Ok so the first two are here Part 1 -Part 2 -I have Kept these two simplesss and in part 3 it will be more in depth talking about the classics and including a few friends along the way.
Yay I was hoping for a tutorial!
Tony, don't forget to upload these to the movie wall. They should end up featured.
FilmTech Fire away dude! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with Triem23 All done broseph )
These should definitely go up on the Movie Wall. They will make a great addition to the complete list of tutorials as well.
@Andy001z I can confirm it's very possible to do Classic Tom Baker style titles using these types of techniques... I was doing that myself, concurrently with NxVisualStudio doing his tutorials.
Looking forward to trying this.
I thought for sure you were using the Quad Warp to make the effect. I put this video together in about 15 minutes, so it's very crude, but uses the Quad Warp instead. I like your way much better.
Slit Scan Video Using Quad Warp Effect
Speaking of introducing the classics, I think Tony's part 3 in his slit-scan tutorial is going to cover things like this:
Andy001z The way it should be (dooweeooo) Haha, Thanks buddy, hopefully part 3 will be more in depth.senseihaynes That's Quite a nice attempt, I like the stars! You are missing Jackie Chan randomly screaming "whaaaa" Stargazer54 Cheers buddy! When you do Link us up so I can check it out Triem23 You just couldn't hold back One does believe Ones other has comments to reply to on the Facebook page ; Admin Triem. But **** Lad Nicely done.
NXVisualStudio - Awesome! Thanks for the tuts!!! I started going through the first one at work yesterday and ran out of time- so I'll be picking up where I left off this morning. First time I've been excited to get to work. lol
EDIT: Sometime later @ work: K'plah!
@NXVisualStudio Very nice tutorials.
I do have a question on some setup from part 1. I've not done these slitscan tutorials but I saw the same thing in the vortex tutorial which I did enter exactly. This regards the "number of frames" value in the particle animation. The tut lists a value of 900 since that is the length of the timeline in frames. I believe it only needs around 30-60 for a 30p project since the particles are on screen for 1-2 seconds before they are behind the camera. I don't know the exact lifetime.
From my understanding of the animation feature, with the start frame keyframe animated, each particle gets a unique start frame # and the number of frames settings is the number of frames taken from the texture source for the particle animation from the start frame # for the particle. We only need enough frames for the particle lifetime/visibility (shorter of the two). Anything longer is computation waste since we never see it. The entire length of the source texture gets animated because each particle in succession starts with later start frames with each particle properly animating its timeslice of the source texture for the duration of it's lifetime/visibility.
I saw this same thing in the vortex tut and when I dropped the #frames 500 count to 400, 300, 200 and nothing on screen changed until the number of frames setting got shorter than the particle visibility on screen.
Particle texture animation with larger textures really hurts performance so that is why I bring up the question about the # frames parameter. Anything that can reduces burden/overhead can only help.
NormanPCN A very good set of questions "I believe it only needs around 30-60 for a 30p" If you was to set the entire start key frames from 0 to 30 on the entire time line you would have a long streak of nothingness and it would barley be animated, if you was to key frame the start frame from frame 0 to frame 30 you would only animate 30 frames of the animation shot,the reason for it being 900 is so that it can animate each "single" particle rendering them "static" Frozen in time if you will and equal to the animation shot as it passes the camera, it works like this - 900 frames in the animation shot = the entire shot/ entire cartridgeThe start frames are creating "Exposure" each particle that is emitted is an instance of what once was seen through the slit, we are turning the emitter into a substitute for whats missing, taking the shutter out of the camera to constantly expose, a little backward thing on my behalf. what you are dealing with here is time and speed, the emitter has a speed of around 3000 and takes about 2.2 seconds before it's out of shot then the particle is killed, from this point on its personal reference and is up to you to play around and get the effect you so desire. for the vortex this is pretty simple, you leave head room for having the option to pan a complete 180*, if you wanted to do a shot where the object in the vortex passes the camera, you then have enough particles behind you to pan around and actually see whats behind you instead of black empty space, that said if you don't want to do a shot like that then only emit enough to pass the camera. .........................."larger textures really hurts performance "Indeed it does and there is no quick fix for this, if you want detail it will cost, my shots in the animation shot can reach 2k in cases and some have taken 2 days non stop to render, the best bet for you is to experiment, here is the trap code 2.0 tut coming up in hitfilm https://flic.kr/p/xyRLY4I'm really sorry if I come across rude as well I am using "" to highlight key reasons and pointers
also as 900 frames is the entire animation from 0 to 900 try stretching the length of time between the key framed start frames, just play around a bit
"I saw this same thing in the vortex tut and when I dropped the #frames 500 count to 400, 300, 200 and nothing on screen changed until the number of frames setting got shorter than the particle visibility on screen"Again that is correct, you wouldn't notice it on screen because the change is happening behind you, given that you want to pan around you by 180*When you keyframe from 0 to say 900 and then back to 0 you are reversing the animation allowing you to create Constance, it then depends on speed to either create a stretched image/vortex or subtle looking animation, i hope this helps chap
Here's my first pass at tut #1. What a hoot! This is the kind of thing where you can just have a blast tweaking the knobs.
Stargazer54 That's pretty impressive especially the color variation, for future reference and to get the 2001 a space time odyssey look just make the slit thinner, I cover this in part 3, over all that's some groovy stuff for your first attempt Keep em coming
Commander Kang, er, I mean @Stargazer54 that's looking very nice. You're right, it IS the type of thing where you can have tons of fun tweaking little things.
@NormanPCN good observations. I THINK, however, that if a particle texture is set to animate for a longer number of frames than a particle is active, it wouldn't actually lead to additional overhead, since the death of the particle would halt computing it's texture animation. When you were dropping the animation lifetime did you notice any change in performance? If you did, then, yes, it's worth the small extra step of actually matching particle life and animation frames. If not, I'd go ahead and leave it long since I might get farther into developing a shot and start changing particle lifetimes and speeds, so the extra frames let me treat that property as a "set n' forget."
Update For Part 3-- Featuring work of Dear Xander from Neon Visual and The Mighty Triem my vfx bro --- in depth detailed Part tutorial part over view of some history in the effects and makings of... Watch this space
Michael Ansara had that amazing voice...
Conversations with Barbara Eden? "Honey, this shoe polish stains! Now show me your 'too hot for the censors' belly button, baby. Larry Hagman has to dream..."
Back from Holidays, can't wait to try the tutorials.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!