PDA

View Full Version : Stepping into more complicated Animation



JMCarrigan
09-03-2009, 10:05 PM
Over in South Beach there's a place with a small Flying Saucer parked outside. So in the interest of teaching myself how to track motion etc, I went there today to capture some footage. (The shakiness is on purpose to make it harder on me.)

I had been working on various saucers and decided to see what I could come up with. So this is my first attempt.

I used AE to track the motion. I used a couple of AE effects for the heck of it but the zapping and stuff is not the story. Also apparently the particle system in AE (Particle Playground) somehow adds the physics of the track motion to the particles.

Without false sumpin' I'm saying I know it's awful, but I intend to get better. The story will be about a UFO spying the smaller ship and investigating as soon as I get comfortable with the workings.

Don't laugh to hard.

JMCarrigan
09-04-2009, 10:42 AM
Contest? Wrong place for this! Can somebody move this to a better place. I mean will somebody? Thank you!

probiner
09-04-2009, 12:12 PM
I nver done MT, its one my to-do list.
Only thing i would like to point out is that distance, size and velocity arent consistent in the video.
I was suprised by the "actual" size of the saucer. It seams to be over the model saucer from the start and then come closer to the camera, when actually its only then its aligning with the model saucer.

You could make the initial motion of the saucer, slower, since its further away and put some fog for atmospherical perspective.

CHeers

JMCarrigan
09-04-2009, 08:13 PM
I nver done MT, its one my to-do list.
Only thing i would like to point out is that distance, size and velocity arent consistent in the video.
I was suprised by the "actual" size of the saucer. It seams to be over the model saucer from the start and then come closer to the camera, when actually its only then its aligning with the model saucer.

You could make the initial motion of the saucer, slower, since its further away and put some fog for atmospherical perspective.

CHeers

Oh! Yeah. I'm working my way through figuring it out. I may have to RTM on motion tracking.

If I captured footage that was locked down it'd be easier - but...

The zoom really freaks AE out.

Fog - yep.

Thanks - I'm gonna figure it out. Here's more play from today. The Effects are just additional testing on the side.

Today I got it to go behind that tree.

OnlineRender
09-06-2009, 04:14 AM
dig the forums there wads of info on MT , there is some excellent software "all have there pro's and cons . dependant on the scene ,after effects is always easy to use / set up , again all depends on what your trying achive . ie export motion path to sync with LW camera .

AE -tip use orange posted notes (cheap method lol ) as tracking points , i know AE can go alittle crazy (",)

watch this ........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht3DUoGJuZY&feature=channel_page

ufo mt

JMCarrigan
09-06-2009, 09:20 PM
Been busy working on some wedding photos. Thanks for tips and I will and am - but only here and there. Sometimes I have to retrain myself I wait so long.

What I'm seeing so far is if I zoom in/out, AE flips. Post-it notes wouldn't fit in with what I'm doing at this point. As soon as I can, I'm running back over to Southbeach and get footage without zooms.

I was trying to mimic all that ufo footage and other AFV footage I see that's all over the place. I yell at the tv, "Steady that cam dangit!"

JMCarrigan
09-06-2009, 09:21 PM
Oh AE can export a motion path that controls the LW camera? I'm gonna have to read the manual after-all.

JMCarrigan
09-06-2009, 10:18 PM
Well, I still got it to go behind the tree. Gonna be better next time....

JMCarrigan
09-09-2009, 05:30 PM
I figured out how to properly use AE's motion tracking to compensate for the camera's zoom. (Haven't gotten back to South Beach for footagewithoutzooms.)

The gratuitous effects are better too.

I think I over did the haze on the model in Lightwave.

[edit] Anyone know of a file converter from anything to anything?

probiner
09-09-2009, 09:39 PM
I like version 3 Better :P
Version 4 placement in the sky is better.
I suggested the fog, but looks too underwater now, imho. It even dissapears in 4.

Space, size and speed could still be more consistent, but it would involve more frames probably and more time rendering :P

The Motion Tracking looks ok to me, but i'm a noob :D

About the converting: are you talking of videos formats?
I'm sure there are a lot of great professional softwares, but the 2 i use are:
http://www.cocoonsoftware.com/
and
http://www.virtualdub.org/

Cheers, Keep on track :P

JMCarrigan
09-10-2009, 12:05 AM
Thanks probiner. I'll check into that software. Nah. The rendering time is a matter of minutes. What is difficult is getting a small enough sized file to upload. WMV files are small and fast but I can't upload that type.

The difference in the motion tracking between 3 and 4 is the zoom is steady in 4. I.e., the saucer stays in the background as the camera zooms out in the real footage. Yeah. I added the haze in Lightwave using the background footage,but need to tone it down.

Motion of the saucer is not as important to me as getting the tracking tuned right. Besides UFO reports are always talking about the radical movements.

Hmmm. That cocoonsoftware sure looks good.

JMCarrigan
09-14-2009, 10:41 AM
....Cheers, Keep on track :P

Rrrgh. I thought I had it - now I see it's jittery!

Sekhar
09-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Looked at v1 and this last one above. I actually liked v1 better, looked more real and pretty solid from an MT perspective - if you could just fix the lighting/shadow on the UFO and add haze so it isn't as clear away and near...

JMCarrigan
09-14-2009, 03:12 PM
Looked at v1 and this last one above. I actually liked v1 better, looked more real and pretty solid from an MT perspective - if you could just fix the lighting/shadow on the UFO and add haze so it isn't as clear away and near...

Yeah. I see what ya mean. I'm trying this and that. As a matter of fact I'm gonna run over to South Beach and get more footage right now.

probiner
09-14-2009, 06:08 PM
Don't forget... uff... he forgot the battery...

JMCarrigan
09-15-2009, 09:55 PM
Don't forget... uff... he forgot the battery...

That's funny! :) I actually thought about it though. What a day. Here's the latest. Longer so I have time to tell some made up story. Continue to learn too.

Cougar12dk
09-20-2009, 11:45 AM
:) Looks very nice ... Jim, is it?

Is it on purpose there's no shadow from the animated saucer (yet)?

probiner
09-20-2009, 11:54 AM
LoL to the "mini-stalking" on the woman...

Since the tracking is done. You could give a bit more feeling to the saucer movement. Cheers

Cageman
09-20-2009, 02:00 PM
Good progress here! Thanks for sharing!

I would like to see some better integration when the saucer comes in full frame. Looks very CG and "pasted ontop". A big object like that would cause some kind of occlusion, if not shadows, when coming that close. It works very well when its in the distance though.

The tracking looks fine as far as I can tell. The best way to make sure the tracking works in a shaky cam shot like this, is to add a static CG-element somewhere before adding the real stuff, so to speak.

:)


EDIT: Integration and photorealism may not have been the purpose of this exercice... if that is the case, I would say: mission accomplished. :)

JMCarrigan
09-20-2009, 05:05 PM
Whoa! I didn't realize that people had responded to my play. So to answer gladly.

(Cougar12dk) Looks very nice ... Jim, is it?
Is it on purpose there's no shadow from the animated saucer (yet)?

It's Joseph Michael (JM) but I go by Michael. It's on purpose in that I haven't got there yet. I did know it was needed for a really nicer effect. Thanks.

(probinar) LoL to the "mini-stalking" on the woman...

I'm glad you caught that! :D

Since the tracking is done. You could give a bit more feeling to the saucer movement. Cheers

You got that right. :agree:

(Cageman) Good progress here! Thanks for sharing!

I would like to see some better integration when the saucer comes in full frame. Looks very CG and "pasted ontop". A big object like that would cause some kind of occlusion, if not shadows, when coming that close. It works very well when its in the distance though.

The tracking looks fine as far as I can tell. The best way to make sure the tracking works in a shaky cam shot like this, is to add a static CG-element somewhere before adding the real stuff, so to speak.

EDIT: Integration and photorealism may not have been the purpose of this exercice... if that is the case, I would say: mission accomplished.

And thanks Cageman. I was thinking (in addition to shadows) of a feeling similar to heat waves in the desert (magnetic fields distorting the info that gets to the lens - although I have no idea if that would happen. I don't have a lot of concern about the science of it though - at this point. Just drilling with the tools.)

JMCarrigan
09-22-2009, 11:36 AM
Switching to an appropriate thread...............

Eroneouse
10-19-2009, 07:31 PM
I liked the last saucer one the best, on the woman exiting the store, film it again but make that woman a friend who is in on the scene so she/he exits the store looks up, cowers slightly then legs it for the car also the flashing lights around the saucer rim should be bouncing off of stuff on the ground I would get a couple of those spinny lights like on emergency trucks and switch them on but put them under a bucket till the right timed moment for the saucer being above then remove the bucket for a couple of seconds so the light bounces off the vehicles and stuff. It would probably need a little more management than lift and drop bucket at appropriate moments but you never know it might work out very well for the overall scene. nicely done either way :)

If you can not get one of those spinny lights then a couple of flashlights tied head to tail with colour filters over the lenses spinning on a cord could do just as well. Though you would have to be careful of placement or the light reflections could give the game away that the light source is ground and not air based.

JMCarrigan
10-20-2009, 10:17 AM
Good ideas Eroneouse. Thanky!