[Chris Brett]

— one last thought –

— you sure you need continuous raster on ?

——– if you are only moving in the x axis I would have thought its not required –

– if not then suggest again you reformat the file – thats of course if Darby’s suggestion draws a blank

—-chris—-

=========================================================

[Chris Brett]

Hi Tim — well maybe dont be too hard on yourself cos sometimes it can be the app. ……..

—– once I had a .tif file that kept jumping out of position when I played the job back and to solve this I took the image into PS and converted it to a .tga file.

Therefore I reckon it might be worth doing the same — convert the file format to something else and try again — ( I tend to go for .tga files as I always think of them as native video format files but probably it makes no difference )

———– all the best —–chris —

=============================

[Chris Brett]

— Hi — suggest you just get the type and ‘wang it around a bit’ — — have some fun — change the scale and position – add a ‘fastblur’ effect and twiddle the controls a bit ….

— get a rough idea of what you want I suggest and dont bother about too much by way of technical calculations …

… migt sound a bit slap-dash but I’ve been doing this for years and I still often deliberately do things like tis to look for ‘ happy accidents’ …

———— have fun ——chris —

[Chris Brett]

– BTW — the sphere can be done in CC sphere which is part of the standard package though this one does look as if its done in a 3D package —

— if I were looks after thos project I would use a combination of 3D and AE as I think it would be cost effective …..

—- on the job I reckon the 3d bits are done in a 3D app not sure about the rest .

————– chris —

[Chris Brett]

— Hi —

——–reckon its probably a combination of techniques —

– some of it looks like frame by frame animation to me or some version of it – checkout ‘atoms found head’ and ‘bright-idea sequence’ ………..

……. or are you guts saying that these others methods do the same thing ?? ………

—– chris —-

======================================

[Chris Brett]

Hi —-
— there are always restrictions to what you can display on any system however most of these do not matter because the result looks more than good enough to the human eye.

Therefore if one uses compressed formats, low bpc or formats that have poor resolution for the display size then banding can result in areas which require more ‘pixel information ‘such as the one you describe.

In my experience this is often impossible to completely eliminate and I am quick to adjust the edit in some way to improve the look if at all possible.

Sometimes I just reduce it as much as possible and send it to the client and in case its any consolation I’ve never have a job refused because of this – non video people are not as sensitive to it as us guys I think…

— However things you can try are :

1 ) better compression codecs ( not my area so best not to advise here )
2 ) use grain / anti banding tools – I know you have tried this but sometimes small adjustments to the spark setting can make quite a difference — its worth tweaking the settings a bit before you give up
3 ) use more colour / contrast in the area affected – this gives the spark greater range to play with when it calcultes the changes from A to B and this can reduce the noticeability of any banding.

My guess is that for Youtube and looking at your uploads ( which do not show any banding BTW ) a combination of 1 and 2 is best – codecs can make a BIG difference…

———— all the best ——chris —

[Chris Brett]

Thanks Todd —

—- theres a lot of it to ‘get yer head round ‘ and i’m doing it a wee bit at a time to hopefully take it all in…

…………. much appreciated and best regards —chris brett—

[Chris Brett]

— cheers – look forward to it ———c–

[Chris Brett]

Hi Tom — just been doing quite a bit of study on GPU stats and it appears that bandwidth vs number of cores is the key issue.

— my techy geek mate who is assisting comments thus ” not impressed by that new gfx card is that yes it has a lot more cores, but they have NOT scaled up the memory bandwidth to match, so for CUDA tasks it will suffer from the same problem as the 600 series, ie. not remotely enough bandwidth per core to feed them all properly.

This is why benchmark results I’ve been looking at consistently show the GTX 580 to be faster than the GTX 670, despite the fact that the 670 has almost 3X more cores. ”

— Anyone else think this / have any thoughts on this one ?

———————— chris —

[Chris Brett]

Hi there –

Many thanks for all the help on this one which has been very useful and much appreciated.

Still puzzled by the ‘ process multiple frames ‘ option though….

……does anyone know if this works simultaneously with all the other functions please ? — such as …..

……should this work on the same calculations at the same time as the CUDA cores when GPU is enabled and will this work when a RAM preview is being calculated ?

……. any thoughts on this one please ??

————— all the best ——-chris —