Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hiphopcr

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Lovin' this thing since I saw it this summer: How would you go about this? A bunch of grungy textures and mattes? Full-res here
  2. louderthan11, you got me 50% of the way there (and thanks for the custom video!) and Grundly, you got me the rest of the way there. Thanks so much guys!
  3. Ah yes. And that's a great suggestion. I feel like I'm halfway there. What if I want to use the null object for part of the motion (moving the character from left to right) but also be able to animate each layer itself. If I parent the layer's position to the null object's position, and convert the expression to keyframes, the null object's motion takes over the position of the layer and disregards anything I may have done to the position of that layer (for example, moving a leg up and down while using the null object's motion to direct the character from left to right) Ideally I can convert whatever motion a layer has into keyframes, no matter what I've animated within the layer and whatever object it's parented to is doing.
  4. Sounds promising. What is " the expression that parents the layer to another"?
  5. I know the first thought you have is, why would anyone want or need to do this? The reason behind my bizarre question is that I'm dealing with exporting motion paths from After Effects into other software. So I need the various layers of the character to have it's movement baked into itself so it moves under it's own power without being influenced by anything else, so that the motion of each layer translates properly. Basically, I want to be able to animate my characters properly (with parenting and null objects), and then before saving it out making it so the motion of each layer gets baked into it's own properties (position, rotation, and scale) so that it moves the way it's supposed to, just without being parented to anything.
  6. I have a character in After Effects who is split up into multiple layers (legs, arms, torso, head, etc). I have the layers parented to each other as you'd expect for typical character animation (hand>forearm>shoulder>torso), and then I have null objects driving the overall animation (for example, left to right movement across the screen, etc). Following so far? What I need is a way to bake all those parented and null object properties directly into the character. So that, let's say, I deleted all the other layers and null objects, the head of the character would still move as if it were still parented to the other layers and null objects, but instead, is moving under it's own "power" (position, rotation, and scale). Hopefully this isn't super confusing and hopefully there's a way to do it! Thank you.
  7. Dear Mograph.net, is there an easy way to make every frame in my comp have a keyframe? Instead of relying on interpolation, I want a keyframe for each frame (position, scale, and rotation). Thank you.
  8. I charge $100 per second of footage.
  9. Exactly... so why bother paying $60K when you can put in effort for free?
  10. The second shot of that lady standing up... what does that have to do with motion graphics? (same goes for that hand rubbing the top of the piano... why?) oh nevermind I see that binky has already addressed these issues. Shot of the girl jumping out the window.. animation is so choppy, but it looks better frame-by-frame. The particles coming out of that guys hand; get rid of that. It looks like a preset that you just plopped over the footage, anyone can do that. You didn't even add any interactive lighting. As was mentioned, the chess pieces don't feel right. And I would definitely leave the card up at the end. No fade out.
  11. hiphopcr

    Spidey 3

    This is the only movie that I definitely plan to see in theatre this year. I'm geekin' out over it too.
  12. I'm no expert, but I do at least 5K in freelance work every year (on the side, outside of my day job). I haven't created a business or anything, I just report it and pay the consequences
  13. Shake was discontinued but it'll still be around for a while. Most vfx companies have their pipeline built around it. Although Nuke and Fusion both have quite a bit of momentum behind them. I've also heard that Shake may end up as a plug-in within FCP... which will turn a lot of compositors off. I don't see that being used in studios that work on feature film. In fact, DV garage already has one. Node based compositing is advantageous in organizing your stuff, you can see everything up front. It's also better when working on one shot at a time, where most of the elements are of similar duration. In motion graphics with tons of elements flying around the screen for different durations, layer-based compositing is more intuitive. Ah screw it, already had a conversation about this.
  • Create New...