Oh, God, @Aladdin4d, Colin Mochre could pull it off.
Nice cut, Grey! Lotta fun shots there, and I get the humor in the song choice.
@GrayMotion "Tune has a good beat..." I agree. Samples heavily from "Californication" by Red Hot Chili Peppers, but they've added their own twist on it and it works well
as for being a "show me" kinda guy, so am I. I can relate to that.
Hehe...yea.@Aladdin4d - I lived through that era. Watched every single event. Still have my little Apollo record. My dad hauled the Saturn 5 from Martin Marietta here in Colorado to Cap Canaveral. I now live next door to the team leader at Martin Marietta who's team built the rockets my dad hauled that I watched being launched into space. Small ass world!@Triem23 - I know about the bad optics theory and I buy it because I "ain't that there smart". All joking aside...I understand the optics.Although I'm originally from Wyoming.. right now I'm in the Missouri camp of "show me". I've got the boy convinced to let me launch his GoPro into space so I can prove it to myself The song absolutely fit my Hollywood Basement action I got going on here with my lame compositing attempts that, as was said, has a lot of humor in it.
@GrayMotion I guess I missed the joke there (Sorry). Now that you and Triem23 have pointed it out, I can see that it is actually pretty funny to use that song for a montage of space-related VFX clips.
Sorry, for another OT post, but one that YouTube served up up after the Space Clips video takes some beating. Warning: after watching this you'll wonder how the author of it manages to cross the street unaided. Apparently the gas expelled from rockets pushes against the ground...all the way up...and as there is no ground in space...they can't possibly work. Someone failed Physics class... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzz-yiAX3EQNot sure if he's really that thick, or it's elaborate troll bait. I did stop watching after a few minutes, so there may be a payoff/joke at the end I missed.
@Palacono - Um, his little ballon car is interesting but then the term "interesting" is coming from a guy that dropped out of HS to join the Army. What would I know about a physics class? I can say that one of the things that goes through my head when I see some of the out of this world stuff is..."Put the pipe down and back away...slowly"
@Triem23 I'm convinced Lauren Hutton and Willem Dafoe are the same person too
@Graymotion I was just barely around for Apollo 11 so I don't remember any of it. During the landing one of my older sisters decided she was tired and went to bed because she figured she could watch it as a rerun. My father is rocket scientist and has the T-shirt to prove it. It says "As a matter of fact, I am a rocket scientist" He didn't do anything with the space program though he dealt with solid propellants on mainly military projects. Flash forward decades later and I end up being the A/V provider for Joint Army Navy Nasa Air Force (JANNAF) conferences put on by the Chemical Propulsion Information Analysis Center (CPIAC) and start running into to some people that worked with my father back in the day. Small world indeed.
@Palacono Nope no punchline at the end. Not even an explanation for how the shape changing lizard/human hybrids get from here to the moon and Saturn and back.
@Aladdin4d blimey, well done for watching it all, but based on your own knowledge/experience I guess you had a vested interest in seeing just how wrong he could be.
The irony is that Flat-Earthers and NASA deniers spread misinformation across an Internet that kinda required NASA to be right for it to function.
These cover much of what you'll see on the Internet and life in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_biasHumans, as a species, are pretty flawed, so it's amazing we've lasted this long. You have to wonder how the two things above - and others like them - are an evolutionary advantage...
@Palacono I never said I watched it all.........you can jump ahead to the end you know
@Aladdon4d So there could be a joke in the middle!!!??? I generally watch videos at x1.25 or x1.5 speed - even the interesting ones - but life is too short to watch all of that. It takes a while to get your ear in at x1.5, but after a few like that, if you watch one at normal speed it sounds like the speaker is on Mogadon.
@Palacono there's no joke in the middle... unless you count some laughably bad physics. The tragic thing is, he's kinda half-right, and yet totally wrong...
Trying my hand at using a Torus model to create vortex/wormhole. I've been enjoying Element 3D and wanted to see how well Hitfilm did the job when using a 3d model. If I'd have edited the texture to fit the model with the Hitfilm cut it would look a bit better.https://youtu.be/yje8O2JZbNo
@GrayMotion That's looking pretty tasty!
Why the comparison shots? They both look great (maybe that was the point?)
The point of my little side-by-side was just that...Although Element 3D gives you a ton of control over textures I knew Hitfilm should be able to accomplish something similar. Besides , God knows I need the practice...been lazy of late :-)The vortex is actually made up of a deep space shot (2280x1800). E3D has a neat little function to manipulate the texture size, which is why the seam isn't as pronounced as in the HF shot. I doubled the width of the texture to to get a bit longer fit in Hitfilm but like I said with the right texture fit the HF would look more fantastic. So yea....a comparison shot to show , as Triem23 says, that anything that can be done in AE can be done in HF (to an extent).
Looks good! Both versions! If you'd not labeled the versions, I doubt anyone could truly tell which was which.
@Graymotion am I going space crazy or does the AE one look a little smoother or is it just a tad faster tunnel? Both looks good.
Other than the textures being neater in AE, I think the Hitfilm shot actually looks better...
@Andy001z You are not going crazy. Good eye.I used an expression in AE (time*80 over a 20 sec timeline) so 4 revs a sec. I set up the evolution in HF to 3 per sec
@GrayMotion These are really nice on both versions, stunning , what you could do is create multiple Torus variations i.e,
By doing something like this you can gain individual control over each element for post processing like glow darks on the clouds, tweaking the clouds to gain a sense of depth, adding some exposure to the nebula with subtle glows and using the Light Leak on the stars at a semi large scale, what this will do is light up portions of the stars randomly using it's built in fractal generation, this will also help in the aid of removing seams.Overall there are tons of cool features, I'm sure you will give us more Wows in the future so keep 'em coming
I thought I'd back track a little and experiment a bit more with the Jetstrike assets.https://youtu.be/L1yZPipm-vQI also incorporated a few of the presets from inScape's market place to round it off.
Any ideas on how I one could get an image reflection on a model surface like this? Particularly I'm looking at the earth reflecting off the panels.
Well normally, I would use a reflection map and render in a 3D package but, just spit-balling here . . .
How about loading a planet image at the bottom of the stack. Then track a grade layer on the solar panel and use either the Reflection effect or Environment Map Transform on the grade layer to "reflect" the background image?
So Hitfilm's reflections are a bit odd. Diffuse reflectivity and reflections between objects/layers are actually doing something closer to IBL (Image Based Lighting), which is great for matching a model to a video background.
Specular reflections are more mirror like, but are driven by an environment map layer. So you might need to get your background set up as a wrap, then position your space station where it's reflections work, then build the rest of the scene around it.
Ok...pulling my hair out here. This set matte thing has me in a loop.This is what I have1)A plane with a light flare (3D)2) Xmas tree layer set on blue canvas that I rendered into a media layer and keyed out the blue. (3D)3) Particle system (unrolled)The particle system (tree garnish) works perfectly with the Xmas tree layer. Goes behind and in front as expected. But I cannot get the light flare layer to go behind the tree. It is always in front.If I turn the media into a composite and use threshold. Rename to "matte". Add Xmas media again and set matte to the "matte" layer and use the luminance channel the flare disappears completely.Where am I going wrong??https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rWFhHlRC_2aXZzaUFZYmY1T2c
Just a guess, but what if you put the Light Flare's plane in an Embedded Comp as a 3D plane, then set that Layer to 3D unrolled in the main comp?Got to do something different. Right?
@Graymotion If I were trying to do this (and this is probably way more complicated than it needs to be) I would duplicate the tree and put it over the flare so only the parts beyond the branches would show. Unless, that is, you want to be able to see the body of the flare through the branches and then I am S.O.L on doing it.
It's a cheat, I guess, but my "experience points" at this are low. Palacono probably has the more professional way of doing it above.
Thanks for the advice @tddavis @Palacono although neither option worked well for me. Im under the impression now that light flares are on a 2D plane and can't be converted to 3D unrolled.In the end it does look (ok) by just key framing the light layer as it goes around the tree. The speed of the particle simulator kinda hides the fact it's a 2D effect. :-)Having fun with the particle simulator ..https://youtu.be/DblGQuPFzRQMerry Christmas all!
You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter.
You can unsubscribe from newsletters at any time.
© 2018 FXhome Limited. All rights reserved. "FXhome", "PhotoKey", "Imerge" and "HitFilm" are trademarks of FXhome Limited.