PDA

View Full Version : animation doesnt look good



baffero
06-12-2004, 01:23 PM
hi all,

for a project i am doing an animation. The animation is about a flexible office. I have built a model with 5411 polygons so its not huge.

I made an animation and rendered it with the following specs:

resolution : 1024x768
antialiasing level: medium (NOT enhanced) no adaptive sampling
frames: 180
3 area light (linear/area quality = 5)
6 point lights


lw 7.0 started rendering with about 6/7 minutes per frame, when it was done the animation looks really bad (flikkering screens, and all pixelated). During the rendering though the frames individually look fine. anyways this is a shot of one frame

what can i do to improve this?

thanks

Lightwolf
06-12-2004, 01:33 PM
Did you render to single frames and then compress the animation, or did you render directly to an animation?
In the latter case it may be the animation format you chose.

_Always_ render out single frames (in a lossless format such as .tga), and create your animation afterwards.

Anything else is hard to tell from your image, it seems to be compressed badly as well :)

Cheers,
Mike

baffero
06-12-2004, 01:51 PM
lightwolf,


i rendered it directly from lightwave into avi, and used the cinepak codec by radius, so even compression quality set to 100 delivers this result....


so i have to render all frames out and put them together later on.
which software could I use to put all the frames together?

thanks for the fast reply.

toby
06-12-2004, 03:02 PM
Quicktime Pro would be the cheapest ($30) and easiest software. It's indespensible to me. After effects or Premeire are the other most common options, and Final Cut Pro/Express if you're on a Mac.

But by far the cheapest way is to apply your image sequence to a polygon in LW, and render that out to a codec.

Lightwolf
06-13-2004, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by toby
But by far the cheapest way is to apply your image sequence to a polygon in LW, and render that out to a codec.
Hehe, you can optimize that a bit more, and just use the image sequence as a backdrop image, no geometry needed :)
Also turn off antialiasing for the "convert to AVI" render.

Cheers,
Mike

baffero
06-14-2004, 03:00 AM
I rendered my scene out again frame by frame and saving it to the tga32 format. I tried to use quicktime pro but it couldnt read the tga format??


the movie needs a software component which is not on my system. does anybody know about this error

@lightwolf : how do i load an im,age sequence into lightwave?



thanks

Lightwolf
06-14-2004, 03:08 AM
Good morning baffero :)

Open Layout.
Open the images panel.
Load the first frame of the sequence.
Change image type to sequence.
It should now show you the total number of frames in the sequence.
Open the backdrop panel, use the sequence as the backdrop.
Change your camera settings to be the same size as the backdrop image.
Set your animation saver options.
Set your first and last frame to render to match the sequence.
Press F10 and render away.

Cheers,
Mike :)

baffero
06-14-2004, 03:23 AM
yep that works, thanks



I think quicktime didnt work because i saved the output files to LW_tga32, and this filetype cant be read by quicktime


anyway the deadline is coming, so thanks a lot for the help.

Lightwolf
06-14-2004, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by baffero
I think quicktime didnt work because i saved the output files to LW_tga32, and this filetype cant be read by quicktime
Weird, that tends to work here, but I'm glad we figured a way out for it to work for you :)

Cheers,
Mike

omeone
06-14-2004, 04:34 AM
Just a couple of curiosity ponits and tips for baffero...

Im curious about the Anti alias settings used, what is your final distribution going to be?

I have never understood why someone might choose to render in Medium without Adaptive Sampling. I was always led to believe - either use enhanced without adaptive sampling or use non-enhanced with adaptive sampling?

the combination of area lights with your setup seems to me like it could be optimised...

If I could suggest an alternative that should be reliable, fast and reduce artefacts...

-reduce Area Light Quality to 3
-Use Enhanced Medium AA (no adaptive sampling) (enhanced low might even be enough - depending on the speed of the motion)
-normal Motion Blur 50%
-Shading Noise reduction ON (very small render time hit - for much improved results)

about 32bit tga's... the LW 7.5 manual actually suggests not to use 32bit output as it can cause artefacts.

To compile an image sequence into a movie file with free software...
One nice option is RAD Game tools, it gives very fast conversions.

It also gives you the choice to make a movie in its own format, which can be converted into an *.exe file. this has the nice advantage that it can be played on any other machine without the need for additional codec downloads, its playback is very high quality (lossless I think, with fairly decent filesizes) and is very easy on computer resources... meaning your movies play well on even the lowest spec machines.

get the info and download here:
http://www.radgametools.com/default.htm
look at Bink tools

hth

Lightwolf
06-14-2004, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by omeone
I have never understood why someone might choose to render in Medium without Adaptive Sampling. I was always led to believe - either use enhanced without adaptive sampling or use non-enhanced with adaptive sampling?
Actually, I sometimes render non-adaptive, non-enhanced, because it seems to generate a slightly sharper image (and I might still need full aa passes for motion blur, or just to filter out textures).

Cheers,
Mike

omeone
06-14-2004, 04:44 AM
Thanks Mike, I'll have to try it sometime, any particular scene setup or output that you've found it best suited to?

(Ive seen the question posed a few time before but nobody actually gave a response before :) )

Lightwolf
06-14-2004, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by omeone
Thanks Mike, I'll have to try it sometime, any particular scene setup or output that you've found it best suited to?
Well, not really, I found more a matter of taste than anything else.
I tend to use if for shots that I want to look ultra clean in animation (I usually field render then as well), and that go out to a very "clean" medium, like video or DVD.
It might even make sense with print work, since you tend to sharpen your image there anyhow.

Cheers,
Mike

omeone
06-14-2004, 05:01 AM
Cheers, Im normally hesitant when experimenting much with render settings cos it'll usually be scene specific and take a lot of time away from the job in hand (on my machine anyway)

but what you say makes good sense to me (as usual ;) )

Lightwolf
06-14-2004, 05:04 AM
Lol, thanks :)

Cheers,
Mike

baffero
06-15-2004, 03:02 AM
@ omeone: its not like i know what i'm doing and the settings I have used are a result of a little experimenting. :)

Thanks for your advice, i will try your settings also, when more time becomes available.

The video tool you advised is great

when everything is finished i will post it right here.

omeone
06-15-2004, 03:19 AM
great, look forward too seeing it :)

Im no expert meself :D

another thing you might try is turing off shadows for one of the area lights... you might need it for lighting but not shading - this will cut render times down a lot too.

MiniFireDragon
06-15-2004, 07:09 AM
One other way of doing this is to output the sequence as an uncompressed AVI then going and getting Virtual Dub from www.virtualdub.org and using that to compress the image. I find it does a better job then Lightwave can when making a compressed AVI and it's a free App too.

baffero
09-25-2004, 03:39 AM
its been quite some time but ive finished....


the result can be found via this link:

http://www.student.tue.nl/H/B.A.F.Lenssen/Online%20Portfolio/index.htm

then click project 2.3...

lardbros
09-27-2004, 07:07 AM
I know you've finished but just a tip for anyone making animations... i've experimented with pretty much every type of standard compression.... way back in the day when i began using extreme 3d the only compression it had was cinepak and i thort it was the spftware that was pants! Cinepak is the worst compression in the world and no matter what you do there will ALWAYS be the awful artefacts. I suggest using MPEG4 v2, quite amazing compression and very good quality... in my opinion better than DIVX. Kinda produces a slightly darker image, but not as dark as divx but that can be altered in post easily!