[Otheronenorehto]

That is a shame. I was hoping that it was only for rendering not for composition/footage. Well I guess I will be checking out whether Shake has such a limitation If so then as my last resort I will be getting down and dirty and writing code. I don’t think it should be too hard since I am not interested in any effects or transitions, only movement of the camera on an x,y and z (for zooming only no tilting).

I wonder if there would have been artifacts of AE’s resampling alogarythm in a downsized image or if the large image reduced would have been indistiguishable from a Fractal rendered at the smaller resolution:)

Oh well thanks for your help!

[Otheronenorehto]

EDIT: sorry only each tile will be 43kx24k pixels big! The whole image would be 174,080×97,920 pixels big. Remember I am only ever rendering it at 1280×720 which is exactly the same aspect ratio ats 174,080×97,920! As long as AE can even display the whole image (16 43kx24k pixel images) it should only be a matter of resampling the image.

[Otheronenorehto]

Thank you all for your input. These are not Digital photographs thes are computer generated fractals which are only limited in size by the amount of calculating power you have. I am exploring alternate methods for animating fractals. A standards fractal animation can take anywhere from 3 days to 3 months to render so believe me I am not concerned about how slow AE will be rendering the image.

One thing that concerns me is what someone said about flickering. If I was zoomed out all the way with a 1280×720 frame wouldn’t AE resample the 43kx24k pixels to 1280×720? The aspect ration is exactly the same so it should be really easy for AE to do this…

I will have to do a little more research on Proxies. This sounds more like what I was thinking about. For instance as I zoom in AE can forget much of the original information, I think if I understand you correctly that Proxies would accomplish that? The truth is that AE would only have to deal with the whole 42kx24k image for only a short amount of time. I could remove tiles as I zoom in but I definately need them all near the begining.

The frame of the animation will only ever be 1280×720 so only at the very deapest parts of the fractal will the original image be a 1:1 pixel ratio.

Of course I am fairly sure that how the images are compressed will make a difference with how easily AE can handle such a large picture. Can anyone make recomendations or comments about how different compression codecs might effect AE’s ability to handle the picture? (lossy compression is out of the question it needs to be as lossless as possible)

Thank you again for your responses!

Jeremiah

[Otheronenorehto]

I myself am not an expert but I do know a fair bit. I believe that the sense of weight you are talking about comes from careful motion analysis. Just like an animator studies looped video of a person landing after a jump to give their character the same sense of weight you should study the specific aspects of camera movement that give a shot weight.

I think that the most common thing that takes away from that feeling of weight is linear acceleration. In the real world things can not instantly accelerate. I would look into methods of accelerating your camera on a curve. Do you understand what I am saying I don’t know if this is clear.

In student 3-d animations I see this a lot. The camera goes from being still to instantly traveling in a certain direction at a certain speed. The camera movement has to build up to that to feel real. This should also apply to any changes in direction or velocity.

I don’t know if you have to do this manually or if there is a plug-in.

As far at the “infinite stage” goes have you considered that they use a compositing program in addition to AE. I could definitely picture them using Shake which has more robust 3-d control.

I hope some of what I said makes sense or helps. I can not really offer you a specific tutorial but maybe I have given you some ideas.