Hi Dr. Sassi, a friend reminded me that I can make a multi pass render w/depth pass, but I forgot how to go about loading it in Photoshop. Would you mind please briefly going over this?, thank you, Craig
So you have set up the camera to specify the start and end as well the focal point. So a gradient can be achieved. You have perhaps set up the depth of field with the Effects Options (Rendersettings) to get a different gradient—not needed, but just to make sure I mentioned it.)
Then you render out a Multi-pass, e.g., as Photoshop file. Multilayered is checked on. In the Multi-Pass section of the Render-Settings you have RGBA and DEPTH as pass enabled.
(As usual, I can’t help it: for good results, avoid 8bit/c.)
Just a reminder, depth channels work as numerical value per pixel. To have any kind of anti aliasing there is wrong and might influence your result in a bad way. You might oversample the render twice or four times (something like that).
In Photoshop you should find that pass in the alfa channel.
Hi, and thanks. Yes, I did all of that and I have my MP DOF channel in PS, my problem is, : how do I load it into my PS doc: after I learn that, do I put it at the top of the layer Hierarchy?, do not know what to do, thank you
I added some information above, just for quality purposes.
If you do as I wrote above, the depth information is in the “alpha” channel. Normally applications/plug ins have an option to specify what information to use, including the information in additional channel (alpha might be a misleading term)
You can go to channels in Ps and select that layer, copy it and after selecting the RGB channels again, you can paste the information where you need it. Again, this is one distance information per pixel, don’t Anti-Alias it, oversample! Anything else will look wrong.
If you could specify what you have and what you need, I could be more specific myself.
thank you this is very clear!-now, i copied my depth channel, and pasted it in the layer manger ( or whatever it is called ; ))- my friend said that once this is done, I can use it to create DOF dynamically, meaning I can make realtime adjustments, but I do not know how to do that
With any of these you can call up an Adjustment Layer. These adjustment layers keep your option to adjust available. Yes, channels can’t be adjusted in that way, pretty sad to be honest.
The Adjustment Layers work for everything that is beneath them, except you link it to the layer directly under it. To get this limited, you have to option click exactly between the two layers, or double click on the adjustment layer and click on the little icon (image 2)
If you like to adjust it, you might certainly avoid 8bit/c stuff, as depth is only gray values you have on 256 values at all in 8bit/c which will lead quickly to banding Image 3. ... and again, oversample! Anything else is just a wast of time.
Photoshop is an essential tool. I would perhaps check at Lynda.com if there is someone who meets your taste, some are great -some feel more like market screamers.
Yes, it has that option and it will find the depth channel instantly in the channel tab or you can chose other options.
If you have the Physical Render, use the DOF blur there, Photoshop can’t really compete with that. It misses out many options that you have in CINEMA 4D.
Once a render is 2D, i.e., just an image, you can’t see what is behind an object, and that is what you need for a good DOP blur.
You have to oversample to get at least a little bit of quality with Ps, and that time is better invested in the Physical Render.
You can’t get anything transparent (partially) with Ps. etc. My worse nightmare in Ps is that they even label things wrongly, e.g. the tilt shift is just a lie, and shows that they have no idea what that effect is for real.
Blur in Ps looks most of the time just like Ps-Blur. If you want to please an audience that has an trained eye in photography, you might get in 1 of 5 cases away with Ps. I use it once or twice a year, it is just a fake.
Anyway, I hope I don’t demotivate you here, but you have certainly something better in C4D, miles above Ps.
All the best
Sassi
P.S.: I have tested this here, when it came out, the examples illustrate a little bit what I try to exchange here. I’m pretty picky with image quality, certainly based on over three decades professional photography on my side. http://old.cineversity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2720&PN=1&TPN=12
The page before discusses even motion blur.
I agree Dr. Sassi, spot on as always. My friend yesterday mentioned this approach ( loading depth channel in PS for lens blur ) but I was a bit suspicious. I know that you have said in the past, that any blur, gaussian, etc is fake compared to the physical render,which i have . But his option was appealing because you can adjust in the lens blur filter to your liking, whereas, once a render is complete in C4D, you have to rerender , subject to client demands. But in the end, folks like you and I know quality. ( at least I’d like to think that I do)-as always, until my next headache, stay well, CZ
Thanks for your reply. I don’t like to rant and make stuff bad, but knowing that you have better options made me wish that you get the best.
Yes, clients like to have it fast, and after the deadline—they liked to have it in a better quality, and the deadline is long forgotten. Been there too often, never again.
On the end, you must be happy with your work, there is no excuse for low quality, as what you do is what people see in you as an artist. But everyone needs to find his/her own philosophy of course.
The market is small, and people will critique your work to get your job. So, if requested, you need to do it once in both cases, so your client knows that you provide quality and in that way his/her eyes got trained, and can avoid the “cheater”.
It is after all just a parameter in C4D that you can adjust and animate, so render an overnighter with options to chose from ;o)
