Joey Foreman
Forum Replies Created
-
Sorry if I’m misreading the question, but it looks like you got it to show up fine in that pic. It’s outside the masked area. What is it that you’re trying to accomplish by alt-dragging with pan behind tool?
-
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/preston_bryan/time_remapping.php
https://help.adobe.com/en_US/AfterEffects/9.0/WSC04AFC0E-5BF5-4c2f-8A32-BEDE16E9DF95.html
https://www.videocopilot.net/basic/
https://www.walmart.com/ip/10530198?sourceid=1500000000000003260340&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=10530198
https://library.creativecow.net/tutorials/adobeaftereffects
-
Select all the layers, hover the selection tool over the end of one of the layers until it becomes a <--> shape, then hold down the mouse button and drag to extend.
Then read this for lots of buttery layer goodness:
https://help.adobe.com/en_US/AfterEffects/9.0/WS3878526689cb91655866c1103906c6dea-7e70a.html
-
I’m just going to go out on a limb and say this:
I think the look of 3d text is pretty much dated these days. It just sort of has this inherent cheesiness wherein its supposed to look as though it was built out of real material like a monument. And that sort of die-cast metal shimmering in outer space is just as bad. And it completely calls attention to itself like hey look at me i’m TEXT.
I think audiences these days expect text to simply convey information. Sure there are ways to stylize it so it integrates well with the surrounding graphics.
But I think the 3d look has had its day, really, unless maybe it’s some kind of big, bold sports-y thing, and, even then…
Just something to think about before you invest all the time needed with Blender just to get down the fundamentals (several weeks, if not months) to pull off something this simple, and IMHO, outmoded.
Not that I don’t think every motion graphic designer should have at least some basic 3d chops.
I’m just saying…3d text gags…so 1983.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1NKoMNy5bY
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” 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.
-
Another way, if money’s an object and you don’t have Magic Bullet, is to play around with Tint and Curves adjustment layers and changing their transfer modes; and Trish and Chris Meyer’s “instant sex” effect wherein you duplicate the layer and composite it with itself using a transfer mode – was it overlay?…Screen?- and modifying its opacity value.
You can also roll your own Bleach Bypass like AE Übermeister Andrew Kramer does here:
https://library.creativecow.net/articles/kramer_andrew/bleach.php
-
oops, responded to the wrong thread.
-
Having worked with footage of this nature for some time, from cameras like the HVX 200 that record a smaller number of actual pixels than are displayed (using a scaling algorithm), I think I can state with some confidence that you will indeed be losing a small amount of quality this way because you are stretching the footage horizontally from its actual pixel resolution to force it into its “correct” aspect ratio.
Better I’ve found to leave it native and squished in AE, using Pixel Aspect Correction on for reference, but toggling it off to check edges when pulling keys, etc.
This keeps your graphics and effects, as well as the footage itself, at their sharpest throughout the project. If you are finishing in an editing app, as is usually the case, then you can render at this native size and pixel aspect ratio, and the editing app will know how to properly interpret and display the clip. From there, you can output everything as you usually do.
If you’re going straight to the web, you could drop your comp into that square pixel comp just before rendering, in case the compression app can’t interpret the native-to-displayed resolution correctly. (I’m assuming you plan to compress for the web in another app, as compression is not one of AE’s strong suits.)
I wouldn’t mind hearing another opinion on this workflow, though. I do believe it’s essential for pulling the highest quality keys with footage of this nature, but for non-keyed footage the difference in quality might be visually imperceptible.
-
Okay, but that’s a really expensive investment just for 3d text.
Like I said, Blender’s free, and 3d invigorator’s $250. -
I think your first guess is correct – that it was created and rendered in a 3d app. I’m gonna guess RealFlow.
-
It doesn’t have anything to do with improper translation between the apps. Illustrator creates flat vector artwork. AE has no way of knowing that you want to “extrude” those letters into 3d space. In fact, AE doesn’t even do 3d extrusions. It’s not a 3d program.
Its “3d” is fake. Some call it 2.5d. You can manipulate it within pseudo 3d space, but nothing in AE will give it actual depth.
Now there are plug-ins such as Zaxwerks 3d Invigorator which does do 3d extrusions within AE.https://zaxwerks.com/invigorator_pro/index.shtml
You can fake a 3d extrusion by duplicating the text layer several times and offsetting it in the z direction, but, there are limitations. You can also hack the Shatter effect, and get decent results. Creative Cow guru Aahron Rabinowitz has a video tutorial on how to do both of these.
https://cowcast.creativecow.net/after_effects/episodes/3D_Text_POD_iPod_Lo.mp4
The most effective (though far from the easiest) way to make real 3d text would be to use a dedicated 3d program. One of these is free- Blender, an open source 3d animation program. But put on your climbing gear…it’s a steep learning curve.
https://www.blender.org/download/get-blender/
Good Luck.