> And generally I'd create the camera zoom and
> focal-point different. You should have it look somewhere,
> suddenly move to the explosion, zoom out quickly, and
> then doing the slower movements and zooming like
> the camera-man is actually looking and inspecting
> the scene.


Heh heh, yeah, you don't want people to get suspicious and say "so how did
you know you had to film that exact area right at that time?"

- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:27:54 +0100, "Rune"
<run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:

>Apart from experts like people in these groups, who are trained in noticing
>flaws in CG effects, do you think this animation could fool anyone to think
>it's real?

Maybe if you make the smoke denser so that it hides the lack of
debris, make the flames lower and brighter and make them illuminate
the smoke as well. It's already really convincing.

Oh... and rip a soundtrack off the news <g>


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

I agree with the majority about the debris.  But the main thing, in my eyes,
that makes this obviously fake is the -huge- stream of fire -instantly- erupting
from the explosion.  We're talking a brick building here, right?  Where on earth
is all that fire coming from?  Tone it down to barely there, ie -really- short
flames barely visible, that don't appear instantly, and you've got realism.

-Law

Rune wrote:

> I've been looking at a little reference videos (real life, not holywood) and
> they didn't have neither flashes nor shock waves, so I haven't added that to
> the animation.
>
> I've made the explosion less saturated and made the gravity for the dust
> weaker so it fills a larger volume.
>
> Naturally, feedback is still appreciated, only, I don't go for holywood like
> effects.
>
> Apart from experts like people in these groups, who are trained in noticing
> flaws in CG effects, do you think this animation could fool anyone to think
> it's real?
>
> Rune
> --
> 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
> POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
> POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
>
>                     Name: blow_up_2.mpg
>    blow_up_2.mpg    Type: Wmplayer File (video/mpg)
>                 Encoding: x-uuencode

Post a reply to this message

> I don't go for holywood like effects.

Party-pooper! :P

> Apart from experts like people in these groups, who are trained in
noticing
> flaws in CG effects, do you think this animation could fool anyone to
think
> it's real?

Sound would really help. Also footage of a real building, not a maquette,
would help complete the illusion.

Post a reply to this message

"Tony[B]" wrote:
> Sound would really help.

Will be difficult to find fitting sound I think, but I'll try.

> Also footage of a real building, not a maquette,
> would help complete the illusion.

What is a maquette?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Lawrence Winstead" wrote:
> I agree with the majority about the debris.

I'll try to add a little debris-looking stuff.

> But the main thing, in my eyes, that makes this
> obviously fake is the -huge- stream of fire -instantly-
> erupting from the explosion.

You're right, I'll decrease the amount and height of the fire.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" wrote:
> Originally, I thought you had taken a real video
> from some newscast or something and put your explosion
> animation on top of it.

Well, that's good too. :)

It's a scanned photo of a building.

> Unfortunately, the explosion itself still looks sort
> of fake; it's too easy to see that you're using separate
> objects containing smoke and fire and moving them around.

That's one of the things that's diffiult to prevent, but I'll do my best.

> Try also moving the "helicopter" in some direction a
> little bit

That's impossible, as the photo of the building is 2d and thus can only be
seen from one angle. Besides, you said just before that you initially
thought it was from a real video, which I would think indicates that it's
convincing enough... :)

> and make the camera movement smoother (looks linearly
> interpolated right now).

Only the zooming and that's intentional because I think linear zooming is
quite common, though not in professional work. But I could try some smoother
zooming in the next version for a change.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias" wrote:
> the fire trails way too high, ever seen flames
> about 40 meters high (with such a little area
> burning, that is)?

You're right, I'll try to fix that.

> Again, someone mentioned debris.

That too.

> And generally I'd create the camera zoom and
> focal-point different. You should have it look
> somewhere, suddenly move to the explosion, zoom
> out quickly, and then doing the slower movements
> and zooming like the camera-man is actually
> looking and inspecting the scene.

The current "path" was just a test. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll see what
I can do. :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Richard Dault" wrote:
> In my opinion, after the initial explosion,
> the fire is much too high.

Thanks for the feedback; I agree with you.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

that orange part shoots too high with pieces of it too large to
the scale of the shot.  Does that make any sense?  I think it
also moves too fase for that scale.

The dust effect is nice.

-peter
-- 
Current obsession: "Ballet pour ma fille."
http://www.applesnake.net

Post a reply to this message