PDA

View Full Version : Wow! How he managed to do this?



AmigaNewTek
03-20-2011, 05:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnDU7JJtVts

Could someone explain me or post a tutorial about to create this wonderfull animation?

Thank you
Regards

Dreamcube017
03-20-2011, 06:02 AM
Hm, I'm not sure how a particle front projection works, but it does look like a lot of particles ansmoke... just a guess.

jeric_synergy
03-20-2011, 02:45 PM
Beautiful stuff. Too bad it's not about science instead of mythology.

AmigaNewTek
03-21-2011, 04:03 AM
Anyone?

I would really like to learn about this techniques.

Pamukkedi
03-21-2011, 04:09 AM
Cannot watch it on Youtube. Its censored in Germany. Do you have another link?

NanoGator
03-21-2011, 10:40 AM
I think it's just a few layers of polygons with a few layers of gassy/nebula textures and a lil opacity.

Titus
03-21-2011, 10:49 AM
With camera mapping (pictures over low res geometry). I don't like the DoF effect over stars.

AmigaNewTek
03-23-2011, 05:50 AM
Hi,

could you explain, please, how to do a camera mapping? Do you have a tutorial?

Thank you

realgray
03-23-2011, 06:37 AM
It's old but still some good info

http://www.newtek.com/lightwave/tutorials/rendering/camera_mapping/camera_mapping.html

VonBon
03-23-2011, 10:20 AM
Looks like a High Resolution image on a poly with
a 3D camera moving and rotating.

virtualcomposer
03-23-2011, 10:45 AM
It's could be they took parts of a high rez nasa photo in order to move the front of the nebula around a bit for a semi 3D feel and used either a star field in lightwave or visible sprites. It's fairly easy to do. I've done allot of photo tricks like that in Final Cut with 2D pictures but then changing certain portions of the picture to appear as a 3D object. What this person did could be done in about 30 minutes not counting render time.

TalleyJC
03-23-2011, 12:14 PM
I know that Starpro allows you to set up a star field that you can fly through in 3d. That's what these stars look like to me

JeffrySG
03-23-2011, 01:03 PM
With camera mapping (pictures over low res geometry). I don't like the DoF effect over stars.

I don't like the DOF on the stars either. It makes it look like small particle debris in space not stars. If they were stars as you got close they would become massive in size - and get really really really bright.

But the animation looks pretty nice.

XswampyX
03-23-2011, 01:42 PM
A single plane, with a nebula texture, transparency set via luminosity and random points sprayed either side of it. Then the points are rendered as HV's?

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr16/xXswampyXx/Nebula.jpg

AmigaNewTek
03-24-2011, 03:33 AM
Thank you all for the reply. I'm curious what kind of technique he used to create the animation.

The "Pillars of Creation" seems real.

I have used different methods:

1) i created a 3D world with different layers, each one of them can be active or not via Hypervoxel panel, but i'm not satisfied of the result. Front camera mapping seems more realistic to me.

-EsHrA-
03-24-2011, 04:24 AM
hmm creationist documentary eh?..
these guys still here?! ..

curious with what they come up this time! :)

nice anim though :)

vector
03-24-2011, 07:19 AM
A hard compositing work there... maybe no 3D software but compositing soft working with 3d camera and layers.

In this forums I read that textured polys with galaxy/nebula images, alpha channels and particles for stars work fine to get similar results. I like that video too.

Véctor

AmigaNewTek
03-24-2011, 07:44 AM
hmm creationist documentary eh?..
these guys still here?! ..

curious with what they come up this time! :)

nice anim though :)

What do you mean?
Please, elaborate.

Chrusion
03-24-2011, 03:26 PM
I opted for the full 3D mesh approach to create my version of a 3D Orion Nebula. The trick for me to get the "gaseous" effect was to deform the base mesh in Layout using Save Transformed after Normal Displacing the mesh with the Turbulence texture, which displaces the verts of the mesh along the poly normals creating a "fattening, plumping" or "ballooning" effect. This mesh was made into an endomorph in Modeler (background to morph) and textured with a super-high res composite of the nebula using Hubble and ESA images in which I removed all the stars (tricky use of selections and photoshop's dust and scratch and median filters).

When rendered using the age old single-frame "ray march" motion blur technique (99% Photoreal Motion Blur using 4 steps) with a non-linear Morph Mixer envelope to "accelerate" the "morph motion" of the expanding mesh faster towards the end of it's extension. This creates a denser "start" and a thinner "end" to the visual effect.

Other mesh objects for the shock fronts and gas clump "proto stars" where modeled as well as sphere's for most of the stars that where to be seen up close. The rest of the 100,000 + stars are point polys generated by my Real Stars lscript using Hiparcharos and Tycho 2 datasets. Star point clouds were grouped into objects based on magnitude and rendered using increasing pixel sizes and a touch of glow. For the 200+ bright stars inside the nebula, lens flares where used (via luxigons).

Here's the animation...
http://chrusion.com/index.php/portfolio1/vfx/earth-to-orion (A Journey from Earth to the Orion Nebula)
.

AmigaNewTek
03-27-2011, 04:19 AM
Wow! impressive!

Thank you for the explanation.

jrandom
03-28-2011, 11:48 AM
What do you mean?
Please, elaborate.

Creationist documentaries have this bad habit of taking a few scientific statements and then alter context and use broken logic to support whatever claims they're trying to make in their documentary. It's very frustrating to watch.

The canonical example of this is "What the bleep do we know?" which starts out with good information on quantum mechanics and then draws extremely wrong conclusions from that information using some of the very worst logical fallacies and wishful thinking I've ever seen. They interviewed various physicists and then cherry-picked parts of those interviews, throwing away everything that didn't mesh with what they wanted their documentary to say.

AmigaNewTek
03-29-2011, 12:05 PM
I thought he's talking about Evolutionism/Creationism debate. Sure, looking at the vaste universe, you should admit, it's easy to think that someone have created it. Look @ the thread title: "How he managed to do this?" supposing someone have worked on it in a way we don't know. The fact that i can't find the author (i sent an e-mail to him without reply) to ask how he managed to do his work, doesn't mean that he doesn't exit, right?

jrandom
03-29-2011, 12:21 PM
I thought he's talking about Evolutionism/Creationism debate.

Yes, that was what I figured. Only, there's no debate. Aside from the (literally!) mountains of fossil evidence, evolution has been observed in the lab. Case closed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=channel_video_title). :)



Sure, looking at the vaste universe, you should admit, it's easy to think that someone have created it.

The thing is, there's absolutely no way to know. If there is a "creator", there's no way to know the nature of that creator, either.

Yaweh? Magical Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)? Crazed pan-dimensional leprechauns? You can speculate all you want, but it's when you start treating those wild speculations as "fact" that you fall into ridiculousness. There's an infinite number of possible "creators", and an infinite number of "non-creator" universe-starters, and no way to know, ever, what the real answer might be.

My issue with Creationist and Pseudoscience documentaries is not only their treating of wild speculation as fact, it's that they purposefully twist logic and chop up interviews with real scientists to "prove" their point. Anyone who has to lie to support their point is wrong. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to lie to support their point. :)

The whole point of science is to learn about our universe through observation -- what can we know, and to what degree of certainty can we know those things. That second part is crucial. Very few things can be known to 100%, and a lot of public science journalism skips this point. This is where you get headlines like "SCIENTISTS WORRIED THEY MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY CREATE A BLACK HOLE THAT WILL EAT THE EARTH", or "SCIENTISTS DISCOVER X-RAYS ARE GOOD FOR YOUR PANCREAS", when the actual study says nothing of the kind.

I hate bad science journalism, too. :cursin:



Look @ the thread title: "How he managed to do this?" supposing someone have worked on it in a way we don't know.

I think the title of this thread is in reference to how the visuals for the animation were created, and much more on-topic than what the visuals are being used for. Feel free to ignore this post since really, it has absolutely nothing to do with Lightwave.

I just get a little ranty when people try to put creationism on the same level as evolution and real scientific inquiery. It's not. :)

AmigaNewTek
03-29-2011, 12:32 PM
Thank you for the kind reply. I'm a creationist. As for the evolutionism proved in the lab, think aqbout @ the Miller experiment, and the final question his experiment still generate:Who his the man that conducted the experiment?

Again, better don't start any debate here, although it's an interesting subject.

I hope to post a tutorial about Nebulae, but i hardly will reach the quality of original video i posted.

jrandom
03-29-2011, 01:38 PM
Again, better don't start any debate here, although it's an interesting subject.

Agreed. I'll leave it with this: if we don't know a particular thing, that doesn't mean some magical creator is responsible, it just means we don't know.

A lot of your arguments (eg. Miller experiment) have already been countered. A good collection of these can be found at talkorigins.org (http://talkorigins.org/), and it's also good to familiarize one's self with common logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies). If you're going to argue a point, you're going to need to make sure you're not arguing using any of the flawed techniques listed there or your argument will be torn to shreds. (This applies to everyone, not just creationists.)

Okay folks, back to your regularly-scheduled 3D stuff. :thumbsup: