Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest the_Monkey

C4D/AE Example & H.264 Test

Recommended Posts

Guest Chinaski

My take on it was that the reflections in the waves form the logo based upon angle of view, not that the logo was an object that pops up out of the water.

 

I'm talking about the 1st movie. Definitely looks like the objects are emerging from the water to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Self_90

That's good, I like it i had not read the original post. But coming back to it ...

I liked the revealing of the logo.

 

Thanks for that one from now on I have to learn C4d cos of the new job !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest the_Monkey

Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

Rather pleasant comments from a usually tough crowd.

I wasn't planning on posting an AE/C4D comp, because of the simplicity of this scene, but in the spirit of the thread I decided to do another one.

 

The overall critique I was hearing was that the rendering of the water was off. That to some it did not look "real" (which doesn't bother me one bit) and to others it looked "too 3D" (which bothers me a lot). My main focus was on timing and mood and I essentially wrapped the project when I felt comfortable with those (for the given budget... particles cost money, Chinaski ;) ).

 

Nautica (and I) hate to see extruded text. They think *that* looks too 3D. The first piece fudged that by moving so quickly out of extrusion, but I knew it was unlikely I could get away with that again. This piece was created without transparency or reflections. Just an environment map (exclusive) and bump map on the water plane (actually not a plane/floor but a disk because it naturally suggests the curve of the earth when you tilt the camera).

 

I chose to do that because 1) it renders pretty fast 2) I liked the look of it... not really cel... not really GI. I also had a few different versions where I threw the highlights down the middle, but decided it was pure masturbation and tried to see if I was secure enough in my ego to lay them gently on the side. I had a blown out sun back there for a while too and I felt like it fought with the logo so I killed it.

 

So knowing a little more about the process... would you say that the water looks like an error? Like if someone decide to use jagged edges on purpose and everyone pleaded for anti-aliasing? Because I definitely don't want it to have that effect. My point was to create something very un-3D and organic that retained the visual simplicity of the logo.

 

-m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest carniceria

Hey,

 

The style is clearly not meant to be photorealistic, I wouldn't worry about that. It's actually pretty difficult to nail down what is off on the waves. I did mention specular in my original post. And I'd mess with that. But I also think the metallic blue palette might have something to do with it. The shift from cool to warm is very nice and works very well, but the metallic nature of the first 10 or so frames is just a bit off. I'd see what I could do, either toning down spec or bump height... or warming blue slightly. But that's my take.

 

Still, that you pulled this off in c4d with a disc primitive. tighty tight! you have the brains and the eye, so my hat is off to you sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jaan

i think the comments about the water not looking right is directly in regards to the specular highlights.

 

in your animation, they're in low quantity for ocean waves, but that is purely a subjective style issue, but if people are comparing it to real life, then i could see why it may make them percieve it as being off.

 

in my opinion, the only real flaw is that the specular highlights kinda break three laws of photographic imaging...

 

there is no percieved light source for the highlights as you reveal the horizon (try watching it with your hand cropping off the above-horizon portion, and it will feel less weird). i see that there is a blownout area near what would be the sun, but if there was something more identifiable as the sun there, it would justify the speculars.

 

ocean horizons will contain specular highlights of the sun in a denser quantity the closer you get to the horizon, until you reach the horizon-reflection point of the sun. how much that density declines above and below is dependent on how wavy the water is (more waves = more angle from which the sun reflects), but the density of the specular highlights should almost always decrease as you move further away from the horizon (down). your animation does the inverse, with the density of speculars further from the horizon. your version of the speculars somewhat implies that the light source is actually behind the camera, which is contradictory to the cloud photo plate.

some ref photos: http://phorm.phormix.com/pics/scenic/Vanco...cean_Sunset.jpg

http://www.nicholsonprints.com/photos/PR11.jpg

http://www.bgassociates.com/images/Ocean%2...0anchor%202.jpg

 

at the beginning of the shot, the speculars are less dense, and more centralized. as it resolves, the speculars are more dense and less centralized. this is contradictory to the way photographic light behaves. if water is reflecting the sun, then the highlights are dense and centralized or less dense and more dispersed. i think if in the beginning of your shot, if the highlights were at the same density (as in like population density) as present, but covered a larger area of the water's surface, then it would feel more "right" to most people's eyes. a good ref of this principle: http://www.mikelevin.com/BakerBeachSunset4-800.jpg

 

you probably used the lights and such in c4d in a logical way, but the flaws i described are probably just a result of the difficulty in recreating water and its reflective properties in cgi. the reason i know most of this off the top of my head is because i was a cinematography emphasis in school and have shot ocean horizons, and once lit a swimming pool at night to make it look as creepy as possible, from which i ended up gaining a pretty thorough understanding of the way water, its movement and its relative angle to the lightsource affects the way it reflects specular highlights.

 

hope this helps.

Edited by jaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento

encyclopedia jaananica.

 

To me it was just that the movement of the waves was hyper-smooth / hyper-real vs. the illustrated way that they look. It just felt like it needed motion that matched the look somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Chinaski
The overall critique I was hearing was that the rendering of the water was off. That to some it did not look "real" (which doesn't bother me one bit) and to others it looked "too 3D" (which bothers me a lot). My main focus was on timing and mood and I essentially wrapped the project when I felt comfortable with those (for the given budget... particles cost money, Chinaski wink.gif ).

 

 

Hey Monkey, I charge my clients by the particle. You'd be amazed how much money you make that way... :D

 

 

About the CG water comment on the second piece, here is my reasoning:

 

At the beginning, the water looks very much like mercury or some kind of overly reflective liquid. It is hard for me to really put it into words or tell you how you would address it, but there is not a sense of the water having transparency or depth. It just seems like a metallic reflective surface at that point (which may have been your intention). The specular/caustic looking things on top of the water don't seem to integrate as well as they could. Seems like an effect overlayed on the footage, rather than a real optical effect that would happen in camera. I think the 2nd half of the piece, the water looks great. It is just that first half. It might be, too, that when we're that close on the water, I expect to see a smaller noise variation within the larger noise that creates the displacement, like upping the octaves or mixing in a smaller noise would create.

 

Anyway, really, don't be bothered too much by all this nitpicky stuff. You did a great job, and you should know from being around the board that only great pieces and terrible pieces get picked apart. Nobody ever really nitpicks mediocre work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest the_Monkey

Ooooo, look at Jaan and his "real"-"world" experience. ;)

 

Very descriptive and practical examples... thanks everyone. While I don't personally care to create realism, I love discussing it. Observing the physical properties of nature is just one of the coolest ways to spend your time. All the more enjoyable with company that feels the same.

 

Additionally, since I'm using up techniques... all the talk of ocean lighting has peaked my interest in building the next ID with nothing but speculars. That is unless I can get Chinaski's pay-per-particle gig rollin'... then it's just, spawn, spawn, spawn... all the way to the bank.

 

-m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jaan

that wasn't meant to come across as negative as it might have... i thought the style and concept was great and the specular thing is the only thing that was remotely flawed. hope it didn't come across otherwise.

 

also, i hope including any camera/optical info doesn't come across as having any kind of snobby tone on my part, because i don't feel that way at all about it... it's just like conveying experience with a particular technique to me, like "growing things" or "swirling ink" or "making it look like light is shooting out of the letters". often if you try to convey compositing info to camera people, they react to you as if you have your nose up in the air about it, so i hope there isn't a similar situation on these boards, because i assure you my nose is at normal level, where it's much easier for my finger to reach. besides, camera/cine/video experience is not particularly something worthy of bragging... there are way more people doing that than mograph.

Edited by jaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest the_Monkey

...hope it didn't come across otherwise.

Not at all... I read it with a lighthearted and informitive tone. Your comments are far too technical to be percieved as anything other than objective and helpful.

 

:)

 

-m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crypty

It's beautiful man. I love how something so simple can be so nice. Good example of C4D doin what it does, and doin it well.

 

Seems like you really knew what you were doing, how long did this piece(first one) take on the execution?

 

The second one is nice too but I agree with Chinaski that it looks like some sort of quicksilver. I can't get as technical as jaan here and explain everything, but I think it has to do with the dark blueness of the water.

 

Anyway nice work, i'd love to see more of these C4D/AE breakdown vids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mfh

post a non quicktime 7 version of your second so I can feel like I'm part of a club.

 

 

thank you that is all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tim.bowman

I just completed another ID for Nautica.

 

I was told the theme was lens flares.

I gave them this instead.

 

-m

 

So... did they go for it? I find that one of the hardest things to know is when to give your clients what they say they want and when to ignore them and make something better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest the_Monkey
So... did they go for it? I find that one of the hardest things to know is when to give your clients what they say they want and when to ignore them and make something better.

Everyone was pleased with the product. As I handed it off to the team, I told them if they felt like it could be improved by adding lens flares they were welcome to do so. So in that respect... it was a safe choice, because it could be fixed in 5 minutes at the end. You always have to give your clients what they want, but not always what they say. Sometimes they just don't know what to ask for. Our liaison for this project asked for lens flares on white backgrounds so I KNEW they didn't know what they wanted.

 

-m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lburger

i think the comments about the water not looking right is directly in regards to the specular highlights.

 

in your animation, they're in low quantity for ocean waves, but that is purely a subjective style issue, but if people are comparing it to real life, then i could see why it may make them percieve it as being off.

 

in my opinion...

 

...hope this helps.

 

 

Just wanted to thank Jaan for one of the best posts I've seen. Thanks for taking the time. This type of knowledge transfer is invaluable.

 

Also big thanks to Monkey for sharing his great work in such a way that lead to a great discussion. I'd love to see a more technical C4D, "how to" for something like this as I'm learning myself (but I know that's A LOT to ask).

 

Thanks again

Edited by lburger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...