-
x 2 (because I was told by the cow that I couldn’t use so many caps
-
According to Imagineer, “Mocha is not trying to replace the big 3D camera trackers out there.” But you’re right the full Mocha has some light camera tracking capabilities, though not implemented in SliceX or Track X. And not all scenes lend themselves to planar tracking. I just wonder how they would implement that in a simplified interface. It certainly would be useful, if not applicable in all applications.
On the example you showed, moving around a 3D title needs 3D camera data. So you either need a 3D camera tracker (like what’s in AE and not in Motion) or you do “fake” 3D camera tracking, which is picking a point in the scene, tracking it, and moving your 3D title in reference to that point with a stationary camera, guessing the focal length of the lens. That works in some instances, but for more complicated motions it doesn’t work. You’ll notice all the examples have a single motion to them without panning, and there isn’t any orbiting. I often track handheld shots. This method usually fails with that situation.
-
[Charlie Austin] “done in AE/C4D fwiw.”
[Charlie Austin] “a very useful feature”
And the heavy lifting of development is done: the textures, the lights, the camera. It can’t be too difficult from here to apply that to a mask.
-
[Richard Herd] “It can’t be too difficult from here to apply that to a mask.”
You mean apply to a vector shape of sorts? Right, it isn’t. Simply make an SVG of it and use glyphter.com to make a font of it. Done.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Brett Sherman] “guessing the focal length of the lens.”
You’re shifting the goal posts here. There was never any talk of focal lengths (aside from not even having them in FCP). Obviously one needs to keep the comparison at a reasonable level. Since, no, plugins such as those from CoreMelt are never intended to replace packages such as SynthEyes, Boujou, the full mocha, PFTrack or what not else. That’d be a pretty silly and disproportionate assumption. But I’d say what they offer and especially at what PRICE-POINT, they’re a steal in comparison and will in fact do great with the vast majority of track work that I see people asking for in this context.
[Brett Sherman] “You’ll notice all the examples have a single motion to them without panning, and there isn’t any orbiting.”
Am I right in assuming that you haven’t actually ever used Track or SliceX? Because they do in fact offer transformation AND perspective tracking. So pans are not in fact as big of a deal as you seem to assume. They’re just a lot more fiddly than a simple track, which is probably why they chose not to go into them in the demos. But then, if that’s what you need and don’t like what TrackX gives you, the alternatives are out there.
But again, keeping the plugins in reasonable and fair perspective, they’re not intended to nor will they replace a “real” dedicated camera tracker. That’s like assuming the built-in 3D titles are going to somehow replace something like Cinema 4D or even mObject. Of course they won’t. But it will be by far enough for a lot of people.
– RK
____________________________________________________
Deutsch? Hier gibt es ein umfassendes FCP X Training für dich! -
[Robin S. Kurz] “…enough for a lot of people”
Now THERE’s a new forum name. “Good Enough For A Lot of People Or Not: The Debate.”
-
[Tim Wilson] “Now THERE’s a new forum name. “Good Enough For A Lot of People Or Not: The Debate.””
Perfect! Because that’s what it’s really all about. Apple, Adobe and Avid all want to be good enough for a lot of people. More than the others. And so they battle it out with a winner never to be determined!
😉
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up