3D curves and surfaces mathematically defined

[Nicolas Guionnet]

​After some search, I found some options that look interesting but I would like to have a more experienced user’s opinion before throwing myself into the process of learning.

1°) I would use blender and Python scripting to generate OBJ animated models of my curves, surfaces or objects. Then I would export the animated OBJ to After Effects :
Create a 3D model using blender and python scripting [Community Environmental Observation Network – Wiki]

2°) Then I could use Trapcode Form to display my OBJ in a variety of ways …
https://www.redgiant.com/user-guide/form/base-form-obj/

3°) C4D could also let me display the animated OBJ. But … I would lose depth of field, am I right ?
Any comment or advice ?

Thanks

[Kalleheikki Kannisto]

Processing is another possible method for generating OBJ sequences mathematically. Based on reading the manual, I haven’t actually attempted it.

Other options for rendering 3D OBJ sequences with depth of field in After Effects include Element 3D and Stardust.

Kalleheikki Kannisto
Senior Graphic Designer

[Nicolas Guionnet]

Hi Kalleheikki, Thank you for your answer.

In fact it is the first time I hear about Processing. … is it “better” than Python within Blender … ?

I didn’t know that Element D could render Depth of field … as I read many times that it is very basic compared to Cinema 4D … good to know.

I have also read a few things relative to the Stardust vs Trapcode debate … Trapcode looked more versatile. I am going to dig deeper into Stardust …

But Trapcode TAO will be hard to beat for expression designed curves …

Well, choosing the right tool is 30% of the job … 40% ? ☺

Thanks

[Kalleheikki Kannisto]

No experience with generating 3D object with Python in Blender, but I suspect that Blender+Python is actually the better option, considering Blender is dedicatedly a 3D software while Processing is 2D and 3D and primarily concerned with rapidly generating interactive graphics by coding. The plus with processing is that it is Java-based, and very easy to learn. You can export as OBJ, but again, I haven’t actually tried this as yet.

Creating things with Element is very limited, but rendering is incredibly fast and the quality quite decent.

Kalleheikki Kannisto
Senior Graphic Designer

[Kalleheikki Kannisto]

Drawing lines along mathematically generated curves can also be done fairly easily with Particular. You can emit from lights, the 3D positions of which can be controlled by expressions. To animate such, you will have to draw the complete shape within one frame with tens of thousands of particles and have the particles live for a duration of one frame.

But generating surfaces is a whole different matter, for which you will need the Blender+Python or Processing solution.

Kalleheikki Kannisto
Senior Graphic Designer

[Nicolas Guionnet]

Thanks, Kalleheikki,

I see. This method with Particular seems interesting but Form and TAO also can do it right.

I think I will buy the Trapcode Suite. So versatile …

I’ll use Blender for surfaces and objects … I used to work with it 14 years ago (!!) … and Python is a good friend of mine too as my students learn programming with it.

It feels good to have a solution for these problems. ☺

Thanks for your help.

[Kalleheikki Kannisto]

How do you want to render the surfaces? If you need solid surfaces, Trapcode may not be the best solution. Their particle systems will turn the OBJ surfaces into particle sources.

If you want to render solid objects and object sequences, look into Element and Stardust.

Although Tao may be able to do what you want — depending on what it is that you’re aiming at.

Kalleheikki Kannisto
Senior Graphic Designer

[Nicolas Guionnet]

I am of course not a Form user yet but I read a part of the documentation and there are more than one display option fo OBJs :
https://www.redgiant.com/user-guide/form/base-form-obj/
(at the end of the page … see the horse.)
If I need something more physically realistic, I ‘ll go to 3D elements.
But what I don’t understand is how stardust can help “render” OBJs … it is a particule plugin, isn’t it ? … Maybe I should read the documentation … ???? …
As my current limitation is what my brain can learn, it is also what my wallet can buy at the very beginning of this project.
So I have to choose my tools carefully. I can’t afford everything …
Thanks

[Kalleheikki Kannisto]

The main difference that I am pointing out here is that with Form and Particular, you can use OBJ files as particle emitters only, so any OBJ surfaces will be made out of particles, not solid fills.

With Element and Stardust you can also use OBJ files (and sequences) as particles (including displaying a single particle), which means you can render solid 3D objects like you would in any 3D software.

In my humble opinion, if you want the best return on investment, I would recommend Stardust. It has most of the features in the Trapcode Suite and Element 3D in one single integrated package. The main downside with Stardust is sparse documentation.

Kalleheikki Kannisto
Senior Graphic Designer

[Nicolas Guionnet]

I understand.

I am surprised though that Stardust can render OBJs so well. Good.
The connected boxes interface is great.
And Physics is amazing … I would use it a lot ( for videos about probability for instance ).
It is cheap compared to Trapcode …

One thing that is disappointing : 3D curves are defined by splines made out of lights …. and I really don’t know how to go from my usual expression defined curves ( defined with : x(t) = … ; y(t) = … , z(t) = … ) to a set of lights … “indicating” the way …

And if you remember, it was the initial goal of this post … ????

I will soon end up with Trapcode and Stardust … these tools are amazing …

Thanks !