[Hilary Tsai]

Meant to add this as an edit, but couldn’t find the edit button:

I need to correct my statement about the video. It doesn’t actually say that C4D was used at all, but rather whichever 3D software they used to print the model was used before they added effects. I may have also mistakenly read your explanation to mean that I should warp 2D imagery in MM before using C4D, which gave me the impression that I should warp a 2D trace before and then export the trace to use as a design guide in my softwares–but I’m not sure that’s what you meant.

I guess what my question boils down to is: should I do the trace and modeling in C4D at the start, put it into AE, and then use MM to warp it to fit?

[Hilary Tsai]

Steve, you’re incredible! This info just goes above and beyond, it’s very valuable to me as I finalize a work flow. Things are starting to click much better now. Seriously, THANK YOU.

As it happens, I do have Madmapper. When you talk about MM doing the warp correction for you, are you referring to the 3D calibration tool? If not, please correct me. I’ve not yet used it, but I looked up a video

https://vimeo.com/206555850

which suggests designing a model and then 3D printing it (I’d skip that step, as my geometry is not custom designed). Then, with MM’s calibration tool, you match the image to the 3D print and then add designs in Aftereffects before loading it back into MM. That sounds like a solid idea; the only part I’m a bit unclear on is: In the video above, C4D comes at the beginning of the process, and you mentioned doing the C4D stuff after the initial calibration/warp. Let’s say I skip complex C4D design at the start and just do a sort of matte trace of my RWG. Would I load the trace into MM for an initial calibration and then export that out to C4D to work on? Then, since AE comes after C4d in the workflow, does using MM’s calibration again for the final result get rid of the need for re:map? Sorry for my confusing language; I’m just trying to see exactly how using MM affects all the steps you mentioned. It does seem that MM would simplify the process a lot if the calibration tool can adjust the image.

P.S. I checked out the Tupac “hologram.” Seems it was CGI + pepper’s ghost and cost 400k to put together! Can definitely appreciate your point about it not being a true hologram, for sure, though the concept of bringing dead performers back to life is interesting.

Once again, Steve, thank you!! I can’t tell you how difficult this process would be without your helpful explanation.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Vimeo framework” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Hilary Tsai]

Hey, Steve!

This has been immensely helpful, and I’m going to give all of this a go. I just have some follow-up questions, if I may. (sorry, I don’t want to be overwhelming with all these questions, but would love to know:

-By “we do our warp in C4d,” do you mean you model everything out to match the real world geometry to begin with, or you create imagery and then warp it to fit? Are you outputting C4D to your projector so you can see what you’re mapping? I guess I’m used to “warping” being the equivalent of stretching quads out in Madmapper, where you’re in full screen mode and able to trace your shapes live.

-Is Vertex warp pass the official word? Trying to find/look it up and can’t find it. Not sure if it’s called something different in each version of C4D.

-For your final show, is it all live or are you rendering a video file? Not sure if my gfx card lets me output AE to projector, but I’m going to find out. Up til now, I’ve been rendering files in AE to project in Madmapper.

Also, in your experience, how much does the distance between the projector and audience pov matter? Assuming you are working with some of the advanced 3D illusions that C4D provides, are you having to consider what the audience sees as opposed to what the projector “sees”? Say your audience is in a small auditorium watching the show front and center, but the projector is 12-14 feet above their heads and projecting at a slight downward angle. would the illusion still be visible for them?

I apologize if this comes off as being obvious/newbie stuff. I’m still pretty new to the C4D world, and this info seems hard to find. But people like you make it so much easier to get answers.

Thanks a lot!!

[Hilary Tsai]

Hey Steve:) Your suggestion made me so happy about recording a guy with a Brian wig on. I actually might do that… Up until now I’ve been painstakingly rotoscoping them out of the poor quality concert footage and applying curves to get that silhouette look. I will definitely not be wasting time with Mixamo or Fuze now that I know how lame Adobe made them. Currently taking a look at proanimantion bank and watching tutorials on 3d modeling. I suspect I will end up modeling only the drummer and just using work-arounds for the others. Thank you so much for your incredibly helpful comments!

[Hilary Tsai]

Thank you for your answer, Steve

I would consider motion-capture shooting, except that this show is a tribute to the band, Queen, and the models are supposed to vaguely resemble the band members (they don’t need to look realistic, I just need their iconic features to be apparent. Otherwise, they can have impressions of faces rather than real features, etc.) I would also be adding effects like x particles to play with their image and distort it. I was thinking of downloading a basic pre-modeled figure and customizing it to have the right look–then adding the instrument. Been looking into Adobe Fuse and Mixamo in addition to C4D. Do you think that modifying a basic figure is a better option than modeling from scratch?