PDA

View Full Version : Digital confusion.... I'm confused.



intofx
06-16-2003, 12:27 PM
I really like the idea of being able to parent my DOF to a null - enter Digital Confusion and it's recent tutorial.

The problem, however, is that I can sometimes see through the objects in the scene. So,I turn off the "render unseen geometry" function and I can no longer see through the object but the render looks really bad. Banding across objects as the camera moves, blur "halo-ing" foreground objects, etc...

Is this a mac only issue or is this plug-in just worthless on all platforms?

Here's a idea... put the same "auto focus" feature on the REAL Depth of Field feature.

You'd think that if there were issues with this plug-in, Newtek would not post tutorials calling attention to them. Any suggestions or should I just ignore this feature all together?

Matt

toby
06-16-2003, 01:15 PM
we just talked about this, but I can't find the thread...

DC isn't too good for animation, lots of artifacts, slow renders, and I think it is worse on the Mac, and not as good as the X-Dof plug-in on pc or mac

DaveW
06-16-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by intofx

Here's a idea... put the same "auto focus" feature on the REAL Depth of Field feature.


You should be able to use expressions to auto-focus on a null. I don't know exactly what expression to use but expression builder has some expressions that calculate distances, I would start there.

LSlugger
06-16-2003, 03:30 PM
I asked a similar question (http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5665) the other day. (I use LW 7.5c for Windows.) I've noticed the halo and the transparency with Digital Confusion. I noticed a slight halo with the DOF Blur plugin. I have not noticed any problems with the built-in DOF effect.

I like the autofocus feature, but I think it's what a programmer would call "syntactic sugar." You can live without it.

I haven't played with the diaphragm shape, at all. I guess X-Dof is the way to go. For a $200 plugin, it would be nice if there was a demo, though.

drclare
06-16-2003, 06:04 PM
I don't care for the Digital Confusion plugin or the DOF blur plugin because of all those artifacts, and DC is very slow because it is applied to every frame. DOF blur is applied at the end of the frame which makes it fast, but it doesn't look that great and for me it doesn't even work more than half the time. The regular depth of field in the camera properties looks good all the time and is easy to animate with just a few keyframes. It does usually require a high number of antialiasing passes to look good though. The thing i don't like about it though is if you need to render a print quality image, the enhanced extreme antialiasing is not enough. You need many more passes to remove the banding effect, but enhanced extreme is the highest available.

toby
06-16-2003, 06:50 PM
You can use the dof plug-in to blur the banding of the camera dof, you won't need as many passes, but if you're doing print work you should try the 3rd party dof plug-ins, but the best way is to do it in photoshop using the z-depth buffer - it'll save you render time, and adjusting the dof becomes much easier

drclare
06-16-2003, 07:57 PM
Yeah, good call. I've also used the photoshop output plugin to generate a depth matte, but here is my question. When you use the photoshop output with the depth output selected, does it generate the depth matte based on your camera depth of field settings, or does it just map the closest areas as white and the farthest areas as black?

toby
06-17-2003, 01:07 AM
No idea.

But I think just black-to-white based on distance is all you would need - you can do so many things with it using Levels in Photoshop

DoF
07-03-2003, 10:07 AM
Yo Chuck!
Hey Chuck, I know you have alot on your plate, but Depth of Field needs to be consolidated into one feature that works! At our company we use LW for that little *extra* quality in the final render [ie photorealism] that Maya, 3ds et al cannot offer. We put up with LW's quirks and foibles because of this... Depth of Field/Digital Confusion comprise a large part of this photorealism. It would be nice if DoF & DC *worked* without artefacts. Certainly something to look at seriously..;)

jeremyhardin
07-03-2003, 11:52 AM
i had same DOF issues. so i put this together.
http://www.geocities.com/reverend_777/irs.html

loads a scene with a camera's DOF attached to a null object.
uses LWs internal DOF.

policarpo
07-03-2003, 03:47 PM
For what it is worth...X-DOF from Evasion 3D does a fabulous job with DOF effects. I went ahead and took the plunge and it is worth every cent. The nice thing too is that you can use it on the Mac or PC because of the LW duo dongle.

JDaniel
07-03-2003, 10:02 PM
Have you tried just using DOF in the camera properties? DC is not accurate. I got x-dof like policarpo and it's definately better. Evasion says for the most accurate dof you use xdof and LW's dof (not dig. conf.) together in conjunction. Longer renders though.

Exper
07-04-2003, 03:07 AM
Take a look:
better DOF rings
http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5898&highlight=dof
useful in using "Depth-of-Field Display" Custom Object. ;)

Bye.