pasting a still frame in a video

[lowellriggsiam]

It's at this point I wish I had more flares than just the ones built into AE CS5.

[budwzr]

Here's my attempt with Vegas. Needs a little more polish though.

http://youtu.be/XfTSC1u04N8?hd=1

[lowellriggsiam]

Not bad. After what happened last time I thought the rapidly inflating/deflating planet was going to explode =)

[lowellriggsiam]

Then there's this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC2bB9ZmnUs

[budwzr]

Then there's this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC2bB9ZmnUs

That's pretty amazing.

Hey, I noticed your mask is not smooth. I'm not sure how AE works, but don't they give you vector points? So you can just make two points and swing an arc out?

I was looking at the features in AE, and I can see why it's so popular. The way they describe the effects, it's like a carnival of thrill rides.

[poisondeathray]

"Just what do you think you're doing , Dave?"


http://www.blip.tv/file/5072822

[budwzr]

"Just what do you think you're doing , Dave?"


http://www.blip.tv/file/5072822

Hey, good job. Waddya do, replace the sun too? That's cheating

[jagabo]

The lens flare needs to extend over the planet. Otherwise it's a mist around the sun.

[lowellriggsiam]

Buzz, in the recreation I used no masks just a sphere. I had only two key frames for the moon. The first the origin and the second was the destination (off screen). That is an inherint flaw, if you don't set the keyframes to "easy ease" sometimes it looks uneven.

Poisondeathray, kudos.

[budwzr]

Oh really? That's confusing because the timeline shows a mask.

[poisondeathray]

The lens flare needs to extend over the planet. Otherwise it's a mist around the sun.

Was that a suggestion to add more flare , or ramp up the intensity earlier? I toned it down to match the original more closely

That's confusing because the timeline shows a mask.

you guys are talking about different things;

lowellrigsiam is talking about keyframing the mask path - the motion of the moving mask , budwzr is talking about mask shape

to answer your earlier question, you can use bezier curves to smooth out the mask, or use predefined mask shapes like circles which you can modify on the fly

[budwzr]

Buzz, in the recreation I used no masks just a sphere.

This is what threw me off. I couldn't figure out how he did the compositing without masking the foreground planet. I was thinking, boy, that AE is really magical.

But I was curious why the mask was so rough, so I thought maybe it was some kind of motion tracking object, but then I saw the vector points and blah blah blah. Then he said it was an inherent flaw, so I was thinking AE really sucks.

Thanks for the clarification, and forgive the nitpicking, this is how I learn new things.

[budwzr]

"Just what do you think you're doing , Dave?"

Did you use that graphic as the sun?

[poisondeathray]

"Just what do you think you're doing , Dave?"

Did you use that graphic as the sun?

HAL 9000 ?

No , that was a lens flare . Actually 2 lens flares - because AE is not a real 3D program.

The original lens flare (I mean the real flare in the optics, not the "glow" from the sun) gets partially covered up by the planet, so you have to composite another lens flare on top

This would look more realistic if done in a real 3D program - things like shadows, lighting, falloff - are real. But in AE it's only 2.5D (not real 3D) , so lots of effects are actually recreated in 2D

If I rotated the 3D camera around in AE - you would see everything as a flat piece of paper (because you're looking at the layers edge on). But if done in a real 3D program, the z-space is real - so there is actual depth and substance .

[budwzr]

... I thought the rapidly inflating/deflating planet was going to explode =)

What happened is I made the planet in that 3D software I bought the other day, and it was spinning, and I didn't square it up before I rendered, so it had a wobble.

I threw a Gaussy blur on it, but no joy, so I was too lazy to do it right.

I don't have the make files anymore, or I WOULD make it explode. Maybe next time.

[jagabo]

The lens flare needs to extend over the planet. Otherwise it's a mist around the sun.

Was that a suggestion to add more flare , or ramp up the intensity earlier? I toned it down to match the original more closely

No, I meant the flare should extend over the planet as well as the background. In the original it's lens flare caused by bright light flaring within the camera. In your video it's dust around the sun being lit by the sun (and hence the planet blocks it). Original left, yours right:

[budwzr]

If I rotated the 3D camera around in AE - you would see everything as a flat piece of paper (because you're looking at the layers edge on). But if done in a real 3D program, the z-space is real - so there is actual depth and substance .

I'm glad you mentioned that because I was looking at the AE webpage and they're throwing around a lot of buzzwords and it's hard to tell what it can really do.

I got the impression it COULD create z-space objects and animations. So it's basically the same as Vegas in regards to 3D animation.

[lowellriggsiam]

My last video posting was done in After Effects without the original video just the MGM logo and the music. I had created two seperate spheres, and balck background which I used fractle noise to make stars, my sun was made with light rays, and I did the text myself.. When I first started doing them I was try to show the OP how it could be done. Since my first impression was that he wanted to know how do do something like that I just made a rough mask.

[poisondeathray]

jagabo - I see what you mean.

The flare is positioned in front of the planet, but the problem is I ramped up the 2nd flare too slowly (it peaks later on). The reason why you don't see lower part of the flare is because the intensity is dialed too low early on

I actually used a different type of flare (a more stylistic one, instead of a "blob" flare) - the 1st screenshot this is with the timing changed, with the original stylistic flare

You can replace the stylistic one with the "blob" style flare, I also added a bump map to the planet in the 2nd example

[lowellriggsiam]

buzz, you can use z-space, but lights to not respect 3d layers.

[poisondeathray]

I got the impression it COULD create z-space objects and animations. So it's basically the same as Vegas in regards to 3D animation.

Yes you can, but it's 2d layers in 3d space . You still have z-space.

You can extrude things, and get plugins that render in 3d, but it's still not fully functional 3d like 3dsmax or cinema4d

[lowellriggsiam]

After Effects CS5 has a rotobrush, but I haven't exactly tested it yet. The rotobrush attempts to find the edges of a forground object and tries to create a mask and make adjustments as the object moves.

[budwzr]

Yes you can, but it's 2d layers in 3d space . You still have z-space.

You can extrude things, and get plugins that render in 3d, but it's still not fully functional 3d like 3dsmax or cinema4d

Aha, I was wondering why lowellriggsiam didn't animate the earth shape that was skinned with a bitmap.

So what's the top few features of AE that are causing people to plop down so much money?

[lowellriggsiam]

I could easily have animated the earth shape. CC Sphere has rotation controls for x, y, & z rotations. Just keyframe them and you're off. I do have a tutorial on youtube that shows this. I need better screen capture software. In the tutorial I demonstrate how to do this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvX9CvkkOg. I used to same technique to create the moon and the earth.

[budwzr]

You can extrude things, and get plugins that render in 3d, but it's still not fully functional 3d like 3dsmax or cinema4d

That's kind of ridiculous isn't it?

AE is supposed to be the effects package that extends Premiere, right?

I don't want to download the trial because I know Adobe's going to pollute my machine with all kinds of crap, like Apple. Seems like Apple installed half their OS just to get iTunes running.

I guess I'll go back to the AE website and try to sniff out the facts from the hype, and not just drink the koolaid.

[poisondeathray]

You can extrude things, and get plugins that render in 3d, but it's still not fully functional 3d like 3dsmax or cinema4d

That's kind of ridiculous isn't it?

AE is supposed to be the effects package that extends Premiere, right?

I don't want to download the trial because I know Adobe's going to pollute my machine with all kinds of crap, like Apple. Seems like Apple installed half their OS just to get iTunes running.

I guess I'll go back to the AE website and try to sniff out the facts from the hype, and not just drink the koolaid.

It's software for motion graphics . Do some research - have a look at some AE sites (not just Adobe, but tutorial sites and demo reels for motion VFX artists) . You'll be amazed. It's the #1 tool by far for motion graphics. You see it used in everything, TV shows, movies, commercials, music video, video games. It's what photoshop is to still photos . Once you use it a bit you start noticing things, like signatures of specific plugins - you'll see a movie or some commercial and you'll know exactly how it was done in AE

It's just a tool that helps with creativity , that's all. It has limitations and quircks like every other tool - like the 3D thing. Most people probably don't even know what true 3D is.

Many people use combinations plus AE, because there are import/export engines between the various tools . AE offers stuff that the other 3D tools don't for finishing polish

Yes, Adobe software is heavy & bloated, but AE is one title that is worth it. I doubt you'll find a single person that thinks negatively of it once they use it a bit.

[budwzr]

Meh, when I read the "features", they're all just new interpretations, combinations, and rebranding of the basic tools. To me, a "sonic pulse ray" is a texture applied to a vector. A "particle engine generator" is just a PNG with sparkly doodads scattered around and animated.

Thanks for the reply though.

P.S. I was using CorelDraw and CorelPaint together as one product, before some on this forum were born. Adobe offered TWO different apps for graphics so they could make more money. That's their business model, "Divide and conquer".

[sprintt]

that is some amazing work guys, thank you so much for developing this idea. poisondeathray what you did here http://www.blip.tv/file/5072822 looks better than the original! other than the camera flare issue it looks pretty good.
i understand that special effects are needed to make it look more realistic and i'll take whatever works best. i didnt ask for a recreation because i thought it would be too much work but now it looks easy enough to manage if you have the knowledge how to do it.
what i'd like to do is keep the sun in your video poisondeathray and replace the earth with the virtual planet only realistically this time. i loved how the rays from the sun start to beam just before the reveal! nice touch there.

[poisondeathray]

sprintt - that was the virtual planet. When you wrap shadows and lights around it that's how it looks

The original image is front lit evenly, there are no shadows

I can replace the flare style or advance the timing of the flare reveal, but not sure how to make the planet look like the original without having it look "cartoony"

If you want, I can leave the name in the planet instead of painting it out

[budwzr]

poisondeathray what you did here http://www.blip.tv/file/5072822 looks better than the original!

Yes, it was great. And according to the timestamps on the posts, it only took 5+ hours