 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The final shot.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 's018f.mpg' (236 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree - very VERY nice technique :)
"Kyle" <hob### [at] gate net> wrote in message
news:c3qob3dji9i45flfrjdlbp16fngtejgo75@4ax.com...
> Cool!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:46bb9348@news.povray.org...
> The final shot.
Love it! Although, I'm wondering about the grey, (and maybe what else
you could do with it - or is that a secret?) ;)
~Steve~
>
> Regards,
> John
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:46bb9348@news.povray.org...
>
>>The final shot.
>
> Love it! Although, I'm wondering about the grey, (and maybe what else
> you could do with it - or is that a secret?) ;)
I have used this technique before. In "Cliffhanger" (October 2002) and
"Dueling Empires" (Oct 2004) which was my October 2004 entry, I used the
same technique to create the shots where the Greb ships fly into the
warp gate into warp space, or out of a warp gate into normal space.
In these, Shot B was a view of normal space (with the ring that forms
the edge of the warp gate), Shot C was exactly the same, except that the
background was the red-and-black of warp space, and shot A was the mask
that exactly covered the area of the screen contained by the warp gate's
edge. Also, some #if-#end blocks controlled whether ships were in the
shot or not, so that a ship that went into the gate appeard to enter or
leave warp space in a believable fashion.
In "Showbots" (July 2000), "A Bold Adventure" (Jan 2005), and "Top Ten
List" (Jan 2007), I used the same technique to do the digital censoring
of the caseless robots. Shot B was rendered at 320x240, shot C was
rendered at 40x30, and Shot A consisted of the censored models, rendered
fully white against a black background, rendered at 40x30.
The only thing to remember is that the objects which are present in both
the B and C shots MUST be positioned identically, relative to the
camera, and if the masking is based on the objects in the scene, then
the mask object must properly fit the objects in the scene, usually by
having the mask objects positioned, relative to the camera, in the same way.
Once you get that going right, the technique is really quite easy.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:46bd16fc@news.povray.org...
> In "Showbots" (July 2000),
Hey, I remember "Showbots" from when I got my first PC (end of '99) - I
think it's what led me on to POV-Ray. :) I know this because I was really
impressed with John Wise' "That's Impossible" animation. Animations took
forever to download back then... ;)
"A Bold Adventure" (Jan 2005), and "Top Ten
> List" (Jan 2007), I used the same technique to do the digital censoring of
> the caseless robots.
Ah, I was wondering about that!
Shot B was rendered at 320x240, shot C was
> rendered at 40x30,
40x30 ?? Why that size? Speed?
and Shot A consisted of the censored models, rendered
> fully white against a black background, rendered at 40x30.
>
> The only thing to remember is that the objects which are present in both
> the B and C shots MUST be positioned identically, relative to the camera,
> and if the masking is based on the objects in the scene, then the mask
> object must properly fit the objects in the scene, usually by having the
> mask objects positioned, relative to the camera, in the same way.
Phew! I was going to mention in my first reply that 'masks' were possibly
used, but thought against it because it looked 'too neat'. Good job with
what you've done there John.
>
> Once you get that going right, the technique is really quite easy.
I counted 36 animations on your website. I think I'll leave the
animations to you... Let's see double that number. ;)
~Steve~
>
> Regards,
> John
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> "John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> Shot B was rendered at 320x240, shot C was rendered at 40x30,
>
> 40x30 ?? Why that size? Speed?
No, to produce the blockyness. I used mega anti-aliasing and rendered
the exact same scene at lower resolution; when scaled back up to 320x240
in the masking render, it produced a shot in which each 8x8 block of
pixels was a solid square colored to match the average of the same block
of pixels from Shot B.
>>The only thing to remember is that the objects which are present in both
>>the B and C shots MUST be positioned identically, relative to the camera,
>>and if the masking is based on the objects in the scene, then the mask
>>object must properly fit the objects in the scene, usually by having the
>>mask objects positioned, relative to the camera, in the same way.
>
> Phew! I was going to mention in my first reply that 'masks' were possibly
> used, but thought against it because it looked 'too neat'. Good job with
> what you've done there John.
It's actually quite easy to make sure that everything is positioned
right, relative to the camera; simply cut and paste the scene code for
the positioning of the camera and the objects.
It was slightly trickier with the scene above, because for shots A and B
the models and the camera are positioned exactly, but for shot C the
scene required that the robots be turned 90 degrees clockwise and
translated by <-5000,-10,15500>; but the transform only had to be
applied in four places in the .INC file, so it wasn't that hard.
>>Once you get that going right, the technique is really quite easy.
>
> I counted 36 animations on your website. I think I'll leave the
> animations to you... Let's see double that number. ;)
I'm working on it. My next one is already up to 1440 frames (a full
minute), and it will probably be closer to two minutes when I'm done.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> St. wrote:
> > "John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>
> >> Shot B was rendered at 320x240, shot C was rendered at 40x30,
> >
> > 40x30 ?? Why that size? Speed?
>
> No, to produce the blockyness. I used mega anti-aliasing and rendered
> the exact same scene at lower resolution; when scaled back up to 320x240
> in the masking render, it produced a shot in which each 8x8 block of
> pixels was a solid square colored to match the average of the same block
> of pixels from Shot B.
>
> >>The only thing to remember is that the objects which are present in both
> >>the B and C shots MUST be positioned identically, relative to the camera,
> >>and if the masking is based on the objects in the scene, then the mask
> >>object must properly fit the objects in the scene, usually by having the
> >>mask objects positioned, relative to the camera, in the same way.
> >
> > Phew! I was going to mention in my first reply that 'masks' were possibly
> > used, but thought against it because it looked 'too neat'. Good job with
> > what you've done there John.
>
> It's actually quite easy to make sure that everything is positioned
> right, relative to the camera; simply cut and paste the scene code for
> the positioning of the camera and the objects.
>
> It was slightly trickier with the scene above, because for shots A and B
> the models and the camera are positioned exactly, but for shot C the
> scene required that the robots be turned 90 degrees clockwise and
> translated by <-5000,-10,15500>; but the transform only had to be
> applied in four places in the .INC file, so it wasn't that hard.
>
> >>Once you get that going right, the technique is really quite easy.
> >
> > I counted 36 animations on your website. I think I'll leave the
> > animations to you... Let's see double that number. ;)
>
> I'm working on it. My next one is already up to 1440 frames (a full
> minute), and it will probably be closer to two minutes when I'm done.
>
> Regards,
> John
I'm wondering why you haven't placed your animation for the 'Dance' round on
your website.
Also, I like that animation of yours. I always use texture_maps to do most
of my fading, with usually bozo or waves for the best effect.
--Nimish
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nimish Ajmani wrote:
> I'm wondering why you haven't placed your animation for the 'Dance' round on
> your website.
I generally don't put them on my geocities page until the round has been
voted on. I suppose that I could make an exception for this round...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Nimish Ajmani wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering why you haven't placed your animation for the 'Dance' round on
> > your website.
>
> I generally don't put them on my geocities page until the round has been
> voted on. I suppose that I could make an exception for this round...
Well, this is a non-voting round. :)
> Regards,
> John
One quick question. For the application of the mask, do you do it directly
in Pov-ray or is it post-processed in a movie editor?
--Nimish
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
