Null_Unit's VFX Thread
Comments
-
Yep, the way I understand it, the original BSG started out as a Star Wars TV series that got rejected by Lucas Film. They just reworked it a little and turned it into BSG.
*aaand the vimeo posts are gone again...
-
BSG creator Glen A. Larson claims he conceptualized the show in the 1960's.BSG wasn't supposed to be a Star Wars TV show at all (but Universal waa sued by Fox over similarities to Star Wars. Fix didn't win.), but rather, a sci-fi Mormon allegory. After cancellation, many of the themes of BSG got moved over to Larson's Buck Rogers show.
-
3D model as particle texture, depth of field, distance fog, motion blur, lens dirt.
Let me know if you can't see any video posted.
-
Nothing is showing up. Just a blank section where the video should be.
-
Working here. Cool shot - reminds me a lot of the visual style of Monument Valley.
-
I can see it now as well.
-
I subscribed/follow Null on Vimeo, so I saw this there, but the video doesn't show in my phone's browser. Very cool shot, by the way.
-
Looks cool but the music scared me.
-
I can't see anything either...
-
Well It's gone again. How does one post a Jpg? I was going to post a screen cap but wasn't sure how.
-
In the 'Leave a Comment' box there's an icon for inserting images just after the smiley. Don't know if that will work 'cause I haven't tried it myself. You might have to have an online picture account i.e. flickr and bring it over from there.
-
Flickr doesn't work with this forum. I have yet to successfully post pictures here, too. But I know Flickr doesn't work. Either Simon or KristieT confirmed that.
-
I'm using the projector to turn a photo into a 3d scene and auto volumetrics to create the volumetric shadows. I want to point out how cool it is that planes that are being projected on can also catch shadows.
-
Wow! That looks great!
Did you set the auto volumetrics to multiply mode?
-
That's a beautiful shot! Would love a bit more detail on how you made it.
-
Thanks!
Stormy, yep the autovolumetrics are in Multiply blend mode. The light position is the 3d light behind the model and the light source is the model itself.
I watched your early camera projection tutorial, Simon. I did do something potentially unusual. The project is in 1080p, but the sunset photo was way higher resolution than that. I wasn't sure if shrinking the image to 1080 would cause it to lose resolution once the moving camera was closer in, so I didn't resize it and made it into a 3d plane. Then I pulled the static camera back so it filled the frame. I figured this would retain the image quality when the moving camera was closer into the image. Is that the case or did I just do things in a round-about way?
Setting up the projected shot is interesting too. Whether to try to repilicate the reality of how the environment in the image is set up or approximate how it looks in the image. What I mean is that in the original image, the floor looks like its at about an 70-80 degree angle, but in reality it would be more like 90 degrees. when I experimented the perspective shift looked better when the floor is at 90 degrees. So, this shot is basically just a flat floor plane and a background plane futher away.
The mist on the ground is placed literally on the ground around the model in 3d space, but I did not use the unified 3d space because I wanted to put a lot of light wrap on the model. And the shot is rendered in 16bit 8x msaa.
(Still having vimeo posts randomly disappear on this new forum.)
-
(we spotted a weird glitch in the forum which causes some image and possibly video URLs to break at a random interval after posting. Not sure what's going on - the guys will be looking at it this week)
The question of how closely to replicate the actual 3D scene when projecting is an interesting one. If you're having to do a ton of work to recreate the geometry then it's probably a false economy - you're likely better off diving into a full 3D modelling scenario, or just filming it for real (if possible).
A projection's resolution is determined by the host plane.
-
@Simon, Ah, I see. So really I should have set the project settings to something like 2k or 4k, then left the image as a 2d plane for the static camera to look at and then render to 1080p?
Here is the same setup with a different camera move that shows more perpective. The previous clip is a straight dolly track to the right. I just wanted to show that there is a fair amount of room to move around inside a projected shot. I also want to point out how you can see the volumetric shadows form in real time during this shot.
-
Nice the way the shadows develop! I like this vid better because as you said- it shows more perspective. Great job!
-
Thanks! yeah, the camera move is better in the second shot and the way that the camera is lower, looking up at the mech, makes the mech look bigger and more imposing.
I dont want to start a features request thread, but it would be great if when you change a 3d model from a 2d or 3d layer to 3d unrolled you wouldnt lose all your effects on that layer. I know they cant be used while the layer is 3d unrolled, but it would be great if the effects came back if you switch the layer back to 2d or 3d.
-
I ran into the same thing with the 3D models when I was experimenting the other day. I wasn't doing anything serious or worth keeping but I forgot some of the exact effect settings and ended up screwing the shot up even more. lol
-
Both versions look sexy, sweet, Null! I'ma gonna have to play with projection soon!
-
Thanks! Projection is a cool effect. I would be interesting to go back to an old technique like in the Nebula tutorial and try to create it with projection.
I wanted to try out the Atomic Particles update. There is an obvious improvement. It runs better in real-time and renders faster. I can even turn on motion blur during playback on some AP effects and it plays pretty good, compared to before where motion blur would really slow things down. I wanted to push the limits, so I created the experiment below. I turned up the amount of particles as far as it would go (there are over one million) and I also turned up the X, Y scale as big as they would go. Then I twisted the plane a few times. There is some glow and lens dirt, as well.
(The links appear to still be randomly breaking.)
-
Well, I had to update my Cthulhu clip with the new rain on glass effect, of course.
-
So are the atomic particles interacting with the music?
Both vids look great! The rain on glass sure adds to the realism.
-
Yeah, just the particle opacity is being used, though.
The rain on glass effect was a perfect fit!
I had an idea for a new feature. Auto-Follow Focus for 3d objects. In the camera controls, you would turn on depth of field and then pick which object should stay in focus. Then where-ever you moved the object it would stay in focus.
-
That would be a cool effect! Can't wait to see a demo....and hopefully a brief explanation of how you'd acheive it.
-
I like Auto-Follow Focus. That would go well with my ongoing wish for parameters like camera target, particle emitter target, spot/directional light target, and cubic force/deflectors to be linkable to a point. A camera auto-targeting a point with auto DOF would make setting up certain shots SOOOOO much easier!
The rain on glass looks nice on 'Thulhu. Oddly enough, while I've played with the Rain on Glass effect, I think I like the look of Axel's Particle Rain on Glass cheat from last year a bet better.
-
Stormy, I can't make it, I was just putting the idea out there for future updates.
Triem, all those camera control ideas would be great.
I was also thinking that an auto-follow focus could be used to rack focus between objects a lot easier too.
-
Yes, dof should also be patentable to a point. . Now you lock everything to a rig, and bamm...!
