which version of Windows 7
Kris Rivel
Kris
Alexei
kim aldis
Rob Wuijster
Like all previous versions of Windows, I assume W7 'Professional'.
Grab 'Ultimate' if you need the extra features like bitlocker,
applocker, boot from vhd etc.
The 'Home Premium' version can't login onto a domain, so that one is
mostly useless in a company environment. There's also a high volume
'Enterprise Edition' btw, but most of us will never see/use that one I
guess....
But so far W7 isn't officially certified for running Softimage, although
a lot of people already ran Soft on the W7RC's.
I'm still running W7RC on my laptop, and all apps -including SI2010SP-
run just fine. I don't expect this to be different when I move over to
the official release version.
cheers,
rob
\/-------------\/----------------\/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.33/2461 - Release Date: 10/26/09 21:22:00
>
Alan Fregtman
that it should work in Win7 too.
Chris Marshall
Kris Rivel
Kris
Kris Rivel
Kris
kim aldis
Luc-Eric Rousseau
Arri
Arri
Reschke
inhaler for Lung
[ tel ] +27 21 421 8437
[mob] +27 82 820 5139
[msn] king...@hotmail.com
[animation] [vfx] [motion graphics]
http://lung-animation.blogspot.com
Studio 1002 - 10th Floor - 4 Loop st
Cape Town - South Africa 8001
This e-mail may contain confidential information and is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you may not distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever. The sending company does not accept liability for any damage, loss or expense arising from this e-mail or from accessing attachments.
Gerbrand Nel
;) switched to vista 64 and was pretty happy with that until I tried win
7. The only problem I've had with win 7 was quicktime. I had major
issues installing that.
Otherwise, I can't recommend win 7 enough
G
Kris Rivel wrote:
> I'm coming from XP 64 btw....never had Vista. But all the good news
> about Win7 has convinced me to upgrade.
>
> Kris
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Chris Marshall
> <chris.m...@eclipsecreative.co.uk
>
> XP?
>
> On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, kim aldis <k...@kim-aldis.co.uk
> > Fedora?
> >
> >
> > On 27 Oct 2009, at 14:10, Kris Rivel wrote:
> >
> >
> > So what flavor of Win7 is needed/recommended for us? Home
> Premium, Professional or Ultimate?
> >
> > Kris
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
Alan Fregtman
Gerbrand Nel
no matter what. So i tried different versions of quicktime7 . no luck.
Then, a while later I was asked to do a web install of quicktime, and
that seemed to work
like I said... luck
G
Kris Rivel
Kris
Joe Williamsen
Windows 7, being a new OS, also will have some issues here and there - you can count on it. Don't be surprised when you try to file/folder/drive share - it's a PITA just like Vista is/was. It definitely takes some "tuning" to get it working really well. I haven't run into a *lot* of issues with Win7 (a few older programs that refuse to install, the usual MSI incompatibility crap, drivers that have to be manually installed, etc), and admittedly I've been running the betas and not the "blessed" version - but I think overall you'll find Win7 to be stable and fast. I trust it enough to have bought a few copies at the "pre-sale" price of $99.
Alan Fregtman
the most testing out of any. :)
8 million brave testers worldwide is the figure I read on the intertubes.
tak...@earthlink.net
Got my first BSOD I've seen in quite a few years yesterday while wrestling with windows7 and audio drivers.
For some reason the card I have is somewhat unsupported under windows 7 ( a relatively mainstream soundblaster card) and the beta drivers don't work, and I wouldn't care were it not for the fact this seems to affect my ability to play back movies, quicktime, etc. Plugging in a USB set of headphones seems to "fix" it though.
Other than that I was really impressed with the fact that I could get windows up and running in <20 min. Shocked, really.
Shutdown and startup times are much better (compared to XP).
-T
Rob Wuijster
Windows, Soundblaster and betadrivers in the same sentence ;-)
After the mess they made with drivers a long time ago I gave up and
never looked back. I've had M-Audio cards for a long time, nowadays it's
onboard audio. Works just fine.
rob
\/-------------\/----------------\/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09 08:38:00
>
tak...@earthlink.net
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob Wuijster <ro...@casema.nl>
>Sent: Oct 27, 2009 6:22 PM
>To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
>Subject: Re: which version of Windows 7
>
>Interesting,
>
>Windows, Soundblaster and betadrivers in the same sentence ;-)
and BSOD. yay
-T
Joe Williamsen
tak...@earthlink.net
Yeah, I did. It sort of installs but I get nasty screechy scratching sound instead of audio.
Found some other links to stuff that might work but overall not super encouraging. Lots of reports of people claiming stuff worked if they removed RAM from their system to be <4gb which sort of defeats the purpose of going 64-bit in the first place. :P
James De Colling
overall quite impressed with 7, picked up all hardware straight away, even offered to download the latest quadro drivers from nvidia as an optional download in the windows update
Michal Doniec
piotrek marczak
win7 is a patched vista, not a new system.
and xp64 work flawless with all 2d/3d 32/x64 softwares I tried.
Cant say the same about vista or win7.
after effects or 3ds max runs better on xp64 (performance/crash-wise).
This doesnt affect softimage which runs okay on all systems.
(i have win7 x64 at home, xp64 at work)
2009/10/28 Michal Doniec <don...@gmail.com>:
Claudio Pavan
with a little problem I am having.
I have ice particle system set up (nothing crazy) and I want it to spit
out 1 particle every second or 2, so I put 1 in the rate and set it to
:number of particles per second:. But for some reason its not 1 particle
a second it seems very random still.
Is there a way to make it be 1 particle every second?
Thanks in advance.
Claudio
Steven Caron
Claudio Pavan
Steven Caron
how many particles do you have at frame 25?
s
Claudio Pavan
Mathieu Leclaire
You can use a current frame node, plugged to a Modulo node and modulate it by 25 (so that at each 25th frame, the value outputs 0) and you plug that into a equal condition. You would then plug your Add point node to the true condition of your if node and plug that to the output port of your compound, or to the true input of the enable "if" node that's connected to the output of your emit compound (if you want to keep the enable condition). Now the next part depends on what type of emit you are using. If you are using an emit by position, you can just directly plug your Emit position into your Add Point Positions port and that should do the trick. Ignore all the other disconnected compounds, the convert rate per second, the select case, the build array, the filtered if emitted, etc...
That should do what you want. If you want a different emission type and need help, let me know. Otherwise, that should do the trick. The principle of this is to remove the random emission and replace it by a controllable one by using modulo and the current frame. Hope this helps.
-Mathieu
phil
Eric Thivierge / XSI Database
However, I believe normally the client only gets the final rendered image sequences not the source files unless otherwise stated in the contract.
Cheers,
--------------------------------------------
Eric Thivierge
phil
Eric Lampi
If you're a painter, and you sell someone a painting, it doesn't mean you give up your reproduction rights. You need to specifically state it in a contract. At least, that's the way it used to be, I don't expect that it's changed but you never know.
I'd be very interested to hear the facts if anyone knows.
Eric
Jeffrey Dates
What I've done is determine it on a project-by-project basis. Principal aside, do you stand to harm a client relationship if you withhold the data? If so, Just give them what they want, but explain you don't support them, unless they are on site. ( meaning.. if they can't figure them out.. tough cookie! )
I know some people who plainly refuse to give up their data. I can understand that as well...
Me, I'm in the other camp. Because they are a client, and I value repeat business, I tend to just give them whatever they want. Sure you run the risk of them going to another vendor with your data, but typically if you have a good relationship with your client, you can just express that this is highly unorthodox, for this very reason.
I often ask why? What could they possibly want the data for? Often, they want it for something like 'print', or 'web' content.. in which case I offer to just generate that media for cheaper then it would cost them to hire someone to try to figure out your data.
Legally, I think if it's not contractually obligated, then you can say, sorry, I don't do that.
Real Model-makers keep all the models they build for productions. ( or charge a premium to release them ) I would think you could do the same.
I think, use your gut. If it feels fishy.. push back.
Jeffrey Dates
tak...@earthlink.net
or XSI
:P
-T
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Dates
Sent: Oct 29, 2009 4:02 PM
To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
Martin Belleau
We usually freeze everything, and give them the bare bones. That way we do give them the scene files, but stripped. That way they have no choice but to come back for modifs. It also pleases them that they think they get our complete scene files…
From: softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Dates
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:03 PM
To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: OT: client claims file ownership
But in my experience, the chances of them being able to view your files, let alone use them, is pretty slim. Especially if you use anything non-default. Like remote workgroups, scripts and such.
Jeffrey Dates
I'm fortunate, I've never had an issue with giving up project data. But then, It's usually data I don't care to see again anyway. :-)
Steffen Dünner
I often ask why? What could they possibly want the data for? Often, they want it for something like 'print', or 'web' content.. in which case I offer to just generate that media for cheaper then it would cost them to hire someone to try to figure out your data.
PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6 3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F
Graham D Clark
Graham D Clark, telephone: fad-take-two,
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamclark
Andy Jones
I guess I'm kind of inclined to agree that giving away the assets isn't such a terrible thing. If the only way you're going to get more work from them is to withhold assets, you might not want to be working with them again anyway. (Not to imply that that's necessarily the case in your situation).
I guess the part where it starts to get really dodgy for me is with tools you made that they don't want you to use again because they "own" them. In that case, I would advocate trying to get them to agree to letting both of you continue to use the tools, in favor of having to argue about it. You could explain that the tools are built on pre-exiting tools you already had, such that it's clear that negotiating outright ownership of the tools isn't worth the trouble.
- Andy
Joe Williamsen
I'm working on a job right now where all of the assets created are owned by the client - but that's something I knew going into it.... On other contracts, I've negotiated for a client to have usage rights, but not exclusive rights, and no ownership of assets created..... it all depends on the contract....
Joe Williamsen
riddance. Just make sure you compensate for it in your initial bid -
(you'll know you need to charge them extra because this will be a clause
in the contract). Clients who are super-cheap or always looking for a
way around a fair rate are usually a nightmare to work with anyway, and
will suck the life out of you. Do the work, and move on.
Morten Bartholdy
product as defined in the contract be that imagery or other digital or
physical products you can produce. Think of it like a carfactory - the
customer buys a car - this does not mean he owns the productionline created
to build that car.
It can and does get more complicated in certain cases though. We do a lot of
work for a client where they provide models of their product. We then clean
them up, rig and shade them and animate them. This doesnt change the
ownership of the models - they are the property of said client, however the
rigs, shaders and scene setups, some of which or elements of which could be
proprietary, are your production line owned by you. You can choose to sell
such parts as a product, but then this should be stated in the contract.
Bottom line is I think you need to make good thoroughly thought out
contracts, not least to maintain a good relationship with your clients when
you say no you can't have this. In the end it also comes down to which kind
of relationship you wish to have with that client. If they are asking for
files after years of working with your company, it might be because they
want to go elsewhere.
Morten Bartholdy
3D & VFX Supervisor
----- Original Message -----
From: "phil" <phil.h...@jamination.com>
To: <soft...@listproc.autodesk.com>
kim aldis
isn't that different, I don't think.
I've had this, a couple of times. In the UK, unless otherwise stated
in your terms of business or unless your client specifies differently
*before work begins*, the entire constructive process, pipeline as
well as data files, belong to you. You keep them, you stick to your
guns as far as is practically possible for you. If you do agree to
hand over, as well as data files there's a nasty grey area with
regards to proprietary software and data. For example, you may be
using proprietary scripted ops, compiled ops, ICE trees, materials,
whatever, from your own library, one that you've had for many years.
The would need that if they're to reconstruct parts of the job in any
meaningful way.
Remember also - and this has also happened to me - their reason for
wanting that data is so that they can get cheaper quotes from
suppliers other than you. In other words, the results of your hard
work are going to be used to gain advantage by prospective suppliers
who will be pitching against you.
Now for the nitty gritty - and this also happened to me. If you fight
this, you need to consider (obviously) how badly you want to keep this
client as well as (less obviously) how badly your client can hurt you
in a fight. The particular instance that sticks in my craw to this day
was when Dorland Kindersley decided they wanted the data files so the
BBC could pitch cheaply. They conceded, without prejudice, that they
had no legal right to claim the data but that they'd spin us round and
round in court until we gave up or keeled over and died from lack of
funding.
In the end, I parted with the data but - and bear in mind, you can't
be deliberately obstructive, so you need to act dumb on this - it was
archived on a mostly redundant tape format using an even more
redundant archive format. 'Sorry guv, that's all we have to backup
onto'.
I did have the great satisfaction, some months later, of having the
BBC - who quoted half what we did - and later DK, calling up begging
for help because they'd blown the entire 12 programme budget halfway
through the first show.
Stick to your guns, this shouldn't be encouraged. And get your TOS
ammended, make sure they sign.
good luck.
Steffen Dünner
kim aldis
asked you to do prior to commencement. Did he ask you just to 'do the
job', provide X shots, 'do the effects for this movie'. What was
discussed then would constitute the verbal contract that governed what
you were asked to supply. Verbal contracts, especially with witnesses,
are binding.
Joe Williamsen
what we use... it's ALL we use - lol....
rob...@texturelighting.com
-- Render Theory: It either renders or it doesn't
Stephen Davidson
Would this be of any help? :
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_106A
Best Regards,
Steve Davidson
(954)552-7956
www.3danimationmagic.com
-----Original
Message-----
From:
softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of phil
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009
03:30 PM
To:
soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: OT: client claims file
ownership
We are working for the local state lottery and they are claiming ownership to our software files, that we have
Stephen Davidson
And also this:
Best Regards,
Steve Davidson
(954)552-7956
www.3danimationmagic.com
-----Original
Message-----
From:
softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of phil
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009
03:30 PM
To:
soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: OT: client claims file
ownership
We are working for the local state lottery and they are claiming ownership to our software files, that we have
Stephen Davidson
And finally this:
Do U.S. Owners of Works of Art Also Control the Copyrights?
The claim is sometimes made by proprietors of works of art in the U.S. that ownership of a physical work of art also carries with it ownership of the copyright. This is quite simply a false and misleading assumption.
There have been only two major U.S. federal copyright acts in the twentieth century. The first was passed in 1909; the second was enacted in 1976 and became effective in 1978. Both acts make it clear that the sale or conveyance by the artist of his work of art does not carry with it the underlying copyright to the work. The following is the text of Section 27 of the 1909 Copyright Act, which remained in force until succeeded by the 1976 Act:
The copyright is distinct from the property in the material object copyrighted, and the sale or conveyance, by gift or otherwise, of the material object shall not in itself constitute a transfer of the copyright, nor shall the assignment of the copyright constitute a transfer of the title to the material object.
Section 202 of the 1976 Copyright Act (effective January 1, 1978) is equally unequivocal on the subject:
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any right in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
The impression that the artist forfeits his copyright when he sells his work was a short-lived one derived from the finding in the New York State case of Pushman v. New York Graphic Society Inc. (1942). A lower New York State court in that case seemed to hold that absent a signed agreement, the artist was presumed to have automatically conveyed the copyright and the rights of reproduction when he sold his work of art. Such at least was the conclusion drawn by a number of owners who sought to control the copyrights to the works in their collections. The clear intent of the 1909 law was that the artist retains the copyright unless he or she specifically signed it away in a written agreement. Pushman stood for the proposition that the artist automatically loses the copyright unless he or she retained it through a written agreement.
Thus "Pushman" contradicted the intent of the 1909 copyright law then in effect, with results which were recognized as so unfair that the New York State Legislature specifically overturned it by legislative action in 1966. The pertinent New York State Business Law provision follows:
Whenever a work of fine art is sold or otherwise transferred by or on behalf of the artist who created it, or his heirs or personal representatives, the right of reproduction thereof is reserved to the grantor until it passes into the public domain by act or operation of law unless such right is sooner expressly transferred by an instrument, note or memorandum in writing signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or his duly authorized agent. (Section 224, Article 12-E, 1966 New York General Business Law)
In spite of this negation of the "Pushman" finding, the presumption in the Pushman case is still erroneously employed by some to justify the marketing of works in their possession. The result over the years had been the growing participation of some owners in the poster, greeting card, toy, merchandise, and calendar business, coupled with a refusal to grant artists or their heirs either a royalty or a right to approve the products marketed. This has also served to encourage some manufacturers to ignore the claims of artists whose works they exploit, although by and large owners now recognize and respect the rights of creators and their heirs.
Additionally, under the national legislation of Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and virtually every other state in Western Europe, as well as under the provisions of the Berne Convention, to which the U.S. became an adherent on March 1, 1989, there has never been any doubt that the copyright always remains with the artist, but may be conveyed to an owner only if the artist specifically signs it away in a written document (a practice which is virtually unknown in Europe.)
Best Regards,
Steve Davidson
(954)552-7956
www.3danimationmagic.com
-----Original
Message-----
From:
softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of phil
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009
03:30 PM
To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: OT: client claims file
ownership
We are working for the local state lottery and they are claiming ownership to our software files, that we have
phil
asked you to do prior to commencement. Did he ask you just to 'do the
job', provide X shots, 'do the effects for this movie'. What was
discussed then would constitute the verbal contract that governed what
you were asked to supply. Verbal contracts, especially with witnesses,
are binding.
"
We really did not do anything, the project is very simple and we have to
redo it for every venue (sporting arenas, no 2 are the same), and they
decided that they wanted the
files so they could "update" it for free without going through us to save
money.
thanks for everyone's input, it has been extremely useful.
Phil
kim aldis
reasonable response then.
phil
others do pop up.
I really don't mind them recreating the work, I don't claim to own the
"idea", but I built the file(s),
and I am not thrilled to give any scene/compositing files up.
Phil
Hans Payer
Hans
Joe Williamsen
Norm Olsen
> From: phil.h...@jamination.com
> To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: Re: client claims file ownership
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:13:20 -0400
>
> actually it probably isn't that simple, this is just one particular project,
> others do pop up.
> I really don't mind them recreating the work, I don't claim to own the
> "idea", but I built the file(s),
> and I am not thrilled to give any scene/compositing files up.
>
> Phil
William Pleydon
----- Original Message -----From: Norm Olsen