 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'blow_up_2.mpg' (499 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <run### [at] mobilixnet dk> wrote in article
<3c90d136@news.povray.org>...
> 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?
Looks real good, but to be really convincing you'll need some debris, or at
least some movement in the dust/smoke giving the appearance of debris
flying through it...
Otherwise I think it's a really good explosion...especially the slow
settling of the dust/smoke...
The only way you can see shockwaves in this type of explosion is simply by
a front of movement in objects surrounding the explosion emanating out
circlewise from the explosion. The shockwave of compressed air and the
flashes come from nuclear explosions as seen in Hollywood, but also in real
life, and that just wouldn't fit this anim... (as in the building shouldn't
be standing after the explosion if it were a nuclear one)
Very nice work...
--
Lennard "Lenny" van Ingen
lenny_SPAMSUX_@vestingbar.nl
UIN: 87008669
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In my opinion, after the initial explosion, the fire is much too high. It
actually looks more like orange smoke. So I would try to reduce the flames
and increase the black/gray smoke.
But I don't have a reference video like you do, it's just an observation.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
There are several minor things I'd adjust.
As someone already mentioned, the fire trails way
too high, ever seen flames about 40 meters high
(with such a little area burning, that is)?
Again, someone mentioned debris. Create some smaller
smoketrails just flying off in several directions and coming
down, and simply make the smoke dissipate.
For a better effect, I'd say you'd have to use
more and smaller particles for the fire, the
initial fireball is really good.
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.
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Superb :)
Everyone is talking about a shockwave or flash but I think all it needs is a
little camera wobble or shake a split second after the initial explosion.
This could be attributed to the shockwave reaching the cameraman and the
reaction of the cameraman to the explosion.
Keep up the great work
Dave
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hide a few shingles just below the roof surface to make them invisible;
then when the explosion occurs, blow them back! That would really help a
lot. Just a handful would do the trick.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
The lack of a flash/shock wave is probably a good thing for realism then.
>
> 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?
I would say not. This is probably due to a number of small things. Debris is
something others have brought up, but there are other sutble things, like black
staining from the initial explosion on the building. Some sort of orange glow
from the fireball and fire (even if it is not a brilliant flash) might help too.
Also, I think your "viewers" are crying out for some DAMAGE! After that dust
settles, I expected some sort of gaping hole.
Your efforts are superb but an explosion anim that is convincing to non-CG aware
people is a difficult challenge.
MJL
--
prism{0,.1,30#local I=1;#while(I<30)#local B=asc(substr(// Mark James Lewin
"#K?U_u`V[RG>3<9DGPL.0EObkcPF'",I,1))-33;<div(B,10)-4mod(B,10)+5*div(I,21)-
6>#local I=I+1;#end,-4pigment{rgb 9}rotate-x*90translate 15*z}//POV-Ray 3.5
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Your efforts are superb but an explosion anim that is convincing to non-CG
aware
> people is a difficult challenge.
I think the opposite. There are lots of people who don't know what a
computer is. And actually most people I know have no idea what a computer is
capable of doing, so they'll think an explosion like this is terribly real.
Even I might believe it's real.
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo wrote:
> > Your efforts are superb but an explosion anim that is convincing to non-CG
> aware
> > people is a difficult challenge.
>
> I think the opposite. There are lots of people who don't know what a
> computer is. And actually most people I know have no idea what a computer is
> capable of doing, so they'll think an explosion like this is terribly real.
> Even I might believe it's real.
>
> Hugo
People may not know what a computer is capable of doing, but most are able to
see if something is "not quite right", even if they cannot tell you exactly what
is causing this feeling (and these things are often subtle and difficult to
include in CG).
Even the best modelling of a scene can look generated or fake in some way,
but add area_lights, radiosity, and perhaps some focal blur, and the illusion of
reality is increased because the some of the things that are "not quite right"
(eg. sharp shadows, unnatural shading) are being eliminated.
MJL
--
prism{0,.1,30#local I=1;#while(I<30)#local B=asc(substr(// Mark James Lewin
"#K?U_u`V[RG>3<9DGPL.0EObkcPF'",I,1))-33;<div(B,10)-4mod(B,10)+5*div(I,21)-
6>#local I=I+1;#end,-4pigment{rgb 9}rotate-x*90translate 15*z}//POV-Ray 3.5
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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?
Originally, I thought you had taken a real video from some newscast or
something and put your explosion animation on top of it. 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.
Try also moving the "helicopter" in some direction a little bit, and make
the camera movement smoother (looks linearly interpolated right now).
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
[ http://www.slimeland.com/images/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
