Louis Marino
Forum Replies Created
-
Wow thanks for going through the trouble of working that out, that is truly genius! You’re a legend.
-
Right yeah I haven’t explained it very well. The dots are static, and the animation is actually made of moving, flat colour, shape objects created in echospace.
When I said reveal that was misleading, I just meant the whole of the animation will be made of dots. So essentially I’m pixelating it, but instead of pixels, there are dots.
The animation is based on a still graphic, where each dot is kind of hand drawn and hand placed, so they all fit around eachother nicely. If you look at the image link, and imagine that the red circle is moving left. The top example would be very easy to do, the dots are a layer with whole in it (for the sake of the top example, it doesn’t matter how this is done). The animation plays behind the dots, and that’s it. But what I need to do is have the dots, simply switch to red (so at no point is one half full) as shown in the lower example in the image link. It’s all got to look a bit like stop frame, so it doesn’t matter that this would look jerky. Hope this makes sense!
Might end up faking it but I’m curious to know how this could be done as I’ve needed to do it a few times before. I think particular could be the answer, as if you use a layer grid emitter, it does actually create images from particles, but again, the trouble is I’m turning an existing design into motion, and the way the dots are laid out is kind of like a mosaic, where the gaps between large dots are filled by smaller dots for example, and I’m pretty sure there isn’t a quick way to make particular do this. If I’m still not making sense, ignore me.
-
I’d recommend using spline wrap, which is a feature of mograph (if you have it). The way it works is kind of cleverer than sweep nurbs and it’s easier to animate with the tapered end.
Make a cylinder, click on mograph>spline wrap. Drop the spline wrap inside the cylinder. Click on spline wrap, and in the attributes window, look at the object tab. There should be a think saying •Spline. Drop the spline you want to grow in there. Then further down in the object tab of spline wrap, use the size controls to draw the shape of the taper.Then further up use the From and To sliders to grow it.
I might be wrong but I think in sweep nurbs if you create a taper, when you grow the spline, it will start off thick, and then end thin, rather than always having a tapered end. Animating the taper shape is the only way to get round it I think…?
-
Thanks for all your help…I suppose one disadvantage of doing everything progressive until the last render is that you’re kind of dealing with half as much resolution (temporal resolution that is). But then again some people prefer this because of the similarity in the way that film is formatted for TV. I’ve heard people complaining that properly interlaced motion graphics or animation looks slightly cheap. Anyway, think at some point I’ll have to get monitor and test all of this…! Thanks again for all of your help.
-
Yeah that’s pretty cool! So when would I use this? Like would I import the 3D render and interpret it with fields, then de, then re interlace? Or just import it with separate fields off, and the reinterlace? I’ve seen a lot of other posts on this, seems like kind of a contentious issue. I’ve also seen a lot of people talk about just rendering from 3D at double the frame rate and the interlacing it later as instead…Thanks for your help
-
Yup, yup, your right. That’s weird, I have no idea why I thought that never worked. Thanks for the offer of the tutorial, very kind, but as you say, it just works fine.
On a similar topic of questions that I’ve always wanted to ask but never gotten round to it, there is something else…
If say, I render out a video from a 3D app interlaced, and then import it into AE, if I then decide to increase or decrease the size of the footage, or add camera shake for example, does this not shift the interlacedness of the footage and produce some kind of flicker or strange result when it’s rendered out interlaced again from AE?
I don’t really like rendering out progressive from 3D and then combining it with AE animation, I’ve found that when this happens, the result is that the motion of the 3D has a slightly different feel to the animation done in AE, probably something to do with the fact that the fields in the AE bits are essentially different (ie if an object is moving right to left, it will be further over to the left on one of the fields on a single frame), while the 3D is kind of fake interlacing, in that the two fields will be of the same frame, just seperated. I suppose the alternative is just making everything progressive, and then interlacing it after it’s rendered out of AE. So this way at least it would all be ‘fake interlacing’
I hope I’m making sense…