pasting a still frame in a video

[poisondeathray]

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

Are you going by at the edited post times ? It doesn't take that long in AE - it only takes a few seconds to swap out a layer. The problem was I didn't have a red glow blob style lens flare premade, so it took a few minutes longer, not hours. Not very many lenses have those optical characteristics so you need to make a custom one




@sprintt - so what do you want? Do you want the blob style red lense flare like the original?

I can brighten up the planet, it will look more pale blue like the original , but more fake. The more you reveal, the less shadows you have and the more it looks like it's being front lit (but the sun is coming from BEHIND the planet). Remember the original only has the tiny rim lit, the rest of the planet isn't even visible

There are no unique identifying charateristics about that planet (except the name tag "Tayara"). The rim of Tayara looks exactly the same as the rim of the original planet

[sprintt]

hmm a few ideas come to mind. in lowell's video the planet that he created looks real enough for a planet that doesnt exist much like the one that i want to add to the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-rdHrL2aK4&feature=related

do you have skype/yahoo/msn/anything?

[poisondeathray]

hmm a few ideas come to mind. in lowell's video the planet that he created looks real enough for a planet that doesnt exist much like the one that i want to add to the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-rdHrL2aK4&feature=related

That's lit from the side, not the back. Look where the shadows are.

The one you want to add doesn't have any shadows. And if you add shadows, it no longer looks like the one you want.

do you have skype/yahoo/msn/anything?

No

[sprintt]

do you have skype/yahoo/msn/anything?

No[/QUOTE]


thats a shame

[sprintt]

the point of the video is to show the virtual planet because thats what its about, showing just the sun isnt going to do anything. so the question is how would you present the v. planet if you had to

i take it you cant load up the picture of the planet and then add special effects to make it look more real...? another idea is to light the planet up when the sun has risen all the way up. it might look fake but it could work imho.

[poisondeathray]

That's the point - there are no identifying characteristics about that planet except that it's light blue. What makes that planet different than any other light blue planet ?

Once you add shadows & lighting, it doesn't look the same because there are shadows. I can brighten it up a bit, but the more bright it is like the original, the more fake it looks

The lighting has to be gradual in time with the motion of the sun. It will look too fake if you suddenly turn on the light switch

The added realism comes from the movement of the light and shadows and the falloff of the lighting - as the sun rises, it casts a cone of light and the shadows recede. If you screw with the timing or the reveal it won't look right. Even this looks semi fake, because the sun is BEHIND the planet



To illustrate what I mean - compare the planet with shadows & light vs. no shadows and light .

[budwzr]

Hey Lowell.... , you have AE right? Can AE do what the OP wants? Or you just have to go with the presets built in? That's what I'm curious about, can you override any wizards and templates?

Because I'm thinking if the planet is gassy and lit from it's nuclear core, then there wouldn't be any change due to the sun's movement.

[poisondeathray]

Or you just have to go with the presets built in? That's what I'm curious about, can you override any wizards and templates?

Yes, you can do whatever you want, or make custom templates. That's not the problem here. The problem here is how the scene is lit. The problem is physics is a bitch

Because I'm thinking if the planet is gassy and lit from it's nuclear core, then there wouldn't be any change due to the sun's movement.

Now you're onto something

[budwzr]

Maybe it would have some slight feathered pulsing around the edges? Or maybe the blue should feather from light in the center towards more saturated closer to the edge where it would be thicker due to the angle, and that would help the eye see it as round.

[poisondeathray]

Maybe it would have some slight feathered pulsing around the edges? Or maybe the blue should feather from light in the center towards more saturated closer to the edge where it would be thicker due to the angle, and that would help the eye see it as round.

what's with the pulsing fixation
http://youtu.be/XfTSC1u04N8?hd=1

I know what you're getting at, feather the edges, or even add a radial blur

BUT - that still doesn't resolve the lighting issue. You're still front lit. Think of how the lighting reveal will happen when you are lit by a front source... The sun is rising. It begins dark until the sun rises. It doesn't look right if it's lit the same the whole way through

Keep the ideas coming

[budwzr]

Maybe it's backlit http://youtu.be/0FXfXptxm9Y?hd=1

Note: That wobble you reference was an error. The globe was mishapen unbeknownst to me before render.

Actually, keeping the planet black, then revealing it in blue light looks pretty good.

[poisondeathray]

Maybe it's backlit http://youtu.be/0FXfXptxm9Y?hd=1

Note: That wobble you reference was an error. The globe was mishapen unbeknownst to me before render.

I thought the wobble was from the gravimetric forces from a nearby black hole

or maybe you had a hangover when you rendered that


I agree the backlight looks good, but you would have to completely redo the scene.

If you backlight that scene, what identifying characteristics does the planet have? it's still in the shadow . I.e. how can you tell it's "Tayara" without leaving the name posted in there . Also , there would have to be 2 sources of light, because presumably you would want the sun that's there to cast some light

[budwzr]

You could make two tracks, one with just the planet (a still), the other with the backlight animation, and "ADD", or set both tracks to 50%. Or fade between the two.

That way, there would be something dark blue there initially, and the blue backlight would intensify the blue as the sun moves.

[poisondeathray]

You could make two tracks, one with just the planet (a still), the other with the backlight animation, and "ADD", or set both tracks to 50%. Or fade between the two.

That way, there would be something dark blue there initially, and the blue backlight would intensify the blue as the sun moves.

I don't think it's going to work out the way you think it is

Give it a shot

[budwzr]

OK, let me try. Hehehe, you're right, it's easier to suggest than to do.

UPDATE: http://youtu.be/ge_J8JAHGNc

This is the best I can do.

[lowellriggsiam]

With AE I can pretty much do what I want. Presets I can make my own, or create project files. Shadows and such can be done in many ways. CCSphere can it can be done using existing presets, adjusting light height or using masks, decreasing the light color or intensity. Skype, Yahoo Messenger nope. I seem to remember having AIM on my laptop.

[sprintt]

this video here looks good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfTSC1u04N8&feature=youtu.be&hd=1
the screenshot also looks good https://forum.videohelp.com/attachments/6656-1304109971/b.png
the sunlight (or the rays) extend over the v. planet in the picture and it makes it look more authentic. if you can combine the screenshot into the video somehow (minus the pulsing) that could work. if you cant then the video on its own could still work if you painted it somehow to look like the v. planet.

the video doesnt have to rely 100% on physics, it just has to look good and make reasonable sense. i probably wouldnt have a problem believing the v. planet being revealed as the sun rises even if there is no back lighting. put that aside we could go with what budwzr suggested and make it a gassy core-lit planet haha.
having said that i still think a slow reveal would be best rather than having the planet fully lit from the very beginning due to its own core power.

[budwzr]

I thought the wobble was from the gravimetric forces from a nearby black hole

or maybe you had a hangover when you rendered that

There's no black Hoes around here.

[budwzr]

...the video doesnt have to rely 100% on physics, it just has to look good and make reasonable sense. i probably wouldnt have a problem believing the v. planet being revealed as the sun rises even if there is no back lighting. put that aside we could go with what budwzr suggested and make it a gassy core-lit planet haha.
having said that i still think a slow reveal would be best rather than having the planet fully lit from the very beginning due to its own core power.

I'm trying to get something together for you, but I don't have the high-powered professional software like PDR and Lowe. These guys are using After Effects , and all I have is a $39 3D Logo Maker and Vegas.

[lowellriggsiam]

Hello, I am back. I have made some adjustments to my recreation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwJmIzCIm5o
Would anybody like to see it in anaglyphic 3d?

[sprintt]

sure thang. hey why dont you hook budwzr up!

[poisondeathray]

no black holes, hal9000 lens flare, full reveal, screw physics - this planet has a light diffusing atmosphere that spreads photons evenly once a certain threshold is reached and a photochemical chain reaction takes place
http://www.blip.tv/file/5088141

[poisondeathray]

I thought the wobble was from the gravimetric forces from a nearby black hole

or maybe you had a hangover when you rendered that

There's no black Hoes around here.

That's because you plugged the black HOLE with this

http://youtu.be/62fTBzVJBoE

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/334292-pasting-a-still-frame-in-a-video?p=2074393&v...=1#post2074393

(crap you removed it)

[sprintt]

o-m-gee it looks amazing!! hey maybe the back lighting can be passed off as a reflecting light coming from the moon because the sun is hitting it or something like that? lmao

[budwzr]

no black holes, hal9000 lens flare, full reveal, screw physics - this planet has a light diffusing atmosphere that spreads photons evenly once a certain threshold is reached and a photochemical chain reaction takes place
http://www.blip.tv/file/5088141

Bravo! (clap clap clap).

[budwzr]

sure thang. hey why dont you hook budwzr up!

I could sure use one, I'm paddling in a canoo here, I need a sponsor.

[sprintt]

amazing work. hey can you put it on youtube or send me the file poison? and what do you guys think about what i said about the moon reflecting the light could that hold

[poisondeathray]

hey can you put it on youtube or send me the file poison? and what do you guys think about what i said about the moon reflecting the light could that hold

blip hosts the original file I uploaded (it's not re-encoded like youtube) - at the bottom of the page there should be a download link under "quick links" . You can also find the original video in your browser's temporary internet directory

You can rationalize it or make up whatever sci fi story you want, but it doesn't really follow lighting principles the way the scene is set up

I did a quick simulation in a 3D program, and at that angle, you wouldn't see the front face of the planet at all. Actually you shouldn't even see the crescent in the original movie. It should be completely black.

[Gavino]

Actually you shouldn't even see the crescent in the original movie. It should be completely black.

Heh heh, that's right.

What the scene shows is, in effect, the final moments of an eclipse of the sun (by the earth) seen from somewhere near the moon. So the earth should be completely invisible, just as the moon is invisible during a solar eclipse on earth. The crescent moon is not seen until a day or two after the new moon.

But it wouldn't be so dramatic that way, so I'm with Kubrick.

[budwzr]

Oh, really? That's cool.

Budwzr's
New GoPro vid: http://youtu.be/LcvoNhGIn0U?hd=1