[linuxrants7xpg]

waldojim, on 05 May 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 05 May 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

You made a claim Jim ("Blender isn't even in the same league as the suite of software used by Dreamworks."). It's not my homework to prove or disprove your claims. Further, even if Blender isn't used by a single publisher, that doesn't prove that the software isn't "in the same leauge as the suite of software used by Dreamworks." Prove your claims.

You are the one countering. That is on you.

What was my counter Jim? Asking you what your information was for your claim? I made no claim of my own to prove or disprove.

waldojim, on 05 May 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I have proven every claim I have made thus far, based on you being a smart ass. I am tired of doing your homework for you, and proving you wrong time after time.

See now, it's really hard not to be a smart ass when you give me such great material to work with. Let's review shall we?

waldojim's claim: "100% of the applications in use were CUSTOM APPLICATIONS."
That claim was unproven by you and proven wrong by me.

waldojim's claim: "OK, so sorry - 99% of them."
That claim was unproven by you and proven wrong by me.

waldojim's claim: "ALL of their software apart from Maya is custom software"
That claim was unproven the first time you made it, and I disproved it then, and you made it a second time, still unproven and wrong.

waldojim's claim: "Blender isn't even in the same league as the suite of software used by Dreamworks."
That claim is unproven by you. I simply asked you what information you were basing that claim on. You refuse to provide any. That finally leads to this:

waldojim's claim: "I have proven every claim I have made thus far"
That claim is false, and proven wrong by me in this post.

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 05 May 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

See now, it's really hard not to be a smart ass when you give me such great material to work with. Let's review shall we?

waldojim's claim: "100% of the applications in use were CUSTOM APPLICATIONS."
That claim was unproven by you and proven wrong by me.

waldojim's claim: "OK, so sorry - 99% of them."
That claim was unproven by you and proven wrong by me.

Or - you didn't, and seem to think you did. First, the 100% was a figure of speech (as you like to conveniently ignore) Secondly, it has been proven that the only "standard" application was Maya, and even THAT was heavily modded. Sounds like are a tad wrong here - again.

Quote

waldojim's claim: "ALL of their software apart from Maya is custom software"
That claim was unproven the first time you made it, and I disproved it then, and you made it a second time, still unproven and wrong.

Nope, you still managed to ignore the evidence presented. As you chose to ignore, that is not proof you were correct.

Quote

waldojim's claim: "Blender isn't even in the same league as the suite of software used by Dreamworks."
That claim is unproven by you. I simply asked you what information you were basing that claim on. You refuse to provide any. That finally leads to this:

waldojim's claim: "I have proven every claim I have made thus far"
That claim is false, and proven wrong by me in this post.

Maybe you should learn to read first, then post?

[linuxrants7xpg]

waldojim, on 05 May 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Maybe you should learn to read first, then post?

A truly pathetic reply. Oh, and just for giggles, responding to your claim ("Go out and find proof of it being used by a major publisher, when you can't, consider WHY") Blender was used in the making of Spiderman 2 (distributed by Columbia Pictures). Yet another claim made by you that was unproven, and proven wrong by me. Or was that a figure of speech too?

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 05 May 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

waldojim, on 05 May 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Maybe you should learn to read first, then post?

A truly pathetic reply. Oh, and just for giggles, responding to your claim ("Go out and find proof of it being used by a major publisher, when you can't, consider WHY") Blender was used in the making of Spiderman 2 (distributed by Columbia Pictures). Yet another claim made by you that was unproven, and proven wrong by me. Or was that a figure of speech too?

ROFLMAO!

Quote

Blender 3D played a role in the development of Spider-Man 2: "As an animatic artist working in the storyboard department of Spider-Man 2, I used Blender's 3D modeling and character animation tools to enhance the storyboards, re-creating sets and props, and putting into motion action and camera moves in 3D space to help make Sam Raimi's vision as clear to other departments as possible" – Anthony Zierhut, Animatic Artist, Los Angeles.[21]

Again, read first. It was used to create a quick and dirty image so the other departments had something to work from. Nothing used in the actual film.

Good job with your "proof". It sure worked out better than your other "proof".

You do realize you are making this FAR too easy, right?

Care to try again?

This post has been edited by waldojim: 05 May 2012 - 10:51 PM

[linuxrants7xpg]

waldojim, on 05 May 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Again, read first. It was used to create a quick and dirty image so the other departments had something to work from. Nothing used in the actual film.

Good job with your "proof". It sure worked out better than your other "proof".

You do realize you are making this FAR too easy, right?

Care to try again?

Again, truly pathetic. Your request, "Go out and find proof of it being used by a major publisher". I went out and found that it was used by a major publisher, exactly as you said I wouldn't be able to do. Suddenly, what it was used for is somehow relevant?

Here's what I know. You're spending a whole lot of time claiming that you've proven every claim you've made (thus far), and not a whole lot of time actually doing it.

You made the claim, "Blender isn't even in the same league as the suite of software used by Dreamworks." I asked you, based on what information? You've provided nothing.

You're spending a whole lot of time claiming that when you're shown wrong by facts about your 100% (and 99%) claims, that was just a figure of speech.

Now, you demand that I go out and find proof of Blender being used by a major publisher. I do exactly that, and you claim that it wasn't used for what you think it should be used for. Truthfully, I haven't seen a whole lot to suggest you even know what it should be used for.

All in all, I see you making a lot of excuses but providing no facts for your claims.

Oh, and just a guess, but when you reply to this (and you will because you can't let someone else have the last word) you're still not going to provide any facts to support your claims, despite what you claim.

[nonseq]

linuxrants7xpg, on 05 May 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

waldojim, on 05 May 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Again, read first. It was used to create a quick and dirty image so the other departments had something to work from. Nothing used in the actual film.

Good job with your "proof". It sure worked out better than your other "proof".

You do realize you are making this FAR too easy, right?

Care to try again?

Again, truly pathetic. Your request, "Go out and find proof of it being used by a major publisher". I went out and found that it was used by a major publisher, exactly as you said I wouldn't be able to do. Suddenly, what it was used for is somehow relevant?

Here's what I know. You're spending a whole lot of time claiming that you've proven every claim you've made (thus far), and not a whole lot of time actually doing it.

You made the claim, "Blender isn't even in the same league as the suite of software used by Dreamworks." I asked you, based on what information? You've provided nothing.



You're spending a whole lot of time claiming that when you're shown wrong by facts about your 100% (and 99%) claims, that was just a figure of speech.

Now, you demand that I go out and find proof of Blender being used by a major publisher. I do exactly that, and you claim that it wasn't used for what you think it should be used for. Truthfully, I haven't seen a whole lot to suggest you even know what it should be used for.

All in all, I see you making a lot of excuses but providing no facts for your claims.

Oh, and just a guess, but when you reply to this (and you will because you can't let someone else have the last word) you're still not going to provide any facts to support your claims, despite what you claim.

Good grief. Pen penci and paint are also used to story board. Blender had nothing to do with the edit. I am constantly amazed at the grasping at straws and desperation in trying to prove a point that is totally sophomoric. Have you ever done production or animation?

BTW I used to use an Apple II to enhance storyboards for animations . I have also used Amiga, Mac OS, SGI IRIX, Alias, Wavefront, Softimage, Maya, to produce animations for projects for all three major networks, the National Science Foundation, and for commercial projects.. Do you have experience with those packages? How about Avid, Adobe Premiere, pinnacle, Media 100, Final Cut? Or is your "expertise" more vicarious? More or less a voyeur?

This post has been edited by nonseq: 06 May 2012 - 06:37 AM

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 05 May 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

Again, truly pathetic. Your request, "Go out and find proof of it being used by a major publisher". I went out and found that it was used by a major publisher, exactly as you said I wouldn't be able to do. Suddenly, what it was used for is somehow relevant?

Here's what I know. You're spending a whole lot of time claiming that you've proven every claim you've made (thus far), and not a whole lot of time actually doing it.

You made the claim, "Blender isn't even in the same league as the suite of software used by Dreamworks." I asked you, based on what information? You've provided nothing.

You're spending a whole lot of time claiming that when you're shown wrong by facts about your 100% (and 99%) claims, that was just a figure of speech.

Now, you demand that I go out and find proof of Blender being used by a major publisher. I do exactly that, and you claim that it wasn't used for what you think it should be used for. Truthfully, I haven't seen a whole lot to suggest you even know what it should be used for.

All in all, I see you making a lot of excuses but providing no facts for your claims.

Oh, and just a guess, but when you reply to this (and you will because you can't let someone else have the last word) you're still not going to provide any facts to support your claims, despite what you claim.

So wait, we tell you it isn't even in the same league, you ask for proof. Then provide your own proof to support my statement. Sorry, but if the tools you are pushing could actually handle the film production, why would a studio only use it to create little dirty mock ups and not the actual production? I mean, it is free after all!

So - instead you choose to attack me personally. I give you a perfectly valid response to your blustering, and you respond with character attack. How very childish. No this reply has nothing to do with "getting in the last word", it has everything to do with your nonsense.

Linux isn't for everyone. Neither are the "tools" (in quotes because many of them are half assed). Those few tools that are worth having, are already built and distributed for Windows and OS-X. Firefox, Gimp, and Audacity for example. I use all three - on Windows. Even then, there are times I find myself wanting something more polished - especially when dealing with Gimp.

Now then - all of my statements have not only been backed up, but you even went so far as to verify one of them for me. If you have anything really worth adding, go for it. If all you have is personal attacks - save them for EvilDave - he likes those.

[linuxrants7xpg]

waldojim, on 06 May 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

So wait, we tell you it isn't even in the same league, you ask for proof. Then provide your own proof to support my statement. Sorry, but if the tools you are pushing could actually handle the film production, why would a studio only use it to create little dirty mock ups and not the actual production? I mean, it is free after all!

So - instead you choose to attack me personally. I give you a perfectly valid response to your blustering, and you respond with character attack. How very childish. No this reply has nothing to do with "getting in the last word", it has everything to do with your nonsense.

Linux isn't for everyone. Neither are the "tools" (in quotes because many of them are half assed). Those few tools that are worth having, are already built and distributed for Windows and OS-X. Firefox, Gimp, and Audacity for example. I use all three - on Windows. Even then, there are times I find myself wanting something more polished - especially when dealing with Gimp.

Now then - all of my statements have not only been backed up, but you even went so far as to verify one of them for me. If you have anything really worth adding, go for it. If all you have is personal attacks - save them for EvilDave - he likes those.

Told you. Exactly like I said you would. I'm done here. You've got nothing to support your statements, and all you're going to do is continue to repeat the same false claims. What a complete waste of time.

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 06 May 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

waldojim, on 06 May 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

So wait, we tell you it isn't even in the same league, you ask for proof. Then provide your own proof to support my statement. Sorry, but if the tools you are pushing could actually handle the film production, why would a studio only use it to create little dirty mock ups and not the actual production? I mean, it is free after all!

So - instead you choose to attack me personally. I give you a perfectly valid response to your blustering, and you respond with character attack. How very childish. No this reply has nothing to do with "getting in the last word", it has everything to do with your nonsense.

Linux isn't for everyone. Neither are the "tools" (in quotes because many of them are half assed). Those few tools that are worth having, are already built and distributed for Windows and OS-X. Firefox, Gimp, and Audacity for example. I use all three - on Windows. Even then, there are times I find myself wanting something more polished - especially when dealing with Gimp.

Now then - all of my statements have not only been backed up, but you even went so far as to verify one of them for me. If you have anything really worth adding, go for it. If all you have is personal attacks - save them for EvilDave - he likes those.

Told you. Exactly like I said you would. I'm done here. You've got nothing to support your statements, and all you're going to do is continue to repeat the same false claims. What a complete waste of time.

Pot meet kettle. I responded KNOWING you couldn't let it go.

This is fun!

No false claims here - everything has been verified, and backed up. You refuse to see the evidence. There is a word for that...

DENIAL.

When are you going to move on to the next step? Acceptance.