[Chris Orcfilm]

Hi Scott, I see the RGB channels of what I want to see and the alpha of the original …per the graphic. Am I misunderstanding your question?

Cheers,

Chris

Orchard Film Studios, Canada

[Chris Orcfilm]

Thank you oh Great Szalam, toWorld(), a new tool for my toolbox and saver of countless hours in my future I’m sure.

Thanks!!

[Chris Orcfilm]

SOLUTION:
So in respect to Dan’s time and anyone else encountering a similar problem, it was entirely my fault :-Þ

Seems the “head/retina” comp that I had embedded in the “final” parent comp was 200 frames long, but the parent “final” comp was 8000 frames long and I had simply moved the “head/retina” comp along the “final” comp timeline to where I needed it, but by changing the “eyes slider” values in “final”, I was trying to affect a time in the “head/retina” comp that was beyond the “head/retina” comp’s actual length. (around the 3000 frame mark)

So, I opened the “head/retina” comp, made it the same length as the “final comp” (8000) frames then back in the “final” comp, moved the “head/retina” comp to the beginning, stretching it to the end and lo-and behold, the “eyes slider” affected the “retina” at the “final”‘s 3000 frame mark as required.

Thanks again for your time Dan!

Chris

Orchard Film Studios, Canada

[Chris Orcfilm]

Thanks Dan, that helps immensely. Means my logic wasn’t faulty, but my machine/software may be. I’ll try to rebuild it from scratch carefully and see where it’s breaking down for me.

Thanks for taking the time to confirm this for me!

Chris

Orchard Film Studios, Canada

[Chris Orcfilm]

Fair question of course Bob, and the answer would be *as little as possible. If that means $200 or $2,000 but would afford me the greatest scalability even if it’s a budgeted, phased approach.

I’m cheap, but I understand value vs. time.

I should clarify, I’m a one person shop, but work on several computers throughout my home for convenience.

I do Motion Graphics and film-making on the side, primarily for volunteer organizations, so I try to keep my “hobby” business within reason.

*…You must grow tired of these questions Bob, understandably, but thank you for the quality (and free) advice you continuously provide those who “aren’t quite there yet” it is appreciated by more than you may know, and of course they, are likely the high-end infrastructure clients of tomorrow.

Thanks for taking the time to reply!

Chris

[Chris Orcfilm]

Exactly what I needed Erik!

Albeit you were correct, I had already, unfortunately finished (manually :-p) resizing everything by the time you posted this. BUT for the next time or anyone else encountering this need, the Demo Palette script (File > Scripts > Demo Pallette.jsx) resized the comps in whole exactly as I needed them. The only thing I had to tweak was the DoF of the virtual camera.

Thanks for taking the time to post this solution to this thread and adding Demo Palette to my mental toolbox!

Paul.

[Chris Orcfilm]

Thanks Dave! That was my first thought too, trouble is when changing the focal length, you are also changing the field of view, so when using a virtual camera move like a crab, parts of the layers become visible, or the layers are no longer large enough to fill the screen.

Still unless someone else besides you and Erik has an idea, this appears to be the way to go to retain resolution detail and to somehow increase the layers as a group and the path that the camera takes. I’m expecting an expression of some kind but…

Getting there is the fun part right?

Thanks again for the input!

Paul

[Chris Orcfilm]

Thanks Erik! You got me all excited, and tried it but unfortunately no luck. Problem is the comp has a camera in it, so when you collapse transformations, the layers become flat (albeit full resolution). So I then copied the camera out of the source/nested comp and placed it in the new comp, but the camera’s path did not coincide with the resized nested comp (so the camera bounced around only about 50% of the composition.

Of course your idea, without collapsing transformations resamples the original comps resolution up to HD or 2K but is just an antialiased version of the original 720×480 resolution.

So looking at the advanced comp settings (in CS4 by the way), tried to preserve resolution in nested comps and increasing the Shadow map in either and both the nested comp and the new comp, but seems to make no difference.

I ran another test using the zoom idea from Dave below just to confirm the resolution in my layers was in fact there (when not proxied) and indeed if I can increase the nested composition’s stage and related camera paths, I can effectively get 2k resolution from this project.

If I could only get a nested composition to pass through it’s layer’s full resolution (and camera) regardless of the nested compositions actual resolution that would be great, otherwise, I think I need to somehow increase the physical 3D stage and camera in whole in the original comp to achieve what I need.

…Shoulda built it in 2K to begin with, I know.

Thanks for the input though!

Paul

[Chris Orcfilm]

I know this is an old post, but in case anyone finds it in a search, there is a company that sells bodysuits here:
https://store02.prostores.com/servlet/tubetape/the-38/Video-Green-Full-Cover/Detail

I don’t know if they are good, I am not a customer, but for what it’s worth.

Also, I am interested in a chromakey Balaclava or one hole ski mask preferable spandex if anyone knows of a supplier.

Cheers,

Paul