In this thread the past few days I've retired from being a contributer, content to be a reader.

This has continued to be interesting, educational, and sometimes funny. I won't backtrack to "original sin" and Aliens since I already put in my time on that one way back on page 10. 

As for "after-life", I can't get into Constantine's construct of projecting Roman/Greek myth onto Christianity and turning Zeus into Jehovah. White guy with a beard sitting on a very heavy golden throne suspended by water vapor, cotton wool and zero turtles just doesn't work as a being who is Everywhere at All times. By definition he is way too finite to be the Ultimate Infinite Being of Love and Creation. Needless to say, what do I know? "It might be turtles all the way down."

But what if...

another dimension were experienced when we die. A dimension not only of sight and sound but a dimension of mind. A Land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. 

Sorry, I confused myself for a second. Forget that, I was thinking of the Twilight Zone.

What if, there is an eternal value to the sum of what we call ourselves that remains after we let go of our body? And that, while we no longer have the system available to perceive this earthly world we become aware of another dimension that has always been here in a different phase of time/space.

Merged with the Universe in a sea of nuetrinos  we might feel reunited with the source of all "things" if there was a consciousness to the Universe. And if the Universe had a consciousness that absorbed the being-self of everyone who ever lived then you might call that God. But if it turned out that was true but it wasn't God, I still wouldn't want to bad mouth it right away, being new to the Dimension and all.

It was fun for a while, I haven't jumped into one of these kinds of threads for a long time. If I've offended anyone it wasn't my intention. I was going for the fun exchange of ideas.

However, I can see that its likely to take a more serious turn if the focus becomes trying to define an ultimate omnipotent being in charge of running the universe. Even with the best knowledge science has to offer I can only imagine that it can't take into account all the data there is to consider, not only because it is vast and un-reachable but that we don't as yet have all the scales by which to measure it. 

A 100 years ago some people really really believed in the science of Ether (not the alcohol based substance)as a massless medium that bound the void of the universe together, eventually discarded as a theory that had no weight. Time passes and the footprints of neutrinos start to lead the conversation back to what sounds a lot like ether.

The Force, midichlorians, the Great Magnet, whatever you call it, reams of forests printed  with  scientific data are offered as a sacrifice to appease He Who Pays the Bills not to withdraw funding. That is little consolation when each of us ride the giant wave of existence and struggle to keep our balance on a daily basis. It seems only natural that each person sometime in their life is going to try and make a direct call to The Source without having to pass through the belly of a scientist. 

and for the record I love science. 

Quote: "And equally, we've always needed some powerful entity to blame, or to have to appease in order to set things right again."

While I think we have their hard work to thank for some basic principles that have withstood the test of Time, their method by definition wasn't so methodical. 

For example, when it came to "set things right again" who came up with sacrifice?

Someone convinced the others that God worked on some sort of monetary system based on blood. And if the result wasn't achieved then you just didn't offer enough blood or the right kind of blood. Proof that the Shame-man shouldn't be allowed back at the all-you-can-eat peyote buffet.

Imagine the laugh the Aliens will have when they hear us explain all that we know about Quantum Physics. (In my version the Aliens can laugh but mostly expressed through a series of farts and tap dancing) thanks be to Kurt

It's not an attempt to live in a fantasy. Imagine the desire to describe an inexplicable experience and resorting to the metaphors available in that time and base them all on the best technical knowledge your ancestors could pass down to you. 

If we lost this perch at the top of the tower we now enjoy how long would it be before our grandchildren (or theirs) began to believe in some inverted science mixed with a ritual of religion and movie references? : )

And to stay on topic:

Aliens traveling so far to find us might want to shop around a little before adopting the beliefs of the creatures who couldn't leave their own planet. If there is a desire to actually sell them on the ideas of Christianity you better choose the salesman wisely.

Without sounding xenophobic, all the religions are pretty much for humans only. It is more likely that if they are made of something that is intelligent enough to get here they might be more likely to start converting us to their way of thinking. Perhaps that is better that than converting us to food. 

"Save, savior": You've got to be lost in the mechanics of the non-phenomenal world to be saved and delivered into enlightenment. As our Aliens aren't defined here we don't know if they fall into the pre-existing condition that is inherent to this philosophy. 

Also, remember the image of the first god was wheat. But its difficult to imagine what wheat or the sun is thinking. It makes sense that we moved to a metaphor that was more relatable. 

 Quote: "I seem to remember something in Genesis about Forbidden fruit."

I tried to cover that back on page 10 with a bit of whimsy and Terence MacKenna.

Most of the guide books to better living that were written more than few thousand years ago were meant to be very much grounded in reality. And as human behavior goes, many people still find some good guidelines. 

Reading the other posts in this thread, I know everyone is clear where these guidelines have been abused over the centuries, and where a lack of the facts have doomed some to be the ideological prisoners of the best science that the 3rd Century had to offer. 

Sure, there's a big difference between the timeline of the Big Bang and a seven day week of Creation. And a lot of people argue that one must have one or the other. 

I believe that seven days wasn't a literal seven days but I don't think its about the Big Bang at all. I believe its more about our own creative human abilities to identify, judge, and make distinctions and that the early shamans were trying to quantify these abilities into a set of actions that would reap the desired result. And they were all trying to do it without Stephen Hawking or a National Geographic special anywhere in sight. It's been rough and religion has been its own worst enemy at times but I think it has over the long haul made Hawking and the Society possible. 

To me, it seems like its taken a long time to build this tower of babel and we're lucky to live in a time that knows about quarks and black holes. Where Bill can develop his Animotes (very cool btw) and we discuss all this stuff around the world without going kookoo. 

To be sure, in some places today and a thousand years ago we would all have to killed for thinking.

Yes, Bill, I'm trackin' ya, "You can't fool me, its turtles all the way down." ; )

Quote - I always thought the garden was a metaphor for the animal kingdom.  Also, as an early important use of language, the powers given to language is fascinating.  It's telling that Adam did not get to  name himself, but was instructed to name the animals when given dominion over them.

"In the beginning was the word and the word was god."

There may have been animals running around but until someone named them they didn't exist.

I know, sounds crazy, but we don't have to theorize about 4000 years ago there are enough present day examples. 

Germs didn't exist until someone began speaking about them. Aliens that don't believe in Jesus didn't exist until several people decided to go on for several pages about them. One might not believe that these aliens exist but they certainly exist as the subject of this thread and that's only due to the creative nature of the word.

Quote -  We've become seperate from the animals, but haven't united amongst ourselves.  I believe that some form of common belief system may be necessary to leaving the planet

 Au contraire, we are very united, once again, around words, specifically the language we speak. This one aspect is what has let us build a civilization. 

Quote - Perhaps the turning away from psychedelics coincides with the development of the bicameral mind.  Using cranial capacity to determine that the brain has not changed in 50,000 years seems a bit suspect.  For example, autism rates are on the rise.  Is that being reflected in cranial changes?

I'm not sure I'm following you there. Terence MacKenna's concept (that I played with earlier) was that the human brain's development was influenced by low doses of psychedelic plants over many generations. I'm not sure how the autism rate plays in this subject. It may, I just don't know much about autism. 

Quote - I hate to sound all Trekkie, but

Oh, c'mon, take a look at where you are. We're disembodied voices in a cybernetic labyrinth the size of the planet discussing the religious beliefs of aliens and the possible consequences (or lack of) based on whether we believe in them or not. 

Maybe there are no aliens.Perhaps alien is just the wrong word and until we get the word right we won't be able to really see them and know that they exist. 

 The word sin in Spanish means without.

The idea that a human could be in a state without God is crazy if one's idea of God is a being without limits that is everywhere at all times. 

How could anyone conceive of being outside of everything, unable to get back in?

Perhaps someone seriously high on drugs, like say, a group of protohumans dining on psilocybin for many generations.

Locked in a cycle of first seeing God and the infinite fabric of time and space deconstructed and reconnected during a series of short circuits  across their right and left hemispheres (dexter and sinister)  and then the next morning, feeling like Hell and wondering, "Where did God go?".

And then one day, a shaman of one particular tribe saw these parties were getting out of hand and, if continued, could threaten the tribe's survival.

So this shame man told the tribe that this particular fruit was forbidden because it let you know God and led to knowing lots of others as well, some that might also be promised to the Chief or his brothers. Eating it would be punished by being expelled from the tribe. 

But it was too late, by the time this first philosopher could conceive of these notions of the structure of the Universe and how he might be connected or disconnected (sin) from all the other creatures who didn't seem to have his worries his prefrontal lobe was developed. He realized that eating the magic mushrooms had changed his people forever. Even those born who had never eaten the forbidden fruit were born different from the animals of the world. Where once they had roamed with all creatures in the garden now they could only see themselves as separate. They were now humans.

Consider the lilies of the field, they toil not, neither do they spin nor do they have a central nervous system by which to develop a cognitive network of experiencing existence and yet they get on quite well with each other. 

Acknowledgements to Terence McKenna and the movie Altered States. 

 Slythrigal
&
Slythriguy

Yasssssmina
&
Glyssssmokt

Serpentia Diloptis
&
Scaleous Maximi

EvaSyl
&
Syladam

that's all I got for now

 This could be stating the obvious but just in case:

IDL is a good way to go if you have P8, vary the ambient value on each of the flame materials.
If its an animated scene use a noise node fed into the ambient value to vary the flame per frame.

Otherwise, you will need a point light per candle and set the fall off to a short distance. Again, if animated, a noise node fed into the light intensity value will make the candle light flicker.

Make sure your flame object is set to not cast a shadow. 

Ray Traced point lights or IDL they will both be  long renders but I bet it will look great!

 I know there are a lot of good opinions posted so far.

Sorry to add to the overwhelm:

Doing a comic in one day is not a bad goal to have. As my projects tend to grow faster than I can render them it makes sense to scale the project within a time frame one can afford.

Liquid Stealth Page 11

There's my example. Those strips were taking me around a week to write, sketch, layout, choreograph, light, render, and composite. Five days was a good turn around when I could do it.

What makes it go faster?

First subtract, writing, sketching and layout from the timing. You have to do them but for the moment consider pre-process.

With those items considered as finished, you're ready to choreograph. 
Start with the camera in your chosen setting. Render.
Next, in an empty scene bring in your characters using the rendered setting pics. This will allow you to pose your character(s) without the weight of the environment slowing down your computer.
Also if you can, pose the character wearing shoes only. Check your surroundings first to consider whether this is appropriate. This will also keep your Poser-time responsive while you do the gross positioning. Eventually you'll add the clothes, as you'll need to check for poke-through.

Save camera files from the scenery files and load them in your character scenes if it helps speed up the process. If your characters are close to the camera you can sometimes wing it.

A lots been said about the lighting. Very important as you and others have mentioned.

As someone else mentioned, DO POSTWORK. I'm not yelling, just emphasizing.  : )

Your goal is a comic in one day, not to prove how you were able to do dirt being kicked in the air in Poser.  Many pride themselves on what they can do with no postwork. As a static comic that isn't animating that pride will not let you achieve your goal on time, imo.

If you do look at my link, you'll see that I did a lot of my characters in their setting and many times I didn't. Hopefully you are more interested in the story than trying to figure out when I did and didn't. 

What slows things down?

Locations. Locations. Locations. ; ) 
The more places I added, the more lighting I had to do, add props, do more post. If you can minimize your backgrounds then more time can be spent on what's going on in the foreground.

And that's my advice, in one day. ; )
Good Luck

 Well, there ya go. I had never considered changing the light element's display style. Great suggestion.

Since I had to rush and try it, I'll add:

It all depends on your lighting and background. At this moment my background is dark and the smooth shaded light was a bit too shaded. Silhouette mode was great as it made it stand out,
which it might not if the background was bright.

Thanks!

 Sounds like you've already got a ton of suggestions, some good. I may repeat the good ones.
Also sounds like you have quite a bit of experience lighting in other apps but I'll still mention a couple of obvious points for others who might be following this thread.

Point lights: Use the scale as much as 500 or more so that you can see it. You know it doesn't affect the light, it still comes from a point.

I name my lights something specific instead of light 5, light22, etc I'll name it point_Car, spot_Door
and then name its camera Shadow_ptCar or Shadow_spotDoor so that I'm not trying to remember which shadow cam is associated to which light.

When looking through the Shadow Camera for a light, obviously, don't move the camera, only the light. Rotation doesn't matter for a point light so you are free to look around through the Shadow Cam without disturbing your lighting.

"Point at" is great for beginning aim but eventually I usually find it to constricting and later turn it off. Or use a dummy object that is invisible and "point at" the dummy object. You can move that around for spots assuming you like the initial position.

And I like to work one light at a time so I'm clear the feedback is for the light I'm focusing.
I think lighting is one of the more fun/creative aspects so I hate to see people stressing over it.
Hope this helps.

 Understand the need to conserve money, however...

Consider your needs (as I don't know them) and get a good tablet if the sensitivity and tilt- stylos
attributes are important. If you're painting textures, I would say that it is worth saving up for a good tablet rather than making do with a cheaper one. 

I've got an Intuos-1 6x8 that is still a good tablet after 10 years

and a Intuos 4 ptk-840 (which is around 8.5"  X  13"

I've never used a Bamboo so I have no feedback.

Most important part: 

Don't minimize the feel of the pen. If you're going to be spending hours holding it be sure to get a good grip. Even pinching hurts when you do it for days and days. ; )

 Dealing with fields ended for me when I left television for film. DVDs came later and I had heard conflicting reports on how DVDs handled them. 

I have noticed field problems in some DVD title sequences from time to time.

SandyKG, if your project has any shot where there is a strong lateral movement; where the camera pans from left to right or someone walks across from one side of the screen to the other or a car drives by. Burn your DVD and look at that scene and consider how the motion looks to you.

If the motion seems shaky you might want to render it on fields and then see how that looks.

If you shot video that will have fields in it whether you like it or not. In that case, if you're doing any effects on a live action shot with fields your CG animation will need fields with the same field dominance. 

I'm glad I haven't had to deal with these questions for a while but I'm intrigued at what the real answer is. Hope I haven't made anything too confusing.

1080i interlaced
1080p progressive

replicand is correct that fields is for broadcast television and progressive scan negates its use (that's my understanding). Web use doesn't need fields. Or if you're going to film you don't want fields.

Some video has come from TV has fields and ends up on YouTube, all the motion looking very nasty.

Fields will make motion look smoother as 60 images per second equals higher temporal resolution. 

Watch a camera pan at the movies and at a moderate speed it is unbearable to watch.
That same speed shot on video will look smooth thanks to fields.

There is a dark side to this story and that is frames (2 fields) have a dominance. If field dominance is inverted this will look very nasty as within every frame your video will play backwards, advance one frame in time and within that next frame play back. The result being that your shot will run backwards every 30th of a second while it is also playing forward. 

There is a lot more re: fields but if they are no longer needed for most media I am glad.

re: After Effects
Don't get me wrong, love, love, LOVE After Effects but I find it a PITA to edit anything more than a single effect shot. For doing effects shots, Wunderbar!