hey, this is a pretty slick site, i was wondering if anyone here knows how they achieved the really cool liquid like morphing effect. was it all done just by photoshop filtering a bunch of frames in sequence or what?
ask info@140db.com , they made the site 
the question is :
how did they make the window open on the same size of the screen
it is like estudio you cane check there site
he’s talking about the wavy effect they have over the large pics
in each section IN the site…
My best guess is they used After Effects.
*Originally posted by danielthelion *
**hey, this is a pretty slick site, i was wondering if anyone here knows how they achieved the really cool liquid like morphing effect. was it all done just by photoshop filtering a bunch of frames in sequence or what?
I think it was done using Adobe After Effects 
you think so huh? i can’t figure it out. i emailed them a while ago but no response…the mystery remains…
it’s called FantaMorph, and is only $40… cool little proggie
they could have used AfterEffects, but FantaMorph will do it a lot cheaper. Check out the goodies page, they have some free stuff that will do just what you want.
you really think thats what they used?
no, but it would do the job, quickly, and a lot less expensive that any Adobe product.
Personally, I don’t like Adobe. They don’t look at programs with an intuitive aim. They tend to say, “if we teach them, they will use it.”
If it weren’t for schools stuck in a curriculum, and teaching Photoshop to absolutely everyone, PS sales would plumet. IMO, 75% of the designers out there using Adobe products would be using something else, if they had learned it before PS, since they very rarely use the full power of PS (except to do fun stuff for themselves).
i dont know about that rev. i mean, granted, adobe ps IS taught in virtually every school, but i think its that way BECAUSE adobe is a great product and as far as im concerned, theres not another alternative that i would opt for. what other package can do what photoshop offers?
and i think its incredibly intuitive…just my experience though.
Fireworks can do 90% of what PS can do. PaintShopPro can as well. Fireworks can also do 140% of what PS can do in some cases, and is a lot quicker, produces a smaller files size, and is less expensive.
The reason PS is taught so much, is because it is extremely difficult to get a learning institution to switch software. Think of the extra money to equip all the stations, the extra training for the teachers. No, I think it is a monitary issue, and just plain resistance to change.
15 years ago, when the majority of design students went into print media, sure PS made perfect sense. Today, the percentage is much less.
The only reason, IMO, that you find any Adobe product intuitive, is because it was the first one you used.
Ask the pros here. Myself, DDD, Senocular, all use FW as much as possible. While we also all say it is no PhotoShop, PS is no Fireworks either. Ask just about any production designer, which has had the opportunity to work with Fireworks and PhotoShop which they would rather do production work in… I’ll bet Ahmed’s allowance that Fireworks will come out ahead.
Diff strokes for diff folks. I see you came up in a cell animation field. Since I know nothing of how that bus is done, I will have to take what you say to thought.
nonono.
They probablyused a one of the KPT 7 filters
for PS called ‘Fluid’. It’s fully animatable and u
can export as AVI. They probably just animated
a distortion and then reversed it.
Either that, or you could just use ‘Liquify’ in PS
to make about 10 frames of distortion and ‘alpha
tween’ them into eachother in Flash.
Failing that, it also looks as though they could
have used a series of ‘pinch/punch’ and
’pond ripples’ filters to make it…
Nice site, though. Very my-style; modern,
minimalist, contemporary. Just beautiful.
Anyway, dont try emailing the designer.
Its not as if they’re just going to tell you.
btw, PS owns and nothing even comes close.
Fireworks is specifically for web graphics,
PaintShopPro is just a toy, and Illustrator?
Illustrator is for VECTOR graphics… why are
you comparing it to PS???
ya3, thanks for the ps props man! i agree that they’re quite different apps. and come on rev, dont be so dogmatic when it comes to applications. your totally right when you say “different strokes for different folks”. but both ps and fireworks has they’re strongpoints and weakpoints.And just for the record, i am a professional.
