PDA

View Full Version : A little help needed



Bax33
08-11-2012, 07:09 PM
I'm very frustrated with LW, its inconsistancies, tools that don't work as they are supposed to and just down and out BS for documentation. The pros can obviously create fantastic stuff with it, but I assume this is becaue they've been to all the schools. I'm trying to teach myself and I'm fed up with its inconsistencies. Sorry, enough of my semi-noob rant.

I just wanted to experiment with a simple building I'm working on and create an animation. My first image, AniCam Render, is a single frame render using F9 that displays the wonderfully flat textures I have applied. (Basically, nothing). The image called Animation_Frame is roughly the same frame from the animation created using F10. Why on earth is the animation Green and Red????????????????????????????????????????

The camera settings are exactly the same for the single frame and the animation. So can someone please explain to me why LW is doing this?

I can't go on or I'll say what I really think about LW.

hrgiger
08-11-2012, 08:05 PM
Can you post the scene. Its too hard to know what's going on without taking a look at it.

Cageman
08-11-2012, 08:26 PM
Most of the pros are self-taught in LW-land, since there aren't a lot of schools that teach LW...

It looks like it could be Linear Colourspace settings....but it is hard to say without taking a look at the scene, just as hrgiger said. If you can post the scenefile and lwo file as a zip, I'm sure we will be able to help out!

:)

Bax33
08-11-2012, 09:16 PM
I have always had the upmost respect for the pros I've seen on this forum. To know that most are self taught just increases my respect for them, especially with LW. I am just so frustrated with this software.....

Attached is the scene file. As I stated, its just a little test model and animation.

Let me know if anything else is needed.

nickdigital
08-11-2012, 09:59 PM
I am just so frustrated with this software.....


Just before you get to that point...reach out to the forum for help. Everyone on here is very friendly and helpful. Getting what you see in your mind in front of your eyeballs should be fun, not stressful.

robpowers3d
08-11-2012, 10:16 PM
And I would say give the learning process a chance. Anything worthwhile actually requires effort to master. I'll take a look at your file as well but make sure to post the objects and textures with the scene in a zip fike so we can see what you are seeing. By the way, I didn't learn 3D animation at school but on my on. Keep an open mind and you will be amazing yourself with the images that you create before long :)


I'm very frustrated with LW, its inconsistancies, tools that don't work as they are supposed to and just down and out BS for documentation. The pros can obviously create fantastic stuff with it, but I assume this is becaue they've been to all the schools. I'm trying to teach myself and I'm fed up with its inconsistencies. Sorry, enough of my semi-noob rant.

I just wanted to experiment with a simple building I'm working on and create an animation. My first image, AniCam Render, is a single frame render using F9 that displays the wonderfully flat textures I have applied. (Basically, nothing). The image called Animation_Frame is roughly the same frame from the animation created using F10. Why on earth is the animation Green and Red????????????????????????????????????????

The camera settings are exactly the same for the single frame and the animation. So can someone please explain to me why LW is doing this?

I can't go on or I'll say what I really think about LW.

Snosrap
08-11-2012, 10:17 PM
Yep, all 3D apps can get pretty frustrating at times Bax33, I've tried and used a number of them over the years. Hang in there.:thumbsup: I looked at your scene, and although there weren't any ojects included I added something quick and it rendered out fine. It might be an avi CODEC issue. To more furthur troubleshoot it you might want to upload the BrownStone_Window_v1_v003.lwo that the scene is looking for. So let this be a small tutorial for you. Anytime you need to send a scene out for help you should use the "Package Scene" command in Layout. What this does is put all the associated components of your scene (objects, scene file, image maps, dynamic and radiosity caches) all into one directory. You can than .zip that folder and upload it. If there are assets that you don't want out and about, replace them in your scene with basic primitives, but with something that still shows the problem. Hope this helps, just hang in there and be sure to keep asking questions, most of us are more than happy to help. :thumbsup:

dwburman
08-11-2012, 11:08 PM
I have a guess about your problem, but I haven't looked at your scene.

Without looking at your scene, my guess is the same as Snosrap's.

Are you, by chance, rendering your animation to a .avi or other video format and not render a sequence of images? If that's the case, your color problems may be coming from the video codec you're using.

Generally, it's better to render a sequence of images and then combine those images into a movie file later on.

Dexter2999
08-11-2012, 11:12 PM
IAttached is the scene file. As I stated, its just a little test model and animation.

Let me know if anything else is needed.

The objects (models) that are associated with the scene.

dblincoe
08-11-2012, 11:15 PM
Easiest way is to "package" the scene and then zip the entire packaged directory. You can find "package" in the "file"menu.

jeric_synergy
08-11-2012, 11:37 PM
Here's a stab without the proper files: Is this a stereoscopic render?

I'd think that one would see that in an F9 render too, but who knows? As others have said, a codec may have messed w/the colors, but you should NEVER render out animations directly from LW (for just this reason): render out frames and compile either in another application or feed them back into LW and compile there. (You'll save many hours, trust me.)

Resident bellyacher is a position currently occupied, BY ME, so don't think rants about the dox are anything new. I believe BeeVee is working on upgrading them, but NTek doesn't seem to want to take the 21st Century route {insert rant 3b here}.....

And to echo everybody else: for quick, useful help, PACKAGE SCENE is the best thing.

Ryan Roye
08-12-2012, 12:55 AM
I learned Lightwave mostly through a combination of:

1) Utilizing skills from past hobbies in video game modding and 2d art/animation (flash).

2) Countless hours of experimentation, observation, and piecing bits of information together.

3) Remembering to work at my skill level. Start simple and build gradually... it is much more fun when you do it that way. My first animations were REALLY terrible, but I had fun making them.

4) Most importantly... help from the community via these forums and/or individuals. If you get stuck and need to be pointed in the right direction, there is simply no better source than here.

That said, if you provide as much info as possible you will get pointed in the right direction(s).

CaptainMarlowe
08-12-2012, 01:14 AM
I would have to your list all available tutorials (Those by William Vaughan had really a way to make me think : wow, it's that easy !), and some really interesting books that help a lot, like Essential Lightwave.

Markc
08-12-2012, 03:50 AM
I highly recommend the Inside LightWave books by Dan Ablan.
Trying to learn from the manual is not easy (especially if your new to 3D in general), project based tutorials give you a better understanding of the process :)

Iain
08-12-2012, 04:08 AM
I highly recommend the Inside LightWave books by Dan Ablan.
Trying to learn from the manual is not easy (especially if your new to 3D in general), project based tutorials give you a better understanding of the process :)

I second that-that's how I started.
The frustration you're feeling is frustration at yourself. If you don't believe that, download trials of other 3d software.

It's not something you pick up in an hour.

RebelHill
08-12-2012, 06:11 AM
Its obviously your video codec... Nothing to do with LW.

You're better off saving frames than video files.

JonW
08-12-2012, 06:36 AM
It takes all of us a long time with 3d. It took me about 2 years to get my head around it. But now 10 years down the track I realise I know far far less about 3d than I did after 2 years.

There is a saying "10,000 hours to master a skill" but the more I see of 3d I believe it's a lifetime skill. I just hope I will live long enough!

Everyone above has made good suggestions. The only thing I would add is have a small simple real project & follow it through to the end. You will find things that you will do differently in more ways than you can count the more you learn. No one way of doing something is wrong it's just that you need to make an absolute obscene number of mistakes which will give you clues on how to apply those steps to different areas.

Bax33
08-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Wow!!! I was not expecting this kind of response. I'm receiving exellence suggestions, guidance and even some motivational 'pick me ups'. You're all professionals!! Thanks very much for the direction and some insight to what had to be some frustrating hours for all of you to pick up this art. I'm in a much better mental mindset this morning thanks to all of you. :thumbsup:

Snosrap and dblincoe, I have taken your suggestion and packaged up the scene in LW. Thanks for your instructions and support.

dwburman, you are correct. I am rendering to an avi. I just assumed if LW offers an output to a common version, it would work. You as well as others suggest I try rendering a sequence of images. I appreciate this suggestion and give this a try. But why does LW provide the option if its not functioning or isn't the way it should be done? Confusing.

jeric_synergy - no steroscopic rendering for me - I'd like to master a normal render and animation first.:D And thanks for clarifying who owns the resident bellyacher position. That made me laugh!

chazriker, nickdigital, JonW and robpowers3d - thanks for the comments of support.

CaptainMarlowe, Markc, and Iain - thanks for the book and tutorial suggestions. I think I have most of the books mentioned, but its a little overwhelming to read how to model, then how texture, and finally how to light. I've also watched most of William Vaughan's videos for modeling and some of the others. I know most of the frustration is due to the fact that I'm failing to do a lot of things because I don't know they need to be done. Like rendering out the images separately then compiling them into a movie instead of just outputing it to an AVI. And I'm certain the output to AVI works, but its probably due to a Codec or the linear colorspace settings as suggested. I just keep thinking LW has a little intuitiveness, but it doesn't seem to. And in this case, it may be due to the output format.

At any rate, I have attached the packaged scene in a zip. I will see what I can find out about the codec. I'll shorten the scene and test it again. Of course, once I finish the modeling and I'm ready to rendering the real animation, I'll probably have forgotten how to do it correctly. :)

Thanks again to everyone, you've given me a second wind.

dblincoe
08-12-2012, 11:02 AM
Dan Ablan's books are good to get you started. Pretty comprehensive at a beginner to intermediate level.
Still thumb through them myself.

fablefox
08-12-2012, 11:08 AM
good to hear you get everything sorted out. learning 3d software is not easy,, although it is easier now than before (with internet, blogging software, youtube, vimeo, etc). And there are more tutorial resources than before. although LW in this regard is still small compared to other software...

anyway, this forum and internet resources is your friend, and keep One Note (or any other digital note taking software) handy :-)

dblincoe
08-12-2012, 11:15 AM
I've looked at your scene and others have said the only thing I can see is that you are saving as an avi and the codec must be doing that. LW offers that as an option but they don't create the codecs that your system uses.

Being on a mac I can' test the avi codec that you are using to see if I get the same results. My suggestion is to try to render a series of images (.jpg, .tif, etc) then compile them in another program. You'll find this will alleviate many more problems than this. For instance if you were to crash, have a power failure or something else you would loose all of your rendered movie file. If you were rendering to a series of images then you wouldn't lose what was rendered and saved and could pick up the remainder later.

I think even quicktime can bring in a series of images and save as a movie. It is free. Of course it is only limited to importing and exporting (no post type of editing).

Snosrap
08-12-2012, 11:30 AM
Hi Bax33, I loaded your scene and rendered out an avi using the all your default settings- minus AA. Seems to be okay here. What CODEC are you using? Also as others have stated - never, ever, render final work as an avi or QT. For one avi's do not support weird output sizes. QuickTime does, but it's not 64bit at the moment. The only thing I output to avi or QT are previews. Otherwise use image sequences.

Bax33
08-12-2012, 12:36 PM
I followed some of your suggestions and have done some experimentation. I'm still trying to output it as an AVI for now. I found the Options button on the output tab. My setting was originally Microsoft RLE Compression. This is what produced the green and red output.

I changed it to Microsoft Video 1 and it looked much better, it seems to leave a solarization effect (see attached).

The Full Frame (uncompressed) looks the best (see attached), but it hangs when playing back as if its loading every 1 second or so.

The Intel codecs are completely unacceptable (attached), so the best option is Microsoft Video 1 but I'll have to determine why its solarizing. Any ideas? I've updated the quality to 100%. Why is it solarizing?

Also, is the Full Frame (uncompressed) the same as rendering to a sequence of images? Probably not.

RebelHill
08-12-2012, 12:40 PM
Its solarising because its a crappy codec...

DONT render to codec video... uncompressed or frames only.

Cageman
08-12-2012, 01:01 PM
Its solarising because its a crappy codec...

DONT render to codec video... uncompressed or frames only.

What Rebel said.

That said... rendering to frames is the better option... darn.. you know what? I'll do a private tutorial for you on how to approach things and still take advantage of how to use LW to render out AVIs or QTs, and in the process, still render out stillframes!

Are you interrested? (and no, it will not cost you any money!!!, I'll do that tutorial for free as a videotutorial, of course).

:)

Bax33
08-12-2012, 01:10 PM
yes, I'm interested, but I don't want to use a lot of your time.

zapper1998
08-12-2012, 01:20 PM
cool

:)

Cageman
08-12-2012, 01:23 PM
yes, I'm interested, but I don't want to use a lot of your time.

No worries! :)

It is an easy enough tutorial to put together! You'll have to wait for it though... I'll be able to record it tomorrow night, Swedish time... I'll send you a PM when it is ready..

LW rocks! :)

CaptainMarlowe
08-12-2012, 01:32 PM
I remember that when I tried my first animation (in Vue 5), I was rendering to .mov at first. When I got my first crash after a two days render, I suddenly understood even more the interest of rendering frames !

jeric_synergy
08-12-2012, 01:43 PM
I remember that when I tried my first animation (in Vue 5), I was rendering to .mov at first. When I got my first crash after a two days render, I suddenly understood even more the interest of rendering frames !
No matter how loudly I shout it into student's faces*, they still try to render to animations, until they experience a couple days of lost time.

(*I don't really do that. But the warning is ignored.)

jasonwestmas
08-12-2012, 01:56 PM
I'm frustrated constantly. . .it's the nature of this work and I accept the bad with the good. Nothing worth while comes easy in anything we do but make sure you understand the amount of time needed to use the tools pretty well first before giving up on them.

But something like this should be trivial to fix. . . ah the codec thing, yeah those suck, don't use em.

Bax33
08-12-2012, 03:58 PM
No worries! :)

It is an easy enough tutorial to put together! You'll have to wait for it though... I'll be able to record it tomorrow night, Swedish time... I'll send you a PM when it is ready..

LW rocks! :)

Thanks. I look forward to it.

nickdigital
08-12-2012, 04:03 PM
What Rebel said.

That said... rendering to frames is the better option... darn.. you know what? I'll do a private tutorial for you on how to approach things and still take advantage of how to use LW to render out AVIs or QTs, and in the process, still render out stillframes!

Are you interrested? (and no, it will not cost you any money!!!, I'll do that tutorial for free as a videotutorial, of course).

:)

Cageman,

Unless what you're gonna show is different, Matt Gorner already did a tutorial like this.

Using LightWave to Build Animations from Frames
http://pixsim.com/

JonW
08-12-2012, 04:56 PM
Its solarising because its a crappy codec...

DONT render to codec video... uncompressed or frames only.

As already mentioned.

Tips:
1. Render uncompressed frames.
2. Render uncompressed frames.
3. Render uncompressed frames.

A few Reasons:
1. Compression artefacts.
2. The compression result may be too large or could have been smaller.
3. Fine tuning the compression can have a dramatic effect between artefacts and the quality you need for the purpose.
4. One will most likely need at least 1 high quality version for presentation & a low one for quick emails etc.
5. The wrong codec to start with.
6. Computer crashes or black out or brown out at the end of a job.
7. Render frames & then composite those frames into a movie in LW & you will still have the original frames.
8. Render tif png tga, you may need the alpha channel to composite. Which at the very least can save a lot of render time.
9. High dynamic images, colour space & gamma issues.
10. Add another computer (the more the better) so frames are coming in from here there & everywhere. Just 1 additional computer can half your render time, this is the best bit!

JonW
08-12-2012, 05:03 PM
Cageman,

Unless what you're gonna show is different, Matt Gorner already did a tutorial like this.

Using LightWave to Build Animations from Frames
http://pixsim.com/

How I learnt to composite frames in LW was with Matt's tutorial, it's very good to say the least! You get to render frames & you can then composite simple setups in LW.

Snosrap
08-12-2012, 05:41 PM
I'm frustrated constantly.
Really? I can't imagine enjoying this if I were constantly being frustrated. :)

zardoz
08-12-2012, 06:07 PM
just wait 'till he finds out that after rendering to frames and creating the avi/mov/etc is a whole new adventure...when you find a codec that keeps your colors perfect please tell me.

Ryan Roye
08-12-2012, 06:20 PM
Everyone says to render out frames... but let's not forget to mention how to actually put those image sequences together!

Here's an excerpt from this thread (http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?t=127187&highlight=render+image+sequence) (this is just one of several options mentioned)


To do this in Lightwave with no plugins.

Open new scene in Layout.
Open Image Editor (F6)
Load first image of your sequence.
Change Image Type to "Sequence"
Open Composting Options
Set background image to the sequence you loaded.
Adjust your render settings to the size of the sequence.
RENDER!

P.S. don't forget to set your saving options.

jasonwestmas
08-12-2012, 06:36 PM
Really? I can't imagine enjoying this if I were constantly being frustrated. :)

well I guess that depends on your definition of being frustrated. :) It's the results that make it worth while, not the process. heh.

Ernest
08-12-2012, 06:49 PM
For doing professional work, sure, you can only use uncompressed frames. But for home projects, you can save a lot of hard drive space rendering to png frames and it's almost always good enough. If you're going to be compositing furballs, you'll usually know it beforehand.

I had this same problem when I started learning Adobe After Effects. 2000 codecs and they all messed up the results in different ways. You had to select different codecs if the video was for web, or too dark, or too red, or too fast...

Now, only 2 codecs exist in my world. Techsmith and h.264. If it's not a screen capture or slideshow, it's h.264 all the way. Not perfect but pretty predictable and very fast.

PS: I love the process!

Dodgy
08-12-2012, 07:58 PM
You can usually render to png frames for non-film work. PNG is a compressed but NOT a destructive format unlike JPG, so quality will be preserved if you use PNG albeit in 24 or 24+Alpha bit colour. However, if you're rendering for something where you need higher colour precision than 24 bit (like for film for example) use something like EXR or HDR.

jeric_synergy
08-12-2012, 08:31 PM
For doing professional work, sure, you can only use uncompressed frames. But for home projects, you can save a lot of hard drive space rendering to png frames and it's almost always good enough.
PNG isn't lossy compression neccessarily (I think there's an option), it's simply data compression.

Data compression has zero effect on the image quality.

JPG is a lossy compression scheme.

dwburman
08-12-2012, 09:08 PM
Well, the save animation feature can be useful if you're doing a quick test render or just want to assemble your already rendered frames into a movie file. Since the default codecs that come with Windows are pretty poor, you'll want to install a 3rd party one like Xvid or DivX, but those are compressed formats that should be used for final delivery, not for production.

As NickDigital mentioned, Matt did a tutorial on assembling frames to video ( http://pixsim.com/) and I've done a few videos that cover this as well like the one I did about assembling L/R stereo frames for youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93kF5NyN8pQ).

Oh, and I learned LW by watching VHS tapes, & reading magazines and books, and later on by watching screen capture tutorials. I got to go to a 3 day LW training event once too. :)

BeeVee
08-13-2012, 07:47 AM
If you'd rather read than watch, I wrote a tut for LightWave [8] that explains as well on LightWiki: http://lightwiki.net/wiki/Using_LightWave_to_compile_animations

B

kopperdrake
08-13-2012, 10:16 AM
I'll take a look at your file as well but make sure to post the objects and textures with the scene in a zip fike so we can see what you are seeing.

^^ That right there is why my faith in LightWave's direction has never been stronger. Can you imagine the head honcho of AD personally offering his help to a new user on the forums? Kudos Rob.

Dude, as others have said - ask here, we all have at some stage, and it's fun helping each other. There is always someone who has been to the elusive place you seek and returned, battle-scarred, but with new knowledge gained. Some people on here stagger me with how much they know.

jeric_synergy
08-13-2012, 11:22 AM
There are also various FREE applications that can take frames and convert them to animations using a variety of codes, not the least which is Blender.

monovich
08-13-2012, 12:40 PM
I used to be a die hard quicktime renderer. And then, after the millionth bad render, I switched to frames. Life is so much better now.

p.s. I'm self taught now. The problem with self taught is that you learn through trial and ERROR. You are going to make so many mistakes it isn't even funny, but you will learn from them. If this is too much frustration, then please do yourself a favor and learn from a course where they will GUIDE you through the process of learning with many fewer mistakes and frustrations.

LW_Will
08-13-2012, 01:20 PM
here's an open source frame player for many different formats...

http://djv.sourceforge.net/index.html

Cageman
08-13-2012, 02:22 PM
Cageman,

Unless what you're gonna show is different, Matt Gorner already did a tutorial like this.

Using LightWave to Build Animations from Frames
http://pixsim.com/

I was going to show something like that... :) Now I do not need... :)

Cageman
08-13-2012, 02:23 PM
Thanks. I look forward to it.

nickdigital posted a link to a tutorial for this. So I don't have to do one for you. :)

It's a nice place to be, this forum... so many users willing to share their knowledge!

:)

Bax33
08-13-2012, 05:55 PM
Thanks much to all of you. I'll look at the tutorials posted and see if I can get the process down. Thanks again.

jeric_synergy
08-13-2012, 05:58 PM
I used to be a die hard quicktime renderer. And then, after the millionth bad render, I switched to frames. Life is so much better now.
It's odd the pushback one gets on that. Pshsh, humans.

p.s. I'm self taught now. The problem with self taught is that you learn through trial and ERROR. You are going to make so many mistakes it isn't even funny, but you will learn from them. If this is too much frustration, then please do yourself a favor and learn from a course where they will GUIDE you through the process of learning with many fewer mistakes and frustrations.
The problem w/trying to figure out everything by yourself is you never get those serendipitous moments when you're looking over somebody's shoulder and see something that you never read about that saves you days of work.

Buy Larry's tutorials and you'll see what I mean. :D