3d with Video
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2005, 4:53pm
Post 1 of 38
any tips on achieving a more realistic image. I used CD4, one light and ambient occlusion as a plugin. Just testing to get a feel for a project I will be working on. The spider model is just a test using an 3d object. It will nort be used in the project.
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2005, 5:23pm
Post 2 of 38
You need more shadow, especially where the legs meet the concrete. I use C4D but I'm not that good at it yet so I can't really suggest anything other than trying to make the light source stronger. The body looks great, as well as the model overall, it looks like its there apart from those legs on the right to me.
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2005, 5:24pm
Post 3 of 38
it looks good.
try to add guassian blur ( only small amount )
the main proble you have is where the legs touch the ground, maybe a dark shadow ( small ) under each foot. ?
Posted: Sat, 7th May 2005, 4:17pm
Post 4 of 38
WOW - that looks really good
did you use C4D for all of that?
Try looking at this topic, this might help you, it really helped me and i have C4D http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18196
Posted: Sat, 7th May 2005, 4:36pm
Post 5 of 38
Cinema4D is a great, great program but you haven't really placed the object into the scene properly. You need a plane with a compositing tag on it to create the proper shadows you'd get underneath an object else it'll look like it's floating.
I'm pretty sure that spider model was a download too, I've definetly seen it somewhere before. If you modelled it, then apologies. I'm just rather sure I've seen it on a 3d obj download site.
You might also want to look into HDRI textures and texture environments, there's a tutorial on the maxon site which is well worth a look
Posted: Sat, 7th May 2005, 5:01pm
Post 6 of 38
Yes Hybrid the model is a download. I was attempting to create a realistic blend. I did use a plane and compsiting tag. I have tried to harden the shawdows, but it seemed a bit fake. If you notice the light properties of the video you see the trees weren't casting shawdows, so I didn't want to over do it. I am just learning and want to achieve a certain level of realism. All my models I buy from turbo squid, or try to pick up a few here and there.
Posted: Sun, 8th May 2005, 5:06am
Post 7 of 38
b4uask30male wrote:it looks good.
try to add guassian blur ( only small amount )
I disagree. Gaussian blur would only be used to partially disguis bad 3d, which isn't what anyone is aiming for I hope. Otherwise it just makes it look a tad blurry. Even with a Gaussian blur of "1." I dunno, if you watch any proffesional movie they don't blur the 3d animated character, it is as sharp and clear as the footage. But that brings me to my next point, if your footage is out of focus a tad, you do need to add gaussian blur, or if your footage looks less sharp than the CG. In this case it would but is looks to me like the spider is blurred anyways.
Posted: Sun, 8th May 2005, 9:43am
Post 8 of 38
if you look at the picture you will see that the background image is is slightly blury ( as with any footage shot on dv )
then look at the pin sharpe cgi model.....
see my point, but adding only a tiny bit say 0.50 your model will then match better with the blury background.
cgi models are always at a higher pixle rate than video and because you can't up the amount on video you have to bring it down on the cgi.
Posted: Sun, 8th May 2005, 10:39am
Post 9 of 38
B4Uask is right, in this case you'd need to add a tiny bit of blur - quite a lot of the time you'll need to add some noise/grain in post to your CGI, not to disguise shoddy work but because the original footage looks that way (the same goes for things like saturation and contrast - basically all the things you'd worry about when compositing greenscreen footage on a BG).
Posted: Sun, 8th May 2005, 7:52pm
Post 10 of 38
I disagree. Gaussian blur would only be used to partially disguise bad 3d, which isn't what anyone is aiming for I hope. Otherwise it just makes it look a tad blurry. Even with a Gaussian blur of "1." I dunno, if you watch any proffesional movie they don't blur the 3d animated character, it is as sharp and clear as the footage. But that brings me to my next point, if your footage is out of focus a tad, you do need to add gaussian blur, or if your footage looks less sharp than the CG. In this case it would but is looks to me like the spider is blurred anyways.
b4uask30male wrote:it looks good.
try to add guassian blur ( only small amount )
Rawree, b4, I understand and that is what I said. So I just brought up the point of don't do it all the time if you are working with great quality video, just to not mislead others. Then I said in this case his footage is blurred and it looks TO ME like his CG element is blurred. When I said "out of focus" I more or less meant the slight blurriness of footage shot on Mini-DV.
Posted: Mon, 9th May 2005, 3:53am
Post 11 of 38
Hybrid-Halo wrote:Cinema4D is a great, great program but you haven't really placed the object into the scene properly. You need a plane with a compositing tag on it to create the proper shadows you'd get underneath an object else it'll look like it's floating.
Could you go more in depth on the "compositing tag" with the shadows and such?
Posted: Mon, 9th May 2005, 6:47pm
Post 12 of 38
I think it looks really good- Perhaps blur? I haven't really used to much with 3-D models- So I'm impressed
Posted: Tue, 17th May 2005, 9:09am
Post 13 of 38
I'm not an expert on this sort of stuff at all, Indeed i've never tried it although I'm on the way to doing it once i get the right 3d package. They all seem so pricey. I have learned quite a bit of this forum however and i do know when something doesn't look quite right. The legs on the concrete just don't quite work. Shadoes most likely would sloves this from what I've read on here. Also the legs on the grass. They should sink into the grass a little. Thats what would happen after all. right now the tips are visible creating a hovering effect. Overall though I hope my first attempt works out this well. Not much work require to make this a really good job IMHO.
Incidentally how much did you pay for Cinema 4D and where did you get it from ?
Posted: Tue, 17th May 2005, 3:09pm
Post 14 of 38
I think it looks pretty good!
Have you considered masking some of your actual background and replacing it with some grass and / or concrete from the 3D app?
say just a gradual "feathered' mask that sould allow the 3D grass or concrete to blen with the background, allowing you to have the spider walk "through" the grass etc.. If you used a plane to get the proper perspective, can you add grass and things?
This may be tricky if the shots are not still, but combining 3D with footage is going to be tricky anyway.
Posted: Tue, 7th Jun 2005, 9:07pm
Post 15 of 38
Is this believable?
Posted: Tue, 7th Jun 2005, 9:08pm
Post 16 of 38
Posted: Tue, 7th Jun 2005, 10:58pm
Post 17 of 38
The lighting needs a bit more matching. It's pretty strong and yellow from the direction of the sun.
Posted: Tue, 7th Jun 2005, 11:43pm
Post 18 of 38
Thanks for your responses guys.
Just now looking over it again, the shadow from the robot looks like a bit different shade of green then my shadow. Could be me being over-critical though.
I'll work on the lighting and see if the shadow can be improved.
Sidewinder, just to make sure, do you believe the light on the robot needs to a stronger yellow or a more dull yellow?
Posted: Wed, 8th Jun 2005, 1:09am
Post 19 of 38
I think the reason it looks unrealistic is because your video is lower res than the 3d so it looks way out of place, is there a way you can lower the res or something?
Posted: Wed, 8th Jun 2005, 1:32am
Post 20 of 38
I been having some problems with that. I did add a small blur to the model after I had rendered out the picture.
Does anyone know of a way to match the quality of the model with the picture you are compositing it on within Cinema4D? Or is that mainly done in your NLE or photo editing software?
Also, I am still learning and so far I have not been able to work with moving images and compositing them on moving video. I would appreciate it if someone could help me with that. A tutorial maybe? Keep in mind that I am using Cinema4D.
After fiddling around with the lighting as Sidewinder suggested, I think the results look much better.
Here's one with the yellow lighting added (Blur Added):
Here's another with the yellow lighting with the light source moved just a bit (Blur Added):
Let me know what you think, if you would like to me to post the unblurred renders let me know.
Posted: Wed, 8th Jun 2005, 6:44pm
Post 21 of 38
The only thing that jumps out at me is that the light color used to render the 3d object should be a little more yellow, to match the natural lighting.The side light that was painted on looks pretty close in shade, but the occluded parts on the front look too white. Other than that it looks pretty good.
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 6:06pm
Post 22 of 38
Thanks for the tips.
I will see what I can do with the lighting and try to match it up a bit more.
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 6:22pm
Post 23 of 38
I would just add in a plane behind the object in C4d, add your video clip as a texture, making sure that the texture and the plane fill the view, and match the object to the video with keyframes. If the video quality comes out messed up, you can always get your animation set, then replace the video texture with a flat green texture and render out the animation, then use key out the green in your video or compositing program. Plus, this way would eliminate trial-and-error with the color matching, as you could see it as you are changing it.
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 8:19pm
Post 24 of 38
Here's my attempt at mixing the live action video with the CGI.
Kinda using your method, Maetrix.http://www.fscwv.edu/users/tmaynard/3DLiveActionTest.mov
Really short, but just a first attempt.
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 8:38pm
Post 25 of 38
Looks good to me, but why is the video so blurry?
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 9:14pm
Post 26 of 38
I can't see it here at work, but he may have run the video through c4d's renderer. Depending on the settings, you may need to use the second method that I suggested, by replacing the video texture with a flat (non-reflecting or specular) green color, so that after it is rendered, you can simply use it like any other greenscreen
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 9:21pm
Post 27 of 38
I think the video blur was just be the low quality I rendered it at. I rendered it in C4D and then brought it into Premiere to add the shake when his foot hits the ground. I re-rendered it to medium settings so, that could be why it has a blur.
I will try the green plane composite later tonight and see how that goes. Does it cause the shadows to key out inproperly?
Here's another version (a little less blurred):http://www.fscwv.edu/users/tmaynard/3DLiveActionTest2.mov
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 9:48pm
Post 28 of 38
Using green would give bad results because of the shadow and the motion blur. What you'd have to do to render it seperately is add an Alpha channel, but hide the shadow, then render the shadow by itself on a white background, then in a composite app (AE, Chromanator) put them together (and screen the shadow onto the footage and under the object, which will keep the black but get rid of the white).
At least that's what I think you'd have to do since you're using C4D. 3DS Max is much smarter about this though, and allows shapes to be invisible but still show shadows and reflections, which allows you to render it in one shot. I wonder when Maxon will wake up and realize this
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 10:47pm
Post 29 of 38
Too quick to judge Pooky, Cinema4D does all of that you just mentioned. They have already realized this
Posted: Thu, 9th Jun 2005, 10:53pm
Post 30 of 38
Well there is After Effects compositing compatibility built into Cinema 4D, I just haven't learned how to use it yet.
It exports the video, an .aec file, and a series of .tif's that contain the alpha channels.
I'd love to figure out how to use them within After Effects but I get lost.
So for now I have just been compositing in Cinema 4D itself.
Posted: Fri, 10th Jun 2005, 2:09pm
Post 31 of 38
Good advice Pooky, except for the cracks at C4d. I assumed that whatever program you added the shadows in before would be used to add then in again.
Posted: Wed, 15th Jun 2005, 12:24am
Post 32 of 38
this topic has influenced me to try and do this. here is the result.
Last edited Thu, 20th Oct 2005, 10:36pm; edited 7 times in total.
Posted: Wed, 15th Jun 2005, 1:11am
Post 33 of 38
Really? There's a material in C4D that shows up transparent when you turn on Alpha channels, except for shadows and reflections?
Where is it?
Posted: Wed, 15th Jun 2005, 11:13am
Post 34 of 38
Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2005, 1:22pm
Post 35 of 38
Here another one....
Last edited Mon, 20th Jun 2005, 1:08am; edited 3 times in total.
Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2005, 1:26pm
Post 36 of 38
That was a cool clip.
IS there a tutorial like that for 3ds max maetrix?
Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2005, 8:01pm
Post 37 of 38
Not sure, I pretty much work in blender and C4d. I would assume that 3ds max has a way to do this as well, but i don't know if it handles it through a texture or if it has another way. Pooky should be able to answer this question.
Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2005, 8:16pm
Post 38 of 38
Well if I remember correctly, there's a material in 3DS Max called Shadow & Reflexions or something like that. Just apply it to a material and then the shadows on that material will be the only thing that shows up. There was a tut by Fallen, just google it or something.
Maetrix - that's not it. It makes the shape blend in with the background and also catches shadows. What I want is for the shape to be invisible, but the shadows to still show (be transparent, probably).