Dave Johnson
Forum Replies Created
-
My opinion is that the scene looks very good so far … things I’d take a closer look at to improve it are:
The flames and smoke seem to move in the wrong direction … the background clouds are moving to the right, which indicates that’s the direction the wind is blowing, yet the flames and smoke move to the left … however, one could also argue that the direction of the source of the explosion is counteracting the wind direction and/or that the wind is moving in the opposite direction in the distance where the clouds are.
The particles flying away from the explosion are very obviously digitally composited and look a little un-natural … it seems that a large explosion off in the distance wouldn’t really bring so many particles so close to the camera lens in clearly visible form so quickly. Also, the particles all look like sparkling embers rather than debris … perhaps there should be a combination of both … though still with consideration for the first point.
The camera shake looks un-natural … it seems the affects on the camera would be more immediate rather than lasting throughout the shot, although that’s hard to judge without sound (how many explosions the viewer will hear). It also seems the camera movement would be more of a kick-back followed by some side-to-side and up-and-down wobble that’s less extreme and that also quickly tapers off from the moment of the explosion.
I think it’s always very hard for anyone to realistically recreate something they’ve never personally witnessed … I’m not suggesting you go blow up your least favorite neighbor’s house and film it (although that would be more fun), but you probably know someone who has had some real-world war experience and personally witnessed a few large explosions … perhaps show them your scene and ask what seems real and what doesn’t.
If I recall correctly, one of the guys that frequents this forum works for the military (Michael Szalapski) … if so, even if he hasn’t personally witnessed real explosions as large as what you’re re-creating, he may have seen or have experience with creating digital simulations of large explosions.
I hope you find my feedback helpful.
-
Sounds like you may be referring to the jagged edges that are normal with interlaced footage … check AE’s interpret footage settings to make sure the footage has been interpreted correctly (i.e., interlaced or non-interlaced, etc.). You can de-interlace the fooatge if needed depending on what you want your output to be, but if it is supposed to be interlaced, it will look fine on a TV so de-interlacing may not be necessary or appropriate.
-
If both the file names and location paths are exactly the same as they originally were, AE will find the files when you close and reopen the project.
If both the file names and location paths are not exactly the same as they originally were, you’ll need to right click each missing file in the AE project window, select “replace footage” and navigate to the appropriate file on your hard drive.
-
Just play with the parameters of the Glow effect … particularly alpha channel or color channel, glow radius, glow intensity and blend mode. There is nothing about that glow that can’t be easily done with the native AE Glow plugin so, just FYI, there are also a few third-party glow plugins out there that have additional controls.
About making the “yellow flourishes to look so bright”, it seems it’s just a mtter of selecting the right shade of yellow and probably applying Glow to it as well, although it would be with very different settings than the more diffused glow behind the whole thing.
-
If the item you want to replace it with is already in your project, select the layer you want to replace and hold Option while you drag the new item over the layer to be replaced in the timeline.
If not, right click the item in the project window and choose Replace Footage.
-
1. No, not if you do it right.
2. Export using a lossless codec of your choice (perhaps ProRes).
3. Don’t understand this question (Should she learn Apple in FCP?), but if you mean should your editor learn Apple Color, my opinion is that no editor should be forced to use a particular tool simply because someone else heard about that tool … there’s nothing Color can do that AE can’t do, although some will always argue that one tool is better than the other, the bottom line is what kind of results can your editor get with AE versus a tool they were forced to use for what are often not legitimate reasons … not saying this is the case with Color because it is an excellent tool, but it’s important to remember that when people insist that a particular tool is the only one anyone should use for a particular task, it is often based on lack of knowledge of any other tool, kick-back type relationships or just plain old baseless hype.
4. Yes … see answers 1, 2, 3 & 5.
5. This question is too broad to answer in a simple forum post … some may try, but I doubt anyone could explain how to do do good color correction in a forum post that isn’t pages long. I’d suggest posting specific questions if you have specific issues to address.
-
[Dave LaRonde] “I heartily agree with the “hack” reference. “Myopic Artiste” ain’t bad, either.”
Myopic, yes … artiste, doubtful, but possible I suppose.
-
Sorry, but I just couldn’t help myself when I read this … no offense if the person happens to be a friend of yours or something, but whoever is responsible for this “change” is not a “Producer” or “Director” … they’re a hack … period. Even if your project is a Hollywood film or funded by someone for whom money/time is no object, something like this should’ve been worked out way before any cameras were rolling … in talent selection or, at the very latest, in makeup … professional-quality temporary spray-on hair dye costs about $10!!
-
Oh, I thought he meant adding markers directly to source media, rather than layers.
-
Since the footage was shot on multiple cams, which pretty much eliminates a cam issue, my first guess would be that all those cams were drawing from a single batch of re-used tape stock so there are probably all kinds of errors on the tapes regardless of which cam they were used in.
Re-using tape stock can sometimes be okay with pro cams that use traditional large-format tapes, but its not even a good thing to do in that scenario … definitely a very bad idea with prosumer “mini” tape formats like HDV … the tapes move at much higher speeds and, therefore, deteriorate faster; the internal components of the cams are not nearly as robust as pro cams and, therefore, more easily damage tapes; etc., etc.
In fact, with any mini format cam, the best approach is to choose one brand and type of tape from the moment you buy the cam and never use any other brand or type of tape in that cam; never put tapes from cams or decks other than your own in it to avoid transferring that equipments issues to your own; and have the cam professionally serviced every few years (rather than using head-cleaning tapes).
If bad tapes is the issue, the best chances of getting the footage off the tapes will probably be to either use the cam that shot each tape as the playback deck for that particular tape or find a post facility with a relatively high-end deck that may have a better chance of being able to read bad tapes.
Sorry I don;t have an easy solution, but perhaps this info will at least help avoid the same situation in the future.