[Philip Knight]

Sounds like a great idea but as far as I know, this kind of thing doesn’t exist. It comes down to slogging through keyframes and timing it that way through PI and an NLE.

[Philip Knight]

I haven’t upgraded to Vegas 10 yet so didn’t know that there was a PI bundle with it – that’s new :o) As to your issue, only Alan can answer this, but maybe… the bundled version isn’t a 100% full version, so maybe one can’t add one’s own shapes.

A lot of maybes, but it’s the best I can come up with.

[Philip Knight]

Some things you just have to live with. CC “moderating” has been discussed in various other editing forums elsewhere, and suffice it to say, some are far from flattering. But it comes down to dealing with what is.

In my case:

A few years ago, I had some run-ins with one of the guys at CC who is known for being, well, not the most accommodating person to put it mildly. I felt I was being reasonable and responsible (something I am in real life too), though in retrospect he also had some good points too. It’s more the tone in which I was communicated to that seemed rude and defensive to me.

But in the end I had to decide to have access to being able to post here, communicate with Alan about PI, occasionally help others out, etc. — or not.

So I just lay low and keep in mind that CC is CC and has its peculiarities. And/but in fairness, it is one of the veteran video and multimedia forum communities that appeared way before anyone else back in the ’90s.

Would I prefer that PI would find another forum platform?
Sure, but that’s GenArts and Alan’s call, not mine.

For now, it’s here, so I come here.

Bottom line: Life ain’t perfect, nor are any of us. And there are always workarounds 🙂

[Philip Knight]

It could be that there was an upload error OR Creative Cow decided it didn’t comply with something.

My understanding is that it’s not the moderators of the individual forums (who are usually application-related people that do the technical and language, etc. moderating): it’s the core tech staff of Creative Cow.

The CC staff can at times be rather strict about things, and so something totally innocent and legit may be removed for some unknown or even seemingly “What the…?” reason. So don’t take it personally.

What I would suggest is that you try again.
Or use the “L” code to make a link to the video hosted elsewhere, i.e. YouTube, etc.

Just be mindful of the oversight here: they don’t take kindly to spam, inappropriate content, etc.

[Philip Knight]

The problem with some capture software, especially the free kind is that the codec used for compression, etc. is often outdated or just plain corrupted. Or it can only be viewed with one player or editor, but not another.

If you plan on using screen-capture on a regular basis or just want something reliable and affordable, I would suggest you get the the one that gamers use. I’ve used it to take high res captures of NASA WorldWind (kind of like Google Earth freeware just for satellite images) where I could simulate fly-overs.

Its captures have never failed to work or show up in my video players or video editing software.

It’s solid, it’s got great support, and it’s only USD $37. You can see/download some of the examples on the homepage. And you can try it out before you buy (you’ll just get a watermark on the video until you buy it).

It’s called FRAPS.

[Philip Knight]

.

Alan can give you more advice, but one thing to consider is to lower the accuracy of the particles while you work (how-to is below).

Case in point:

I still work on an antique — a Pentium D 2.8 Ghz, XP 32 bit — and adjusting this really helps.

This lowering of viewing quality won’t change the accuracy of your emitter paths, etc., just make it easier for the computer to draw them out while you work.

That said, I tend to use rather complex, subtle effects and it never plays at full frame speed even with the suggested adjustment. And it sometimes can get rather frustrating, but so it goes.

One has to just accept that particles are very math-intensive data to render and work around this as best as one can.

So here is the above suggested way:

“Show Particles” Accuracy Adjustment

On the PC version of PI-3, the above-suggested is done in the View/Preferences window:

— Slide the “Show Particles Accuracy” all the way to the left and hit OK. According to what kind of emitters you are using, you may have to bring the slider more back to the middle, but that will slow things down the more you go back to the right of the slider.

Background Image: Work Copy vs. Export Quality

Another suggestion though using a still image shouldn’t really make any difference to speed of in-work render:

— Use compressed work-copy-only .jpg, not large .bmp or other formats that use up memory. It doesn’t matter if your work copy is over-compressed and slightly pixelated — it’s just a reference point.

— If you export both particles AND still for final, import a correct resolution copy onto another layer and hide it while you work. Then switch the work copy off, turn the good one on and do your export.

— If you export the particles for use in an NLE such as a .PNG sequence, no need to import and hide a high res pic until final export. Just use the work copy and make sure you hide it and use alpha and remove-black in your export.

The same principle works for video, too:

— The smaller the file of the background clip, the easier it is for the computer. I.e. never use uncompressed or huge files. Alan suggests only using segments or scenes (very short videos).

Sometimes that isn’t possible due to scene transitions, but most of the time it is.

_________________

If you want to see how I’ve used emitters using only stills as background, see the polished draft “Yoni Metta” video on my homepage.

All the fx in it are .PNG exports composited over stills in Sony Vegas. But I used some ad hoc still work copies in PI without any pan or crop or movement to make sure the particles would look right over them.

With one exception: the last wide-shot scene before the credits; that one was exported from PI into Vegas pretty much as you see it, but it’s a photo as background, too.

I still have a ways to go on all this creating particles, but I’m definitely making progress. And it’s fun too 🙂

My site’s homepage

[Philip Knight]

I work in Vegas Pro 8 but PI export that works is the same:

— Choose file type for export as .PNG,
— Create a folder in which the sequence will be made,
— Name particle sequence.

Once the Output Options window comes up:

— Choose desired length of sequence (the default number usually is the playback range you are using, so if you want shorter or longer, specify the “End frame”.
— Select “Save Alpha” and “Remove black from RGB channels,” hit “OK.”

NOTE: If you are rendering from within PI-3, you cannot have any window or program running over or covering PI or have it minimized for it will interrupt/stop the output render. On the other hand, the PI Render program can run in the background or minimized.

[Philip Knight]

OK, thanks for response. In the middle of a Vegas render so not wise to also fire up PI to double check PI render options right now.

Is it my imagination or does PI Render work faster than when rendering workspace window from PI proper (maybe because of being closer to a command prompt type coding?)

Probably not, but let me know anyway for I tend to do rather complex/nuanced exports from PI and if PI Render is a bit faster, it would save some time.

[Philip Knight]

All the above suggestions. I use Vegas 8 and do as Alan said. Advantage:

— By using a clip for reference only, you can have BK file with lighter footprint in PI (higher compression, more realistic work speed). A BK file doesn’t have to be good, just good enough.

— Importing particles-only back into Vegas (I use PNG sequence) gives you more tweaking capability. It’s rare that I don’t do some Color Correction or even slight sharpening in Vegas so as to give the particles just a bit more snap and crackle.

Sure importing particles-only in Vegas it’s an extra step, but well worth it. I wouldn’t ever do it any other way.

[Philip Knight]

As Alan said, PI is 2D, so no matter what you create in PI, you may be able to manipulate it in space in Vegas (I have v.8) but much like a postcard in space: one can’t spin around a particle in 3D space, just spin around its 2D image in 3D space using Track Motion, etc.

That said, with some patience and ingenuity, one can make PI’s particles give the illusion of 3D in relation to objects, people, scenes. That’s where application of perspective, detail, composition and so on come in. Art is a form of making-illusion-real.

And unlike very expensive 3D programs that have the ability to pull off decent effects, PI is far more affordable overall — and just as important to the solo artist: far less computer/render intensive. Most 3D work of any decent length requires a render farm set up — not cheap. I’m slowly venturing into 3D myself (Vue, DAZ, etc.).

It all comes down to creative application. Analogy (from someone who went to design/art college long ago:

— A charcoal pencil in the hand of one person in front of beautiful model will result in little more than a stick figure. In the hand of someone who understands and knows how to apply light, shadow, nuance and so on, a beautiful and realistic rendition of the model will ensue.

In short, one have have to compromise, get some basics of art down and get creative when one doesn’t have the budget or computing firepower of George Lucas or Disney.

And it’s like sensuality too: It’s not size that matters but what one does with who one is and what one has that counts most 🙂

Example: I doubt that the wormholes in the Stargate TV series and their spin-offs and those of other shows are actually 3D generated. Yet they look 3D. That’s all that matters.