-
CS3 3D type – not 3D?
So I’ve been hearing this hyped up all over the place, and I only just got around to reading some of the material available of the new features, and it appears that CS3 AE has per character 3D transforms, not 3D type with depth? Is that correct? They make it sound like you can extrude text, but then you read further and it’s all a clever spin.
If there is no depth, this is something we sorely need. The ability to give depth to any piece if text and then apply a surface to it in flame is something that AE needs – because flame sucks at type animation – whereas AE rocks, but it’s always so flat, and nothing says “cheap” like flat planes rotated in space. Seriously, how hard can it be to give depth to something? Will I be stuck with the clunky invigorator forever?Am installing CS3 tryout now to explore further…
-
7 Replies
-
yes, it’s 3D in that the flat text can now be movedinto 3D space – per character – meaning each letter can be out on a seperate 3D plane.
While it still is really “2.5D” (flat objects in 3D space), it’s quite powerful.
—————————————-
Aharon Rabinowitz
arabinowitz(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
http://www.allbetsareoff.com—————————————-
Click the link below to subscribe to the Creative Cow After Effects Podcast, and get free AE video tutorials:https://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=111087911
-
What’s Eyeon Fusion like for text animation? I think that has pretty advanced 3D capabilities…
I do love it when people say “Flame can’t do this, Flame can’t do that”.. It makes me feel much better about being stuck with and defending my cheapish AE system!
*Production Studio Premium / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0 -
[jimmybee500] “I do love it when people say “Flame can’t do this, Flame can’t do that””
I read an interesting argument against Flame and other real-time compositing/color correction systems (Da Vinci) in Stu Maschwitz’s “The DV Rebel’s Guide: An All-Digital Approach to Making Killer Action Movies on the Cheap.”
The basic thought was that since you aren’t working in real-time you have much greater flexibility in compositing and color correcting and can actually achieve better results in many (though not all) cases. Stu even goes so far as to note that in working in real-time you must output in real-time to tape, and tape always means compression of some sort. AE allows more flexibility and the ability for an entirely digital workflow. The downside, of course, is that you have to wait (sometimes hours, sometimes days) for your vindication to render =)
Darby Edelen
DVD Menu Artist
Left Coast Digital
Aptos, CA -
I’m still waiting for my copy of The Guide so I’m not sure what Stu has said, but even working on AFX here I have to digitize source material from a Digi Beta, and then when the job is ready, play out again, so essentially there’s no difference for that part of the workflow between flame and AE. Flame processes faster in the intermediate stages though, and I actually think I get better results because of that, as doing the flame equivalent of a “ram preview” is much faster, and more previews means more chances to revise an element that might need tweaking. Like AE, everything you do after importing and before exporting to tape remains digital and lossless, assuming no compression codecs are used (like Final Cut Pro can introduce).
-
Aye, doesn’t Flame use more drive-based processing to preview, etc? As oppossed to AE using mainly RAM after the CPU? Can’t remember the details, but Autodesk stuff processes/renders data in a totally different way to AE someone was telling me..?
As for workflow – I’m pretty sure you can ingest/output from data files (cineon/frame sequences/QT) on a Linux Flame, just as well as you could in AE. Products like Xstoner and some max-t systems can totally integrate autodesk systems with PCs/Macs for networking and sharing storage. I currently ingest either from Digi via Premiere and into AE, or directly form our Editobox via SDI. Output is the same.
Antother question – how much compression does digibeta REALLY introduce?…
..We still use an old linear digibeta suite for some sport progamming (no digitising time wasted) and that still uses a VTR>VTR editing environment through a series of external DVEs and mixers – which would bring into effect LOTS of generations of recordings from one digi tape to another and I can’t really see much difference between the rushes and the final edited master tape.
*Production Studio Premium / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0 -
[ScottPM] “but even working on AFX here I have to digitize source material from a Digi Beta, and then when the job is ready, play out again”
Well, you don’t have to use that workflow. If the source is coming from tape then you’ll always have some compression to deal with, but his point was that you definitely don’t need to go back out to tape. Once it’s digitized you can keep it in the digital realm entirely.
He was more focused on specifically discussing realtime color correction suites.
Darby Edelen
DVD Menu Artist
Left Coast Digital
Aptos, CA -
Not many people use tape driven CC suites nowadays though do they? Pablo, Lustre, Color, DaVinci, etc. are all non-linear data-based suites aren’t they?
*Production Studio Premium / *Combustion 3
————————————-
Win XP Pro SP2 / Intel P4 3GHz / 2GB RAM / GeForce FX5200 / DeckLink Pro / Sony BVM-20G1E / DVS SDI Clipstation / 110GB boot/80GB media/600GB RAID-0
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up