PDA

View Full Version : Ojects fade / disappear with distance?



Rhothgar
06-26-2007, 10:20 PM
I'm working on a some shots with a skeleton army running past the camera.

The problem I'm having is the skeletons in the background furthest from the camera look just fine in layout open GL view etc. but when I render the shot the skeletons legs arms etc seem so thin they basically disappear. :confused: I'm wondering if it is due to the bones being thin to begin with and the AA settings working so hard the bones are just getting blurred away...Or maybe it has something to do with motion blur being set at 50%....I need to find a way to make this work. Has anyone else run into this before? How did you deal with it?

The live action plate was shot DV wide screen so the resolution is not huge

Rendering Enhanced Medium AA and 50% normal motion blur....vector blur is also used....

Any suggestions? I wonder if rendering at a larger resolution and then shrinking the image down would work......

jameswillmott
06-26-2007, 11:07 PM
Sounds reasonable, the bones are so thin the AA samples are missing them. You'd need to increase the density of samples to make sure the bones get hit, either rendering larger or with more AA samples.

scenicdave
06-27-2007, 02:37 AM
I'm working on a some shots with a skeleton army running past the camera.

The problem I'm having is the skeletons in the background furthest from the camera look just fine in layout open GL view etc. but when I render the shot the skeletons legs arms etc seem so thin they basically disappear. :confused: I'm wondering if it is due to the bones being thin to begin with and the AA settings working so hard the bones are just getting blurred away...Or maybe it has something to do with motion blur being set at 50%....I need to find a way to make this work. Has anyone else run into this before? How did you deal with it?

The live action plate was shot DV wide screen so the resolution is not huge

Rendering Enhanced Medium AA and 50% normal motion blur....vector blur is also used....

Any suggestions? I wonder if rendering at a larger resolution and then shrinking the image down would work......


Hi Rhothgar,
Ditch the vector blur. It's a cheat on a cheat and it never makes it into a final shot. (Maybe once...)
How soft is the DV anyhow? Are you comping in LightWave (with your DV in the background) or externally, because if you're using your DV in the background with Enhanced AA modes, these modes will blur your background too. Very nasty surprise for young players!!
regards
Dave Tracey
Sydney

Rhothgar
06-27-2007, 09:00 PM
James,

Thanks for the help I'll try a test to see how it works...

Rhothgar
06-27-2007, 09:13 PM
scenicdave,

Thanks for taking time to comment.

Normally all comps are done in a different package....the comp guys have been using Commotion. I'm not much of a comp guy at all. But in this case I just wanted to see how it would look so I actually pulled it into avid and comped it that way....prolly not the best thing to do...I'm going to try to comp it in lightwave just to see if there is much difference. I'll render it out with and save the RGB and ALPHA and then comp it in Layout with the background so there will be no AA for the background footage....

The final comp will be done in a different package...We will probably upgrade from Commotion to something else...

Rhothgar
06-27-2007, 09:23 PM
Hi Rhothgar,
Ditch the vector blur. It's a cheat on a cheat and it never makes it into a final shot. (Maybe once...)
How soft is the DV anyhow? Are you comping in LightWave (with your DV in the background) or externally, because if you're using your DV in the background with Enhanced AA modes, these modes will blur your background too. Very nasty surprise for young players!!
regards
Dave Tracey
Sydney

Dave,

Based on your comments above regarding "making it into the final shot" it sounds like you are adding motion blur in the compositing stage...Is this true? The only way I've been able to get good looking motion blur is by high AA and adding vector blur....yes I / we are still ironing out our post production pipeline / process....this is my first feature film and some idiot (not sure who that could be) said "Hey let's do the visual effects ourselves!" That was a few years ago. :foreheads

scenicdave
06-28-2007, 02:23 AM
Dave,

Based on your comments above regarding "making it into the final shot" it sounds like you are adding motion blur in the compositing stage...Is this true? The only way I've been able to get good looking motion blur is by high AA and adding vector blur....yes I / we are still ironing out our post production pipeline / process....this is my first feature film and some idiot (not sure who that could be) said "Hey let's do the visual effects ourselves!" That was a few years ago. :foreheads

Hey Rhothgar,
I don't usually do motion blur in post or with vector based blurs as they have never looked good to my eye. I did try a few times to use it when pushed for time on a job, but I could never actually use it on the final output.

So essentially what happened was the solution to the job/pipeline (for me at least) was to stop trying to figure out do quicky motion blur and faster settings and to start figuring out how to get more render grunt.

I've always liked LightWaves straight forward solution to motion blur but I have to say that the new photoreal motion blur is streets ahead. That adaptive sampling solution is just brilliant and with enough grunt, LightWave's output in terms of AA, motion blur and depth of field is just ...well I find it exciting. These frames, even with extreme motion now, look smooth and silky!

Personally I've been playing lately with depth of field. Not extreme, close up, 'Seiko watch' type shots; rather just trying to emulate film cameras with their easy, shallow depth of field. Large aperture cameras put the audience attention on the person in front of the camera, not a staccato gritty look of video, but a smooth, narrow focus on the foreground action or dialogue. Beautiful when done right. LightWave can do this now, everytime.

I'm very happy using the current PR motion blur, AS and AA, and I recommend using that and only that for your finals.

regards
Dave Tracey
Sydney

Gary Wales
06-28-2007, 03:28 AM
Seeing as I'm here and there are plenty of clever-types around...

Simple question - how do I fade an object into/out of a scene without seeing through its geometry? I don't want to have to comp it in After Effects...I'm sure I've done it before, I just can't remember for the life of me how it's done!

Thanks!

Rhothgar
06-28-2007, 08:34 PM
Seeing as I'm here and there are plenty of clever-types around...

Simple question - how do I fade an object into/out of a scene without seeing through its geometry? I don't want to have to comp it in After Effects...I'm sure I've done it before, I just can't remember for the life of me how it's done!

Thanks!


You can use layout to comp it. Us the Alpha fader function and you can fade the image and not see the inside and back side and everything else because you will be fading the "image" not the object...

Sorry if this is too descriptive but this means you are rendering your scene first and saving both the RGB and Alpha then creating a new scene in Layout with your live action plate in the backdrop...put an envelope on the alpha fader and render it out. :thumbsup:

Rhothgar
06-28-2007, 08:44 PM
Hey Rhothgar,
I don't usually do motion blur in post or with vector based blurs as they have never looked good to my eye. I did try a few times to use it when pushed for time on a job, but I could never actually use it on the final output.

So essentially what happened was the solution to the job/pipeline (for me at least) was to stop trying to figure out do quicky motion blur and faster settings and to start figuring out how to get more render grunt.

I've always liked LightWaves straight forward solution to motion blur but I have to say that the new photoreal motion blur is streets ahead. That adaptive sampling solution is just brilliant and with enough grunt, LightWave's output in terms of AA, motion blur and depth of field is just ...well I find it exciting. These frames, even with extreme motion now, look smooth and silky!

Personally I've been playing lately with depth of field. Not extreme, close up, 'Seiko watch' type shots; rather just trying to emulate film cameras with their easy, shallow depth of field. Large aperture cameras put the audience attention on the person in front of the camera, not a staccato gritty look of video, but a smooth, narrow focus on the foreground action or dialogue. Beautiful when done right. LightWave can do this now, everytime.

I'm very happy using the current PR motion blur, AS and AA, and I recommend using that and only that for your finals.

regards
Dave Tracey
Sydney

Dave,

Thanks for your help. I really appreciate it. I am planning on going with a render farm so hopefully I'll be able to get some good "grunt" ;D As for 9.2 and PR motion blur I can't wait to use it. From all I've seen and heard it sounds like the way to go for this. Now I need to upgrade my system so I can run it. 9.0 works fine but 9.2 well...let's just say it doesn't.... on my old system at least.

On another note we are going to run the whole film er ah video through magic bullet for color correction convert it to 24P add some grain and potentially transfer to film...we'll see.

Gary Wales
06-29-2007, 07:41 AM
You can use layout to comp it. Us the Alpha fader function and you can fade the image and not see the inside and back side and everything else because you will be fading the "image" not the object...

Sorry if this is too descriptive but this means you are rendering your scene first and saving both the RGB and Alpha then creating a new scene in Layout with your live action plate in the backdrop...put an envelope on the alpha fader and render it out. :thumbsup:

Cheers Rhothgar! I got ya.