I want the total scene looks like a morning shot(kind of fog into the wood).
Is is possible if i use - like my project - images instead of modeling the scene?
To match the images i think i have to use a colorizer (?), but i am not sure if that effects the lighting?
I am not sure what to do first and if it’s possible to match the images with a colorizer effect.
I tried a lot, but still not happy with the results.
I have placed all the elements I have adjusted on a new Layer, so it is a little bit easier to see where changes happen.
The central part is the Environment Object set to Fog.
Some light sources to give that morning light. (I was not certain: was your morning mood sunny or cold?
In the Materials, I have adjusted the “color temperature” via Filter, i.e., made it warmer in the mid and highlights, but in one case left the darks a little bit colder.
P.S.:
As usual, any part of the compositing will set the limits for the other parts. Some qualities are adjustable, more or less. The fog-based-perspective is one of those defining image qualities. Also, here, one can pull “haze” from the image (with questionable changes to the colors), but the amount of added light to each detail is depth based. .
As long as there is no depth information numerically available for each and every (sub-) pixel, as long this is a determining base. Other parameters are saturations, sharpness, depth of field, as well as burned in different light temperatures (there is often the illusion as if there would be only one in any given image). .
Images containing scene specifics, as light direction, shadow qualities, different treatment of reflections (polarizer), and the quality of air (polluted or clean) as well as the results of specific lenses, including their artifacts. Last but not least, resolution and noise or grain. .
The central part is not even discussed, the burned-in perspective, or even more complicated, the results of a tilt-shift lens. .
The parts created in 3D have their own rules and qualities, of course. .
All of that needs to be brought into overall harmony. Such unity is required to allow for the idea that all parts of the compositing are just one image. (BTW: I have discussed ten of such “integration” qualities in a series here on Cineversity, more about this in my YouTube channel as well, link below).
Well the png file (that image), with the camera mapping, looks really good! Much better (more real) then my own file.
There seems to be more dept in the scene, with the grass, and with the little house on the background.
Is the little house build on a cube? I’m not sure how to setup my scene like that, even after seeing some tutorials about camera mapping.
The little house is the only thing, thats build on a real cube, so it looks more real (dept)?
This scene i made is just a small part of a bigger animation, so thats why i choose this setup, but if it’s possible to have more dept with a simple cube, i love to have that! In that case, do I have to texture the cube with the same textures?
Thanks for your feedback, I was not sure what aesthetic you were after. My approach was to unify all the elements.
Camera projection is the idea to have a simplified version of the object geometry in the scene. The image is then projected on that geometry. This works like a 3D setup to get the “perspective” distortion out of the image.
When we take an image with our camera, the world is rendered flat. Example: A square (not perpendicular to us) becomes a rhombus, or anything similarly perspectively distorted. When it is projected back on a similar geometry, the square will be normal again, when we watch it from the side.
Camera Projection is based on the projector and the geometry. This geometry is simpler, as otherwise, we could model the whole thing anyway. So, yes, the lower part of the Kapel (Chapel) is a cube-like shape, the roof is not. Have a look at the scene. I go more in detail on my YouTube site about it. Note, that the camera and the projector has to be in the same position. In Cinema 4D the Camera Calibrator supports this work.
I have also changed the Forrest images (link/rechts), so the perspective is more aligned with the center image. All images needed to match in brightness, saturation, and contrast. I used the filter Shader for this. Preferably, this is done before, as, in a 3D scene, this is calculated over and over again otherwise.
The center image has a particular perspective in it. Mostly based on the way inside of it, plants are more forgiving in that. This is harder to turn into a proper camera projection. Since it is flat, it determines the camera position of the 3D scene.
The little house (chapel) was shot from a different angle, and that is healed with the camera projection. Note that camera projection has limits, details that are not in the image, can’t magically appear while rotating the object in place. That is the tricky part. Since you work on a movie, this might be a needed skill to have. Besides my YouTube content about it, the movie JET is discussed here on Cineversity, and I have used Camera Projection quite a lot for it. This movie was printed on celluloid and projected in many theaters along a one+ year festival circuit. The work was good enough to convince the audience, got a box filled with awards, based on that. So, camera projection is since many decades part of moviemaking, just to save money.
It might take a day to get more familiar with it, take your time, and ask if something is not clear.
It’s no problem to have the link in this treath: for your information: i recieved an e mail from Cineversity that someone is trying to send me a private message, but the mailbox is full. That is strange because there is no message in my private mailbox. It’s empty.
Tomorow I will take a look at your youtube channel again and try to get more familiar with camera mapping and try to understand what you have done with the project.
Hopefully I understand the method of that more, to build that on my own.
I will load a little clip to my channel, something that I presented in ‘18 in NYC at the NAB show. It is the most simple idea about Camera projection. This clip is only short, but I hope it gives you the needed ideas about the inner workings.
It took me some time, but I think I understand the method of ‘camera projection’.
I do have one quistion about the project file you send me back, with the little house on the background.
When i open the photoshop file in with ‘camera mapping’, i see you used the image in the alpha chanel. But when i open the image in photoshop, i thought i would see the different layers. I cannot find the same layers into the photoshop file.
I’m not sure how you manage that? Maybe, you can tell me?
I’m having some trouble with my project in the wood.
A butterfly has to fly from the tree (in the middle) to the little house.
The grass material is flickering a lot. I tried several render settings (pysical, standard, GI), but the rendertime is to much.
On this forum i did read about ‘flickering’ but, still did not find the right answer.
I thought: maybe i have to change the grass material into real grass (with an alpha channel). Then I have less rendertime and I can solve the problem from the ‘flickering’
I’m happy with the current light settings, i want to have som ‘morning/fog’ light. Without the light the grass is oke, without the grass the light is oke, both is not working (for me).
My idea was to put the grass on several places in the scene, so it looks real, but i’m not sure if i am making the right choice by that.
I need a little bit more data. What camera is used, I assume no camera, just the default that I see when the scene opens?
The Anti Aliasing is very high, and it certainly slows down everything. Worse case, the max selected value is used (16x16) then the rendering is 256 times slower than without any AA. Start with Best and 1x1; 4x4. Any reason why it was that high? The mist and Environment certainly would take out all the need for a high setting.
The Mist clip is very bad, pixelated, and just not usable. I assume here is the source of the flickering. Flickering is not a unique quality, that can be fixed with a single procedure. Did I get the wrong clip?
The Grass movie clip looks like something that needs to be used on many planes to get a proper effect. I’m not clear what your idea here was with a single plane.
I will look into it when I get more information, for now, I have too many questions, after exploring the whole scene.
I understand you need more information, sorry for that. Ofcourse I will give you that.
I use the camera SHOT2, i think thats the camera when you open the project file. The butterfly is going to be animated on a spline.
The anti aliasing is very high; yes, thats right, that was the last setting I tried to stop the flickering of the grass, with no succes.
Well the mist, i jus saw it is very bad, maybe it’s better not to use it, thats no problem for me.
About the grass: Yes, i was planning to use it on several clips, on several places in the scene. But i thought: if one clip is that bad, i am not going to place it all over the scene.
So, the fog clip i will not use at all, but even without it, and anti aliasing on 1x1; 4x4 the grass is flickering.
So thats the reason i thougt it would be better to have the grass with the alpha channel on several places, but with the light settings it look very bad.
The first thing that I would switch off would be the Reflectance channel in the Grass. Secondly, the Clip has no alpha channel, any use of the RGB values to get it might cause trouble. I have not seen the flickering, as I need to render it first. But my machine is occupied with a test (See below). Do you have the scene file that has produced that grass-clip? Perhaps we can do more from the start with it than in its current form.
IF the Grass-clip is needed, then perhaps produce first an animated texture that can be applied. TO avoid all possible influences of flickering, I have set up a motion blur file. I render it at the moment, but it might take a while before I can answer (It renders here at the moment).
I went through all the possible ideas I could explore today. I had, of course, always your comment about limited render-time in mind. I also wanted a fair amount of art direction in it. Which I think is given with the Backlight Shader, for example.
In short, an animated tile texture of grass, in a combination of a projected cloned object to the floor.
The file is here, the grass itself is rendered with Sub-Frame Motion Blur, to avoid all possible flicker based on motion. Yes, this is taken out fo the main scene, and I would encourage you to think about rendering the background, then the grass, and then the butterfly as three passes. All of that should be combined in Ae, hence the Object Buffer.1, which is an alpha channel for selected objects. Which will allow having some fog images animated on top of it, perhaps at different speeds to fake depth. https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/share/pbmQzDhH5tS2zbJmPbNMxaRpbm9L8CIG0xKgfaJjEk3
I will take this link offline soon, it is just too big.
I hope that helps. (Anything else was nearly excluded based on render-time restrictions).
All in all, the best way to save time is to think in layers and comp them in Aftereffects. IF something needs to be rendered newly, it will be faster. Besides, thinking in Multipass or compositing, in general, will allow you to adjust parts quicker and better, than having all in one scene all the time.
