Flash Effects Free Download

[Nella Mcnairy]

Hi there! I was wondering if someone could tell me which is better for animation- After Effects or Flash? The pros and cons for each, or something along thoes lines. I've looked at other threads, but they were quite dated (or just useless, listing no reasons). If it helps to know, I won't be doing web animation, and I'm already quite familiar with After Effects in the motion graphics and visual effects areas. I'm also wondering which is used more commonly in the industry, and which would benifit me more in future (job opprotunities, ecetera). Thank you in advanced.

Rick is correct. I have used both Flash and AE for animation for years and it really does depend on what you are trying to achieve. Flash has advantages in my opinion in that you can put multiple assets on one layer in Flash where each assets requires a new layer in After Effects.

If you do use Flash, do NOT use movie clips, use graphic symbols instead...this is "old school," however when you export the result you can then import the swf into After Effects and have the best of both worlds.

After Effects is an animaiton system that has keyframes that are locked to a linear timeline. There is no interactivity or programming available. Therea re programming tools that allow layers and objects to interact with each other but not with the viewer.

Flash's output is a file that can be manipulated, oten desired or necessary for web interfaces. You can program a button in Flash that will run a movie that was created in AE. You can program a button in Flash that sits on top of a movie that was created in AE.

This is an apples and oranges question. AE is used to create shots or short sequences. Flash is used to create interactive presentations for the web or apps. Without knowing what you are trying to produce it is impossible to point you to the best tool. If it is interactive content then your choice is Flash. If it is a movie then it's After Effects.

Considering interactive apps are really the only place for flash formats, I would say that you should stick to After Effects. That way you can control the export options that make compression ratios an actual topic. Import Photoshop and Illustrator elements with ease. I would also imagine that After Effects formats play nicer with Premiere projects in case you have a director that uses it as part of his/her workflow.

Strangely enough, Flash is more common in the industry (Well, more shorts rather than full feature, recorded, videos.). Mainly because Macromedia was a real thing before Adobe bought them out, and our planet is chalk full of people who don't care to upgrade their education.

just to be accurate, in Ae you can have multiple assets in one layer: a shape layer can have multiple shapes in one layer, and a precomp (which is a layer) can contain an infinite amount of layers inside.

The clap section is quite long though. Three things will likely have to happen to have perfectly in sync flashes throughout the entire section (otherwise the flashes will probably start to drift out of sync)

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Methods and materials: A high-capacity rotating-anode x-ray tube with an 80-kW generator was implemented for preclinical FLASH radiation research. A custom 3-dimensionally printed immobilization and positioning tool was developed for reproducible irradiation of a mouse hind limb. Calibrated Gafchromic (EBT3) film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (LiF:Mg,Ti) were used for in-phantom and in vivo dosimetry. Healthy FVB/N and FVBN/C57BL/6 outbred mice were irradiated on 1 hind leg to doses up to 43 Gy at FLASH (87 Gy/s) and conventional (CONV;

Results: FLASH-irradiated mice experienced milder radiation-induced skin injuries than CONV-irradiated mice, visible by 4 weeks posttreatment. At 8 weeks posttreatment, normal tissue injury was significantly reduced in FLASH-irradiated animals compared with CONV-irradiated animals for histologic endpoints including inflammation, ulceration, hyperplasia, and fibrosis. No difference in tumor growth response was observed between FLASH and CONV irradiations at 35 Gy. The normal tissue sparing effects of FLASH irradiations were observed only for high-severity endpoint of ulceration at 43 Gy, which suggests the dependency of biologic endpoints to FLASH radiation dose.

Conclusions: Rotating-anode x-ray sources can achieve FLASH dose rates in a single pulse with dosimetric properties suitable for small-animal experiments. We observed FLASH normal tissue sparing of radiation toxicities in mouse skin irradiated at 35 Gy with no sacrifice to tumor growth suppression. This study highlights an accessible new modality for laboratory study of the FLASH effect.

I have attempted to research this on the web before but was unable to come up with a definitive answer. Searching for "photodamage" or "light toxicity" or "photoretinopathy" I find a lot of generic warnings, like this one but few actual studies on this topic. Obviously, brighter light and longer exposure times will increase the likelihood of injury.

I do recall an article a few years ago on the dangers of the intense operating room lights used in eye surgery and their effect on the retina, that led me to conclude that the duration and intensity of the flashes used in photography are nothing in comparison to operating room lights, and therefore pose minimal risk.

The short attention span of children tends to limit there cumulative exposure to flash anyway. Furthermore, the amount of light striking the retina can be reduced by shooting in a bright enough environment that the pupils are moderately constricted. Thus, I photograph my own children without concern for damaging their eyes.

I had an eye exam once in which the doctor first dilated my pupil, then attached a device to my eye to hold the lid open (something invented by Nazis, I'm pretty certain). Then he gave me an extremely nauseating solution to drink, had me put my eye to a camera, and proceeded to fire a high-powered electronic flash into my eyeball at a rate of 3 flashes per second for a full ten seconds. My retina gave it up at about the fourth flash and everything went completely green.

I'm sure a little bit of fill flash in the middle of the day when pupils are closed (less dilated) will probably affect your eyes a lot less than a bright flash pointed straight at you in a pitch dark room.

And neither are all the animals exposed to frequent lightning flashes from the moment of birth on. Annoying, perhaps yes. Harmful, I seriously doubt. I'd avoid it simply 'cause crying babies aren't fun to be near and I learned early on to let sleeping babies sleep.

I doubt there's any actual damage or injury. But it can be irritating. My infant nephew was born with a serious heart condition. I've photographed him frequently during the past three months since his birth. He reacts strongly to direct flash from P&S type cameras. I use bounce flash and a diffuser, which minimizes discomfort.

He can be a bit irritable at times, of course, because the little guy has been through a lot. But he seldom reacts much to a few indirect flash photos at a time. When he does begin to squint and appear irritated I stop for a while and use available light or don't take photos at all. The latter gives me an excuse to cuddle him for a while anyway.

My boy got irritated at flashes the first few times, but soon got more used to them. He's not quite to the point of one of my dogs (If there are flashes, she RUNS in front of the camera, and poses - honest! It makes it hard to get photos of anyone else), but he doesn't get annoyed with them any more.

Years ago, in anatomy and physiology classes, we studied the function of the retina in a little detail, and from what I recall, I certainly wouldn't worry about the flashes. If significant amounts of UV were involved, then I'd worry, but it's my understanding that flashes do a somewhat decent job of filtering out the UV. If anyone has information to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

FYI Kenneth Katz; I did ask Jadyn's ped and he said he has never seen any evidence of it doing damage to eyes. I just wanted to ask 'the pros' who use the equipement frequently incase they had heard anything to the contrary.

I feel much better about all the repiles as well as her doctor's opinion. We do use natural light often, and now that it is warming up, we will be outside a lot. But once in a while, we still like to do our cute little cheesy studio portraits :)

It was never an issue if the flash bother her. She loves the 'lights' and tries to give it toys or other things... Here she is trying to get the light to eat her twizzler. Thanks again everyone! Renee

I don't know these people personally but this article seems to give us a better basis than the collection of assumptions, rumors, urban myths, and old wives' tales we usually find when we search the Internet. And Dr. Cohen, as a biologist, has a wonderful collection of birds to go with portaits of his grandchildren (taken with flash, by the way).

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

3a8082e126