Darby Edelen
Forum Replies Created
-
Can you share a simple project file that shows the issue?
Darby Edelen
-
No need to invert depending on your order of operations. If the still area on the clean frame is A, the same area on the current frame is B and the entire current frame is C:
C + stretch(A – B)
If you need to blur I’d do it where you suggest.
Again, this will need to be done in 32bpc.
Darby Edelen
-
I think I was editing my last response when you responded. Hopefully that one is more helpful now 🙂
Darby Edelen
-
Invert shouldn’t clip values if the project is set to 32bpc.
I’ve removed my previous answer as it was posted before I could view the images. For the record many corporate environments block Dropbox and the COW does have its own photo embedding feature 🙂
Now that I’ve looked at the shot I’m still concerned that you may not be able to solve it with the method you’re suggesting but if you’d like to give it a whirl anyway you should definitely set the project depth to 32bpc. Then you’ll essentially do what you’re doing now:
The clean area’s current frame gets subtracted from the clean frame, that value is spread out horizontally to cover the frame and then added back into the whole frame.
The concerns I have with this are:
1) The blur required to remove high frequency noise is going to cause trouble along the edges, likely solvable with the right radius blur
2) the band is likely raising/lowering color values in a non-uniform manner across the frame. My guess is that this may have been caused by one of the lights being a fluorescent that was out of phase with the camera. In that case the dark areas are areas during the exposure of the frame in which the light was “off.” Since lights are not uniformly bright and also cast shadows I’d be concerned that the variation in values in the bands are not uniform. That said: I may be over thinking this and everything might work out just fine with the described method 🙂
I’ve used the temporal filtering feature from this plug-in in the past to repair issues like the one you describe:
https://revisionfx.com/products/denoise/
In addition, there’s this one from the same folks:
https://revisionfx.com/products/deflicker/
I haven’t used it. It’s advertised primarily for high frame rate or time lapse footage but the problem it’s solving is essentially the same.
Darby Edelen
-
I think the smooth() method should do it for you:
width = framesToTime(5);
samples = 5;value.smooth(width, samples) - value;
Darby Edelen
-
A funky alternative that might work for you would be to use the two texture setups and alpha blend between them. This would give you a noticeable seam but that could be minimized.
UV mapping would definitely be preferred.
Darby Edelen
-
I do still like the Unix underpinnings of OS X but I absolutely hate all of the new consumer facing features. The App store, for example. It’s the iOS-ification of the OS that bothers me.
Darby Edelen
-
There is no way to add the functionality of sampling a different layer than the one the Remove Grain effect is applied to. That would require a re-write of the effect.
That said, you could pre-compose all of your footage layers and add your noise sample image to the pre-comps as the first frame (Frame 0) only. Now when you apply the Remove Grain effect to each pre-comp it will be sampling the noise sample frame by default (Frame 0).
Darby Edelen
-
[Liam Ward] “Seems directly linked to enabling ‘continuously rasterize’.”
This is correct. Any layer with that switch enabled will behave the way you’ve described.
This is because, among other things, the switch changes the order of operations in the render pipeline. Instead of rendering effects before transforming the layer AE will transform the layer into composition space and then render the layer’s effects.
You might notice if you apply a Blur to a continuously rasterized layer that the Blur will appear to be the same size no matter how much you scale the layer up or down. That’s because the Blur radius is now measured in composition space rather than layer space.
When it comes to effects a continuously rasterized layer’s bounds can effectively be considered the same as the composition’s bounds.
Honestly I consider this more of a feature and less of a bug. It allows for a lot of really cool effects and is usually easy to work around once you’re aware of it. Knowing how to selectively bend the AE render pipeline without breaking it is quite fun. I hope to do a tutorial one day 😉
Darby Edelen
-
[Ryan Hannebaum] “…But not portable, which would be a pretty big drawback to me in my line of work.
I’ll have to consider it an option though at this rate, thanks!”
Honestly 75% of the time I use my laptop as a client to VNC into my workstation rather than actually working on the laptop.
Someday in the not-to-distant future I imagine I’ll be doing it with a tablet instead 🙂
Why aren’t PCs an option for you? After 20 years on the Mac I don’t regret jumping ship to my HP workstation at all.
Darby Edelen