@Stargazer54 : Nice, nice, nice!!!
Been reading through this thread, the development and process of getting the look you wanted is fascinating.
@Stargazer54 Good job on the modeling then. I tried...oh, how I tried, But alas, my patience gave out.
Here's another shot tacked on of the J2 crashing in a dry creek bed.
Still a couple of more shots to go. Sure have learned a lot about the particle sim. It is so powerful (and cumbersome) all at the same time.
Good dust cloud after the crash landing. Your timing on that is super realistic.
Yes, I liked that a lot. Dust hides a lot of the difficulties you'd have to otherwise deal with. How about a nice camera bump on impact though? Next shot would presumably be a 3/4 side shot of it stationary with dust still rising and the pile of dirt all pushed up in front and the gouge behind it? You could maybe just draw most of that on a background plate and mask it out around your model?
Nice! I'm thinking a bit more debris could get kicked up. How many particle emitters and systems are you using?
@Stargazer54 Aw, now I'm green with envy! While I've been stumbling around trying too much at once, you've managed to pull off the shot. Just a thought, but what about creating other cameras and "filming" the crash from other angles to sort of lengthen the time it takes the come to a stop. A reverse angle showing the backing as it hits would be nicely intercut. Maybe start with a side shot then a reverse and end with it sliding straight into the front angle before a wide establishing stationary one like Palacono mentioned. (But that's just what I was thinking about doing with my own.)
@Palacono @tddavis Yes, the next shot is a long view of the J2 sliding across the desert floor and a final will be it stopped with debris piled around (and probably more dust). But working with particles is time consuming.
@Triem23 I have 1 particle system that moves in front of the ship. It has 2 emitters - one for spewing rocks and another for filling in dust between the rocks. Might actually want a third emitter for more debris flying higher up.
I have a second particle system with one emitter that goes aft to lay down debris turned up by the ship as it cuts through the ground. You'll see that in the wide view coming next. I am struggling with that to make it look like turned earth and debris instead of black popcorn. Just can't seem to find the happy medium between how many particles per second versus what size variations I can get away with and have it look decent.
Wow! I really like the J2 re-entry shot. I must refine my particles more before I can create that. Nice job!
OK. I think I am putting this shot to bed. I know it's not perfect but I learned a lot doing it. The particle system is extremely powerful (and yet cumbersome). Still so much more to learn.
Awesome sequence. Really captures the spirit of the 50s Sci-Fi genre.
I think it's great.
How did you do the debris on crash? I can see one having the emitters launch the particles with some speed and directions. I can also see the emitters just emitting static debris and having deflector(s) act like a snow plow causing the particle movement. Then one plays with mass, friction and bounce parameters to tune the look.
Wow! That looks awesome!
So the particle sims--the two keys to improving this (Although I think you can leave it alone) are stacking in more emitters for size/angle/speed variety...
And don't forget you can have 3D models as particles. Grab a couple of free "rock" or "asteroid" models off turbosquid, or make one really fast. The physics are actually good enough here to pass. The giveaway is that you're using inbuilt "concrete" textures.
Excellent! Technical question about the Particle system: can the particles be embedded in a surface, so they don't all sit on it at funny angles that would mean they'd fall over if they were solid lumps of rock? Or can a 3D plane be used to cut the bottoms off of them in some way to achieve a similar result?
@NormanPCN The basic setup on the particles is as you surmised. I have an emitter that is attached to a moving point (under Emitter, Shape, Attach to Layer). That way the particles are spit out and left behind instead of moving along with the point (which is what happens when you parent the whole particle system layer on the timeline to the moving point).
And then I have 4 planes I am using as deflectors (to simulate the leading edge of the ship) attached to the point. The planes are right behind the emitter, so when the particles shoot out, they hit the planes and bounce off. Also have a Force turned on for gravity. Underneath it all is another deflector for the ground that is set to Infinite Plane.
So yes, the 4 planes are a snow plow effect. And trying to get bounce and friction dialed in with Speed is a real balancing act.
I also have another emitter positioned behind the ship to spit out particles to represent turned earth as the ship moves using the same ground deflector.
@Triem23 I'll have to give a full on rock model attached to particles a go. For performance reasons I was being skimpy on how many particles I had in each shot change. I tried to fill in the gaps by duplicating an emitter, changing the Seed and applying dust as the built-in texture. In places it works. In others, it doesn't quite cut it. If this was a for real job, I'd up the particle count and keep adding emitters of various sizes to fill in. Using actual textures outside of the built-in's would be key, as you have pointed out.
For now, I'm satisfied that I have accomplished learning what I would need know to take it farther if I wanted. But time to move onto another project.
@Palacono Yes, the angle of the built-in shapes don't work well. Some of this is due to adjusting Texture Angle in Appearance Variation and Movement Variation to achieve different scaled objects out of the same emitter. Again trying to economize to maximize performance.
But they don't sit correctly on the ground. Not sure how to fix that. Even if using 3D objects for the rocks, I assume the same problem would arise. But you might be onto something with using a plane to clip the bottoms off. I assume that you would need to use a different plane higher up on the Y axis than the deflector for the ground plane.
One thing I have to say, overall. I am extremely impressed with HF, and the more I use it, the more I like it. Why it is not used more commercially is beyond me. The price per seat is ungodly cheap and the ability to create stuff out of thin air is very powerful. I have loads of fun with this software and maybe that's the selling point. HF is just Fun to use!
I'm totally impressed. And, yes, it definitely gives the feel of some of those classic 60s SF dramas. You even matched the in both composition and quality. It really does sound like the clips I've seen of old tv series.
Now working on my Enterprise model again. Finally have the UV textures needed for HF and am working on the engine glow/rotater effect. All done in HF BTW. Fairly pleased with the results but I have to add a blur effect and keyframe that, otherwise the glow is not consistent depending on distance from the camera.
But damned if I'm not back to figuring how to set up the blinking running lights. Have to say I hate the way HF does this little crap where it takes separate materials and combines them into "Joined Material #bla". WTF?
BTW, the model is imported as a Lightwave model and I have pivot groups in layers. Hence the way I am rotating the blades for the engines. But the joined materials really bites. I guess I have to go back and put the running lights in their own group. Which means I have to start all over and import the object again. And do the whole process all over again of duplicating the object and making unwanted materials black. No fun when you have lots of materials. Ugghh!
@Triem23 I recall you said something about not having to do the black material game on the duplicate object?
@Stargazer54 If you make this any better by say, making the running lights blink, you'll probably be sued!
@Aladdin4d High praise indeed!
(I doubt I'll need a pro-bono legal team just yet)
Wow, I want to know how you set up your engines!
First I've heard of Hitfilm combining materials... Let me tag @spydurhank and @NxVisualStudio to ask if that kind of oddity happens with Blender and 3DS Max.
Boy, I feel like I had an alternative to all-black mapping, but I don't remember what it was! But I think whatever it was I said to @tddavis @DLKeur or @ArtMitchell
Two things come to mind.
First still requires seperate materials, but setting the seperate "lights" material to emissive. Second requires a low-poly sphere model dragged into the main model layer, positioned over the running lights, and duplicated, etc. The low poly sphere would have Emissive colors.
Either way (Emissive color on material or added spheres), either an embedded comp shot, or the model isolated with grade layers so it's got its own lighting. Put in a spot pointing away from the ship so it gets no light. Black ship, glowing lights, no remapping materials?
Oh! I think I remembered the other idea! It requires Hitfilm Pro 2017. It's dragging in the low poly spheres to be running lights, but deleting the ship model after placement! Then set the ship model as the depth map source for the running lights layer! This lets you add glow to the running lights layers while letting the new depth matte functions handle the occlusion for the lights instead of the black-model.
Keyframe opacity for the blinking.
Incidentally the K'tinga in this sequence is using low-poly spheres for the blinking running lights on the boom and front of the bridge--those lights didn't exist on the source model, but would have been on a TMP D7 (The V'ger attack is still my reference for lighting a Klingon. Either that, or the first Kronos One flyby in VI.) The Constitution's lights are black-model/light layer overlays. The rigging for both ships dates back to HF2U with the K'tinga having been updated with Cook-Torrance shading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmvMCeZxRZM@Stargazer54 Your best bet for control is to go down the route @Triem23 suggested, it's pretty much the same process in this video when you say 'materials really bites' could you define what you mean in more detail?
@NxVisualStudio that render is so pretty, I can even forgive it being the JJPrise with the truly ugly nacelles. ;-)
@Triem23 :O leave the boobs out of it cheers man haha
@Stargazer54 Great job on the Enterprise! Recently been working on adding lights to the Seaview and instead of making the materials black on the duplicate layers, I've stumbled across lowering the opacity on the dupe leaving only the lights visible and I have not only the diffuse color but the emissive set to the same color and it has worked pretty good so far. But I am probably doing it wrong.
ASAIK HF has always only supported one material per texture set. But I came up with an insanely simple way to trick HF into rendering a models single texture and material as if it were built with several different materials. Sounds like it's time for me to make a tut. Gotta finish texturing about two dozen models first.
@NXVisualStudio By "joined materials really bites", I mean that, for example, anything that had a white color in the model, such as the windows, the dome atop the bridge and the one on the lower hull, as well as the white rectangles on the upper hull are all put in the same material by HF and called JoinedMaterial #2. I have several of those joined materials now in the imported model. Problem with this is that I cannot now change the color of the windows without that also changing the color of the dome. So that "bites" (in the vernacular) and or is highly problematic.
It seems to happen when you have several materials that are similar in RGB value. HF likes to join them into one material. I don't know if this is a bug, an economy measure or what, but it is a problem. (Maybe this only happens with .lwo objects and not .obj, etc?)
@Triem23 Thanks for the come back on the low poly sphere and the ship as depth map technique. I'll give that a try.
@tddavis Thanks! Looking forward to more Seaview tests.
@spydurhank Thanks, as well. Sounds like you have a great trick up your sleeve.
Stargazer54 let me know if the low-poly sphere/depth layer thing actually works! I haven't tried it yet, but it SHOULD work! Ah... And now I remember what I wanted to tell @SimonKJones. (Simon, it's all the stuff in the post starting with "Wow I wanna know how you set up your engines...")
Sign in to comment
You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter.
You can unsubscribe from newsletters at any time.
© 2018 FXhome Limited. All rights reserved. "FXhome", "PhotoKey" and "HitFilm" are trademarks of FXhome Limited.