesn't measure up to the actual
>performance of an application/hardware are you?
No, I am saying that the feature list on the NEWEST box is stuff I
have had/seen in other programs for a long time. What part of this do
you not understand?
>You are not going to say that even you a working professional
>haven't been burned by the odd product that is in late gamma
>either in hardware or software are you?
That would be unrealistic now wouldn't it? everyone has been burned
developers. Amiga especially eh?
>And you haven't mentioned what you use Satori Paint for that
>Photoshop cannot match its performance. Somebody already
>defined PhotoShop as an image manipulation program. Where
>does Satori Paint slot in?
Sorry, nice try Terry but again your obvious ignorance of the products
gives you away. I use Satroi because it has some features Photoshop
does not have. such as 64 bit painting. (especially useful for film),
and rotoscoping. I do not condsider that to be a big deal.
Satori is a film based program. the correct name is FilmFX 64. it is
made specifically to be used in film and high end production work.
Slightly different from Photoshop.
Regardless, for the price ImageFX doesn't fit the bill outside of a
hobbyist tool. it is not or never will be an industry standard.
>>Odd that you would think this is necessary. ImageFX is
>>just catching up to current technology in other platforms.
>>There is little there that is extraordinary or special.
>
>See, now here we go from cannot "match" to "just beginning to
>catch up". Over a number of posts your credibility slowly
>drops off to the point where people begin to question what it
>is that you are on about.
Spin doctoring does not suit you. You do it poorly. There is nothing
in my above comment to erode any credibility. ImageFX currently cannot
match Photoshop or Satori. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Digital Domain, Foundation, Station X, Digital Muse, Area 51 just to
name 5 studios that have produced content for film and TV, none have
ImageFX (many started with Amiga) All have Photoshop. Why do you think
this is Terry? are all these people brainwashed? stupid? uninformed?
Oddly, all make massive amounts of cash and none use Amiga. Why?
Bottom line is that the average guy can afford Photoshop these days,
for only very slightly more than the cost of ImageFX and pretty much
justify the extra cost when they consider they saved the money by not
buying grossly expensive, underpowered PPC cards for their Amiga.
Just to give you an idea of how cheap Photshop is to buy, I bought a
cheap scanner that had Photshop LE included. Adobe upgraded me to the
full version of Photoshop for 149.00 even costwise, Photoshop is a
better deal if you are a smart shopper.
>Oh, it might have been upgradeable to 3.0 but I believe the
>version you ran on your machine was 2.6. And the machine went
>well before the Toaster + Tools sell off last year about
>this time.
It really doesn't matter though now does it? ImageFX does not match or
compete very well with any of the aforementioned programs in their
intended markets. So it really is a moot point.
Psyl...@xavier.com
Palfrey) wrote:
>Psyl...@Xavier.com replies to Re: Hedging a little?
>
>>I'll remind you that you were the one who got majorly
>>belligerent and threatened people with violence. I still
>>have the emails saved if you would like them reposted here.
>
>Those will go good with the police reports you made.
You are a liar Terry. Perhaps you would like to share with the newer
users here how in your paranoid delusional state, you accused a new
user of being myself hiding behind an alias, a user I might add who is
still a member here. FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEY SAID
SOMETHING THAT AGREED WITH ME.
I can't help but wonder how you get my forwarding your threatening
letters to your ISP (who gave you the big smack-down) into filing a
poilce report? could it possibly be that your ISP thought that you
might be dangerous and forwarded your letters to local law
enforcement? Or perhaps this is just another one of your big lies.
>My take is, over two years without an Amiga running on your dime.
So? Amiga has made zero progress in over 7 years. Not like I have
missed anything now is it?
>>For starters, I assume you have heard of a film called the Matrix?
>>Satori Paint was used heavily in the production of the Film. (One of
>>the few paint packages that does affordable 64 bit painting to
>>accomodate the high resolutions required by theatrical film.
>
>High resolutions required by theatrical film? Please, explain
>that one for me and the other humble non pro people here. I know
>35MM 70MM, what is theatrical and what is resolution in this case?
35mm and 70mm are not resolutions they are formats.
>Can you name some other packages that can operate at that level?
Yeah, none you have ever heard of. And at cost points that would put
them out of your league.
>Are you talking hardware when you say affordable?
Sure am. I have priced hardware here often enough. Figure it out.
>>As for Price, you'll be sorry you asked that one.
>
>I don't think so. Let's hear the good news why a working film
>professional should opt for an Alpha and certain software
>packages over an SGI, an Amiga Toaster/Flyer or a PC
>Pinnacle type system.
The fact that Alpha harware as a whole is more stable? SGI systems are
slow as hell, had proprietary software (which they have dumped to
become another NT box) Toaster/Flyer provides little to no benefits
largely unsuported, lack of decent software, no upgrade path and
Amigas are the slowest available machine on the market. There is no
thrid party support left for plug-ins, animation or anything else even
vaguely industry standard. And Why buy a PC with Pinnacle when you can
get Alpha with Hollywood and have 10 bit rendering as opposed to 8 bit
rendering on lower systems? Not to mention price vs. performance,
where Alpha still has a clear advantage.
>>A few months ago Satori ran a rather large promotion.
>>PhotoXL 2.5 for 70.00. (PhotoXL is a 'Meager" program.
>>But they hads a deal running for anyone purchasing PhotoXL,
>>they got a free upgrade to FilmFX 3.0 when it was released.
>>(retail 795.00) with as impressive a feature list as it had,
>>70.00 was hard to pass up.
>
>Especially considering the limitations of photoshop and other
>packages that don't quite cut it when you get down and dirty.
Which leaves ImageFX?............nowhere on the map.
>ImageFX is around $300 US with no upgrade options.
>Talk about blind dumb luck, too bad all the packages you
>need to use weren't as cheap.
True, but look at all the money I saved on grossly overpriced
hardware! I have a wide selection of video cards to choose from,
dozens and dozens of them!!
Netowrk cards that are inexpensive!! I can get a great network card
for only 40.00 bucks compared to what? 150.00? for Amiga?
I can get a sound card and supported to boot for less than 50.00 can
you?
I can get U2W scsi controllers for under 200.00!!!
I ran the numbers a while back Terry. part for part, I saved enough on
the Alpha to buy tons of software for it compared to the overpriced
gouging that is Amiga. A4000T vs. Alpha.
Of course if you want to pull the 1200 is only 200.00 crap, fine. I
can buy a 275 mhz. Alpha system with motherboard, case and power
supply for 150.00 new and still come out way ahead over Amiga.
just to make sure I cover the low end as well.
>>And yes, I got Alpha native versions. supports film
>>resolutions, rotoscoping etc.
>
>Makes sense, did they throw in the NT versions as well so that
>you can use one of them cheap PIII500MHz's as well when deadlines
>press? Considering Alpha is substantially faster, why would I care?
Do you realize that your PPC accelerator costs 1/3 the cost of an
Alpha DS10 server with 21264 processor? not counting all your other
high priced hardware? wow. talk about a great
deal.....................
Steve Giovenella
> > >Oh, it might have been upgradeable to 3.0 but I believe the
> >version you ran on your machine was 2.6. And the machine went
> >well before the Toaster + Tools sell off last year about
> >this time.
>
> It really doesn't matter though now does it? ImageFX does not match or
> compete very well with any of the aforementioned programs in their
> intended markets. So it really is a moot point.
>
Don't forget to say that you have no idea what you are talking about,
having never used anything after 2.X.
Its always good for a laugh when you come here ranting about how Amigas
can't compete with software/hardware that costs thousands upon thousands
upon thousands of dollars more. Not everyone strolling the isles at Best
Buy is looking to produce a feature film, in fact, none of them are, it is
a totally irrelevant point.
There once was a time when a home user could do that, but only if he
chose an Amiga. Now however this is the realm of major production
houses that buy their own systems anyway, so who cares.
There are however, -lots- of home users that enjoy doing video and working
with graphics on a low end pro to purely hobbiest level, or just using a
computer for general stuff like wp and the internet. For these people
(I'm now excluding the .0000000000001% of the population that wants to
take on ILM by going to Hollywood alone with their $10000 investment), the
Amiga is still an excellent bang/buck choice.
$230 IFX4 is a great example of an incredibly powerful image/animation
processing tool, that provides a myraid of features $650 Photoshop users
would oogle over if they only knew. You are right though, the vast
majority, yourself included, don't know.
-Steve.
-http://www.amigapro.com
-The website for the Amiga performance enthusiast.
Jack Andrews
>On Wed, 04 Aug 99 14:51:18 -0700, Terry_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Terry
>Palfrey) wrote:
>
>>Psyl...@Xavier.com writes Re: Hedging a little?:
>>
>
>>>The fact that you have not heard of Satori Paint comes as
>>>no surprise really, it is a product known mostly to the
>>>professional world of filmmakers and production houses.
>>
>>That's cool, because we haven't heard from other pro's like
>>John Sheehy and Jack Andrews about this wonderful software.
Yes, Satoripaint, rotoscoping, 64 bits per pixel, for video
production, etc. etc. great program! You won't find me disagreeing on
this.
>
>You're joking right? Sheehy and Andrews are a pair of amateurs.
More compliments, what a surprise? (don't be cruel Laura)
> Jack wouldn't know a professional "artist" if one walked up and introduced
>himself.
,,,and once again you are completely familiar with my life.,,,pretty
amazing considering the small amount of my time I spend here. My
"professional" artist days are a thing of the past, My illness demands
that I break new ground. Actually I am rather content to be away from
that madhouse and doing the art that "I" want to, rather than
endlessly modifying things to other people's visions.
>
>
>>>An area where Amiga once had some sway. Past tense.
>>
>>Yup, we had this discussion before. I won't say more because
>>you take offence with the label "applications user only " and
>>the assertion that you are an Amigan, past tense.
>
>
>I have nothing against application user only. I do have a problem with
>screwballs like Andrews,
...another compliment...geez trying to sir up trouble again... sorry,
it won't happen from my end, I have neither the strength nor
inclination for such name calling anymore...besides, I've been away
from the Amiga for a few years now,..and am very happy with
economically upgradable machines that are far more powerful and have
much better graphics/3D apps.
>Giovanella and his Amiga...worlds fastest
>computer, Casper and a few other notable idiots who have no concept of
>reality.
"Reality" now there's a "concept" that the world's greatest minds
historically cannot even agree upon. Please define it for us the
unenlightened.
>You can rationalize all you want about how your 5+ year old apps,
>shareware and aging hardware are just fine. Great, good for you. This
>does not change a lot of very basic realities.
If that's the "reality" you are talking about then I am already
"enlightened" since I agree completely with you.
>Amiga is dead. there is little to no market for the classic, and I
>hear another amiga biggie Village Tronic is also pulling out of the
>Amiga market.
You will be "hung" for saying this around here...I totally agree with
this and have for a few years.
>No professional studio will risk using an Amiga for anything that is
>critical. It does not have any kind of support organization, no speed
>and no really reliable apps that are supported anymore.
Agreed...Yes I "do" know many "professionals."
>It is a hobbyists machine.
Agreed. But "hobbyist" needs more clarification for some around here.
>And frankly, the shit Amiga has been drawn through is rather pathetic.
>It should have bveen left for dead years ago, and come out with
>something new instead of jerking everyone around all these years.
Hey you are starting to sound like that "idiot" "Jack Andrews" awhile
back, remember those ugly comments he made about manipulative
companies. Alas, but he has "no concept of reality."
>10 years ago I could call Amiga special, but that was a long time ago
>and it got passed up years ago.
Agreed.
>This new wonder machine is not an Amiga. The only thing Amiga about it
>is the name. Oh there are some semblances of Amiga, some vague
>similarities, but only a few. The Cpu is a nice touch, but all the
>released specs are nothing extraordinary, nothing particularly
>special. I saw people going on about the new video modes. Big deal.
>ATI is supplying Amiga with the equivalent of it's Rage Fury 128
>cards. Old news.
Sad isn't it?
>>But, so you do have something to screech onabout, I'll repeat
>>my assertion, "An Amiga was not just a video production box."
>
>
>No, but since you did not have the benefit of being around when Amigas
>actually came out, it was the graphics artists choice of computers.
>Video was a natural extension. That the current so-called Amiga users
>have turned it into a fanatically popular religion and an expensive
>alternative to the Playstation does nothing to change Amigas roots.
agreed.
>Your rants in the past have proven over and over that while you claim
>to be an Amiga advocate, you really don't have a clue about Amigas
>roots.
...hmmm ...between you and Terry....
>
>>>Casper is lucky if he is even capable of putting his own
>>>pants on without help. Provoking him to flames is certainly
>>>entertainment.
This is true of me also, it is an unfortunate side effect of my
illness. Fortunately I have a great considerate wife to help me get
them on right.
>>I'm not worried about that, if you are into another campaign
>>of stalking some individual and harassing them to the point
>>where they flee the forum that's on your head.
>
>
>If Casper leaves, it could only benefit the newsgroup. I know how you
>like to spin reality, but it was Casper who started with vulgarities
>and mud slinging personal insults. Apparently he can dish it out but
>he can't take it.
Eegads! The mudslinging again.... Ouch, the fanaticism of it...
>>>I do not need to have a working Amiga to be able to read
>>>a feature list Terry.
>>
>>You are not going to say that the hype on the box, in the ads
>>and in the reviews sometimes doesn't measure up to the actual
>>performance of an application/hardware are you?
>
>
>No, I am saying that the feature list on the NEWEST box is stuff I
>have had/seen in other programs for a long time. What part of this do
>you not understand?
agreed
>>You are not going to say that even you a working professional
>>haven't been burned by the odd product that is in late gamma
>>either in hardware or software are you?
>
>
>That would be unrealistic now wouldn't it? everyone has been burned
>developers. Amiga especially eh?
>
>
>>And you haven't mentioned what you use Satori Paint for that
>>Photoshop cannot match its performance. Somebody already
>>defined PhotoShop as an image manipulation program. Where
>>does Satori Paint slot in?
>
>
>Sorry, nice try Terry but again your obvious ignorance of the products
>gives you away. I use Satroi because it has some features Photoshop
>does not have. such as 64 bit painting. (especially useful for film),
>and rotoscoping. I do not condsider that to be a big deal.
>
>Satori is a film based program. the correct name is FilmFX 64. it is
>made specifically to be used in film and high end production work.
>Slightly different from Photoshop.
slightly ha!
>Regardless, for the price ImageFX doesn't fit the bill outside of a
>hobbyist tool. it is not or never will be an industry standard.
>
>
>>>Odd that you would think this is necessary. ImageFX is
>>>just catching up to current technology in other platforms.
>>>There is little there that is extraordinary or special.
>>
>>See, now here we go from cannot "match" to "just beginning to
>>catch up". Over a number of posts your credibility slowly
>>drops off to the point where people begin to question what it
>>is that you are on about.
>
>
>Spin doctoring does not suit you. You do it poorly. There is nothing
>in my above comment to erode any credibility. ImageFX currently cannot
>match Photoshop or Satori. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
You are correct..
>Digital Domain, Foundation, Station X, Digital Muse, Area 51 just to
>name 5 studios that have produced content for film and TV, none have
>ImageFX (many started with Amiga) All have Photoshop. Why do you think
>this is Terry? are all these people brainwashed? stupid? uninformed?
>
>Oddly, all make massive amounts of cash and none use Amiga. Why?
>
>Bottom line is that the average guy can afford Photoshop these days,
>for only very slightly more than the cost of ImageFX and pretty much
>justify the extra cost when they consider they saved the money by not
>buying grossly expensive, underpowered PPC cards for their Amiga.
>
>Just to give you an idea of how cheap Photshop is to buy, I bought a
>cheap scanner that had Photshop LE included. Adobe upgraded me to the
>full version of Photoshop for 149.00 even costwise, Photoshop is a
>better deal if you are a smart shopper.
I bought it for $50 on Ebay :)
>
>>Oh, it might have been upgradeable to 3.0 but I believe the
>>version you ran on your machine was 2.6. And the machine went
>>well before the Toaster + Tools sell off last year about
>>this time.
>
>It really doesn't matter though now does it? ImageFX does not match or
>compete very well with any of the aforementioned programs in their
>intended markets. So it really is a moot point.
Yep
John Sheehy
vrar...@gci-net.com (Jack Andrews) wrote :
>>You're joking right? Sheehy and Andrews are a pair of amateurs.
>More compliments, what a surprise? (don't be cruel Laura)
I'm still wondering what I'm an amateur at, since I haven't claimed to
be a professional at anything. It's hard to be offended by someone as
hateful as Laura, though. It's not like I've been singled-out or
anything.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Stephan Schaem
Steve Giovenella <s.giov...@spamfree.pn.nettuno.it> wrote in message
news:37ABF6C9.MD-1.3...@spamfree.pn.nettuno.it...
> <Psyl...@Xavier.com> wrote (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 05:37:25 GMT):
>
> > > >Oh, it might have been upgradeable to 3.0 but I believe the
> > >version you ran on your machine was 2.6. And the machine went
> > >well before the Toaster + Tools sell off last year about
> > >this time.
> >
> > It really doesn't matter though now does it? ImageFX does not match or
> > compete very well with any of the aforementioned programs in their
> > intended markets. So it really is a moot point.
> >
>
> having never used anything after 2.X.
>
> Its always good for a laugh when you come here ranting about how Amigas
> can't compete with software/hardware that costs thousands upon thousands
> upon thousands of dollars more. Not everyone strolling the isles at Best
> Buy is looking to produce a feature film, in fact, none of them are, it is
> a totally irrelevant point.
Take a look at SafeHarbor... used to be a nice amiga shop. The wealth of
killer
PC software & HW at low prices is a nice sight.
Are you going around telling people to setup an amiga to use
toaster/lightwave & imageFX
for their latest commercial productions? This seem like an costly , slow,
limited option
compare to whats available Today.
>
> There once was a time when a home user could do that, but only if he
> chose an Amiga. Now however this is the realm of major production
> houses that buy their own systems anyway, so who cares.
Even with this great past, CBM ceo's killed the dreams, and developers moved
on.
Great past or not the system stalled for too long to keep an edge.
>
> There are however, -lots- of home users that enjoy doing video and working
> with graphics on a low end pro to purely hobbiest level, or just using a
> computer for general stuff like wp and the internet. For these people
> (I'm now excluding the .0000000000001% of the population that wants to
> take on ILM by going to Hollywood alone with their $10000 investment), the
> Amiga is still an excellent bang/buck choice.
>
What give the amiga this is not the amiga itself, but the toaster...
And the toaster is old... To me I wouldn't consider a A4k+taoster+flyer +
etc...
to get home videos done, its way to much $$$ & the IO dont match today
requirment.
> $230 IFX4 is a great example of an incredibly powerful image/animation
> processing tool, that provides a myraid of features $650 Photoshop users
> would oogle over if they only knew. You are right though, the vast
> majority, yourself included, don't know.
For amateur, they would go with photoimpact or paint shop pro, or the like.
230$ is alot if you dont plan to make money out of it for a gfx tools. Plus
you
have to spend so much more in front to get a slow amiga...
Stephan
phoen...@earthlink.net
>Steve Giovenella <s.giov...@spamfree.pn.nettuno.it> wrote in message
>news:37ABF6C9.MD-1.3...@spamfree.pn.nettuno.it...
>> <Psyl...@Xavier.com> wrote (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 05:37:25 GMT):
>> > It really doesn't matter though now does it? ImageFX does not match or
>> > compete very well with any of the aforementioned programs in their
>> > intended markets. So it really is a moot point.
>> >
>>
>> Don't forget to say that you have no idea what you are talking about,
>> having never used anything after 2.X.
I know exactly what I am talking about. ImageFX has not changed
dramatically, Interface is pretty much the same and they have only
just added tools Photoshop and Satori users have had for ages. I used
ImageFX for years, . I know it quite well thank you.
You however are completely clueless.
>> Its always good for a laugh when you come here ranting about how Amigas
>> can't compete with software/hardware that costs thousands upon thousands
>> upon thousands of dollars more.
What software did I ever advocate that costs "thousands and thousands"
more? Oh. another typical Amiga fanatic distortion.
>> Not everyone strolling the isles at Best
>> Buy is looking to produce a feature film, in fact, none of them are, it is
>> a totally irrelevant point.
So I have to wonder why anyone would shell out top dollar premium
prices for Amiga hardware when they are barely supported? I can get a
K7 cheaper. and have actual software support.
>> There are however, -lots- of home users that enjoy doing video and working
>> with graphics on a low end pro to purely hobbiest level, or just using a
>> computer for general stuff like wp and the internet. For these people
>> (I'm now excluding the .0000000000001% of the population that wants to
>> take on ILM by going to Hollywood alone with their $10000 investment), the
>> Amiga is still an excellent bang/buck choice.
Amiga is a LOUSY bang for buck choice. By any standards.
>> $230 IFX4 is a great example of an incredibly powerful image/animation
>> processing tool, that provides a myraid of features $650 Photoshop users
>> would oogle over if they only knew. You are right though, the vast
>> majority, yourself included, don't know.
Obviously you don't know too much. Where do you come with these fairy
tale prices? You can get Photoshop for around 250.00 completely legit.
your 230.00 for Image FX for a low end hobbyist software is an
incredibly poor value compared to many many alternatives on the PC.
Of course the vast majority of Amiga users wouldn't know about value
though would they? Including yourself who clearly doesn't know.
Get a life.
Terry Palfrey
phoen...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <37b11917...@news.earthlink.net>
> References: <7ol8t1$om4$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>
> Posted: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 06:43:46 GMT
>
> Org. : EarthLink Network, Inc.
Another identity and voice?
Way to go Laura.
Terry
Steve Giovenella
>
> >Steve Giovenella <s.giov...@spamfree.pn.nettuno.it> wrote in message
> >news:37ABF6C9.MD-1.3...@spamfree.pn.nettuno.it...
> >> <Psyl...@Xavier.com> wrote (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 05:37:25 GMT):
>
> >> > It really doesn't matter though now does it? ImageFX does not match or
> >> > compete very well with any of the aforementioned programs in their
> >> > intended markets. So it really is a moot point.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Don't forget to say that you have no idea what you are talking about,
> >> having never used anything after 2.X.
>
>
> I know exactly what I am talking about. ImageFX has not changed
> dramatically, Interface is pretty much the same and they have only
> just added tools Photoshop and Satori users have had for ages. I used
> ImageFX for years, . I know it quite well thank you.
The interface has completely changed since IFX2.x--true CGX support,
multiple image buffers, unlimitied project views/magnifications all
updating one another in real time, a new collection of quick
zoom/size/resize/spawn gadgets on every window, asynchronous child menus,
asynchonous screen refresh, zooming/panning realtime effects previews,
animation loaders/savers/converters, windowed VCR controls for navigation
thru animations, multi full motion animation views, application of effects
to animations, or by frame, a completely revamped font interface, just to
name some of the interface advances over 2.X off the top of my head.
There are huge differences in features too--Photoshop file format
compatibility, layer support (PS inclusive), PS Forge factory
filter superset compatibilty, PowerPC support, CMAP support, the addition
of an awesome direct SCSI scanner GUI, an optically accurate gausian
module, lots of new/improved effects including a new Lightning EOT, Fire
EOT, Blobs and oooze EOTs, Filmgrain, Sparkle, PaintFX, Firework partical
systems, new distortions like unconstrained playdough distortions in 3D,
Displacement, Liquids, raytraced animated fractal rising bubbles, new
filters with better colorbalancing and colorization routines, filmgrain
removal, new hooks like FXForge (huge!), wire removal, improved IMP,
fractal cloud generation with reastic evolution over time, explosions,
pagecurling, a rain and splash module, animation processing, Postscript
font support with realtime antialiasing and display, and thats just some
of it.
> You however are completely clueless.
Right.
> >> Its always good for a laugh when you come here ranting about how Amigas
> >> can't compete with software/hardware that costs thousands upon thousands
> >> upon thousands of dollars more.
>
>
> What software did I ever advocate that costs "thousands and thousands"
> more? Oh. another typical Amiga fanatic distortion.
SoftImage. $8,000 at the time, plus $thousands for plugins. Alpha
workstations, anywhere from a $10,000+ at the time, to a few thousand
today.
> >> Not everyone strolling the isles at Best
> >> Buy is looking to produce a feature film, in fact, none of them are, it is
> >> a totally irrelevant point.
>
> So I have to wonder why anyone would shell out top dollar premium
> prices for Amiga hardware when they are barely supported? I can get a
> K7 cheaper. and have actual software support.
To run Amiga software in a more responsive, more powerful environment,
that's my reason anyway.
> >> There are however, -lots- of home users that enjoy doing video and working
> >> with graphics on a low end pro to purely hobbiest level, or just using a
> >> computer for general stuff like wp and the internet. For these people
> >> (I'm now excluding the .0000000000001% of the population that wants to
> >> take on ILM by going to Hollywood alone with their $10000 investment), the
> >> Amiga is still an excellent bang/buck choice.
>
>
> Amiga is a LOUSY bang for buck choice. By any standards.
Not by mine. I have a pc too you know, but its just not the same, slow,
low productivity OS, expensive software, one size fits all work
environment.
> >> $230 IFX4 is a great example of an incredibly powerful image/animation
> >> processing tool, that provides a myraid of features $650 Photoshop users
> >> would oogle over if they only knew. You are right though, the vast
> >> majority, yourself included, don't know.
>
>
> Obviously you don't know too much. Where do you come with these fairy
> tale prices? You can get Photoshop for around 250.00 completely legit.
PS is a very nice paint retouching program, but a very basic
image/animation processor by comparision to IFX.
> your 230.00 for Image FX for a low end hobbyist software is an
> incredibly poor value compared to many many alternatives on the PC.
> Of course the vast majority of Amiga users wouldn't know about value
> though would they? Including yourself who clearly doesn't know.
>
> Get a life.
The vast majority of Amiga advocates, I'm guessing, certainly me, use pcs
daily, even their own. You not telling us anything we don't already know.
OTOH, every pc advocate here has either no Amiga experience, or long since
outdated Amiga "experience."