Graymotion's Production Zone



  • edited August 2018

    I'm curious - I wonder if the Gods of cgi could answer me this. Is it possible to make time-lapse cgi  scenes???

    I ask of course because I to wanna  do cgi like NASA does... and I think I could control my fireflies better then they did at 2:03 (pretty cool zoom shot the editor did there)

  • Triem23Triem23 Moderator

    Here's the thing about fake time lapse... In pure animation you control everything. You could simply set up a fast animation to simulate time lapse (just don't use motion blur). What would give you a "time lapse" look would be the "fireflies" of lightning storms. For that, lets cheat. Create a black plane, add a fractal noise, adjust exposure and offset so you have a few small white blobs, then set the seed to animate quickly so you have white blobs flickering around. Now stick a sphere filter on that and make it the same diameter as your planet. Add Auto Flares. Parent the sphere layer to the planet, put it above the planet and set blend mode to ADD. 

    The other thing for a time lapse look will be cloud movement. This means you need to use an Earth texture without clouds.

    Clouds would be 360-degree fractal noise. If you get creative you can layer multiple fractal noises with nearly identical settings. First one is black and a dark grey. Second one is a duplicate of the first, but you adjust the expansion and offset so this second noise is "inside" the first. Set the second fractal blend to ADD or SCREEN blend. Basically the two duplicates and the blend gives a more volumetric look-faking parts of the clouds picking up light and shadow. Stick a Demult effect on to knock out the black. Add Sphere, enable lighting and synch it up like you did the lightning flashes sphere. 

    Make sense? 

  • edited September 2018

    @Triem23 @FilmSensei - Gents, thanks for the kind words on the Orville experiment here. I blame it on Jay. To tell you the truth I never heard of the Orville so like a hound I went searching. Uh...just for the record now I know why I didn't know of it....Space Soap Opera with THE cheapest acting I seen. Now I know that's what it's suppose to look like.....but I'm a bit older then when Star Trek and Spock first came out :-)

    Any-who - Jay. I did A LOT of fiddling/experimenting (still to much specular). Like you said the model is not the "greatest quality". Has a lot of surface that are not exactly smooth and part of the UV map is actually reversed (you can only see if you recalculate all the surfaces in Blender). I used 5 instance of the model, Diffuse/Spec/Normals, AO, Shadows, Lights and Engines. I also tweak the Normals under the Advanced tab in the model properties - Normals-Method ->>Generated Faceted + Auto smoothing  Angle 80. Took some of the"bad" edges off the surface of the model. There were two sets of textures that came with the model...low detail and high detail. I used the high Displacment in the bump map slot. I had a heck of a time getting the panels on the front of the ship to rise instead of sink. Thats all in the angle of the light. If you move over the top of the model and away from the angle the panels look sunken. 

    A note on the Shadows and AO pass - I used untextured models illuminated with an Ambient light for AO and Directional Light for Shadows.. Shadow pass model/shadow light - AO pass with AO enabled on model. When I brought them into the comp I set their blend modes to Multiply.

    So with that..... I am very excited to see what our friend @spydurhank produces in his up coming , easy to understand, tutorial covering the use of his awesome Blender script.

    I have a Blender animation already to go...

  • @GrayMotion ,

    That sir looks fantastic. Excellent start to something awesome. :)

    Creating custom HitFilm render passes is super cool and fun to do once you get the hang of it... you can't stop doing it and your renders have no choice but to look amazing like your post above. Love it! :)

    Don't worry that the normal maps give it away because that is gonna happen no matter what I'm sure. The rest of your comp is really, really good and that is my focus. It looks so good. I'm telling you dude you can just see a massive jump in the quality of your renders. Man you did so good here. I can tell when someone is doing something right and this is right. :)  

  • @GrayMotion Regarding The Orville as a show. It was meant to be a parody of Star Trek, and it definitely started out that way. As the first season went on, however, it unfortunately lost its comedic edge and just became, as you said, a soap opera of Star Trek with cheap acting. I picked the Orville Model because I wanted to do something different that wasn't one of the standards (Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon Five, etc.)

    With regard to the shot, you have definitely improved the model immensely! This is really fantastic.I too look forward to the @spydurhank Blender Script tutorial!

  • edited October 2018

    I always thought the water that was used on the launch pad was used to keep the concrete from super heating or bounce back that would melt the bottom of the rocket. Evidently I was slightly under-educated. The name of the system is called Ignition Overpressure Protection and Sound Suppression water deluge system. Sound???? Never thought about sound. Evidentially the sound waves from the engines are so powerful it tears everything apart so the use of the water doubles from flame control  to also absorbing  the damaging sound wave.    (where have I been)

  • WOW! That's just an insane amount of water! Like you, I had no idea they needed sound suppression, or that the water served that purpose. Way cool!

  • Since @tddavis showed off his cool Halloween works I thought I'd join him. I'm not all that good with moGFX's in Hitfilm but I tried my best to emulate a Motion template (with a few 3D models thrown in for good measure) I saw from a few years back. I think it ended up something like 55-60 layers. Happy Halloween folks!

  • Wow, that is cool. :)

  • @GrayMotion ; Oh, I love the trees lifting away!  Puts mine to total shame...

  • Ooooo. I just have to share my findings. In another thread (I almost hijacked) the conversation turned to shadows in space then cameras, sensors and the human eye playing roles in shadowing.  Since I'm into Space shots (evidentially) I wanted to look for more info on the HDEV cameras that NASA uses I mentioned in that thread.

    Sometimes I love? Google...

    "The HDEV cameras use a mix of various lens to provide a proper frame without pan and tilt capabilities needed. The Hitachi and Toshiba cameras use a Fujinon TF4DA-8 4mm F/2.2 C-mount Wide Angle Lens. The Panasonic uses an included Leica Dicomar lens w/13x zoom, F/1.6-3.0. The Sony included a lens with the shortest focal length is 4.7mm. The optics provide for approximately a 500m spatial resolution"
  • edited November 2018

    So I'm following up on the topic of motion blur and unrolled models with unrolled comps.
     I put a explainer video together to outline my observation. Pay particular attention between 3:06 and 3:45. Something weird went on.

    Now I'm off to view @Stargazer54 redux vid to see his progress

  • @GrayMotion ; Thanks for doing the vid.  Sure looks like you've discovered a bug.

    Like you, when I do get the motion blur to work with a nested comp the effect is horrible with lots of unwanted artifacts. 

    The only work around I've found so far is to put a grade layer on top of the 3D unrolled object, add the Blur effect (not Motion Blur) and keyframe the blur as the object passes.   The results look more realistic but would be an absolute pain in the arse should you have multiple copies of the object at varying distances.   If you have to do the grade for each one that would be a mess, let alone if you make an animation change then you'd have to go back and massage each grade layer again.

  • Is that a bug?

  • Stargazer54Stargazer54 Moderator
    edited November 2018

    Sure looks like a bug to me at around 1:00 when he clicks the motion blur button on his base 3d unrolled object and then goes back to the embedded comp and the object has flipped180 degrees.  That shouldn't be happening IMHO.

  • Yeah, sorry the 180 flip is super weird. I meant the way that the motion blur looked. I've had several comps set up like @GrayMotion with motion blur working.

  • @Stargazer54 @Spydurhank - My normal work flow is to leave all 3D models in a 2D layer and usually I don't have many problems. Since the plane clipping issue had been resolved I thought I'd give the -un-rolled method a whirl.  It's a bit weird as far as the model comp is rotated to the left 90 degrees but it's depicted right 90 degrees in the un-rolled comp. Can't wrap my head around that yet...lost too many brain cells when I was younger.

    Something really weird happened starting just before 3:06 with the motion blur one time it appeared to work properly after I switched back to the main comp where the 3D comp was unrolled. I'll be investigating that. Screen draw delay maybe??? Dunno...brain cells and all.

    Back..........It appears that if you leave the model a 2D layer in the model setup comp, apply motion blur and then unroll the model setup comp that motion blur is working and there is no "flip" direction. Maybe a specific workflow only to accomplish motion blur with an unrolled comp?

    I've had issue in the past with absolutely terrible "artifacts" motion blur...I usually turn the shutter angle down to 90 if the target is close to the camera.

    A note worth mentioning...Jay replicated my setup and says he doesn't seem to experience this?   I wouldn't think the issue is system related though...many, many, many of my shots look pretty damn good (long arm on the back) and I only noticed this after experimenting with an unrolled comp. Um... 

    I'll keep experimenting...

Sign In or Register to comment.