Jump to content


Photo

How To Do This Effect (Pixelated Image From Space-Distributed Particles)

particle

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 JUNE

JUNE

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 02:55 AM

http://www.ayatoweb...._tips/ae50.html

thanks

#2 protean

protean

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 230 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 04:13 AM

Bitmap particles on an image emitter? Or a Duplicate3D for a primitive solution

J

#3 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 05:22 AM

There's a script on Vfxpedia called PlaneGenerator which splits up an image and creates separate image planes. However, it'll create a huge comp instead of just a single particle system. But it might be a solution for you.

The script there is for Fusion 5, here is a better version that works in Fusion 6:

Attached Files



#4 JUNE

JUNE

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 05:43 AM

How to instead of particle?

#5 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 09:15 AM

you can project onto particles, but I can't get the projection to stick onto them :-(

Any ideas? It seems like messing around with pImageEmitter, UVMaps and ReplaceMaterial reveals lots of bugs or unimplemented situations. :angry2:

#6 ChadCapeland

ChadCapeland

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,975 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 09:21 AM

f.VertexColor can be set with the pCustom. Set the R=X, G=Y and use that color as an offset for the UV read.

But... Why not just do the dissolve between the big image and the little images in 2D and put that animated texture on the particles?

#7 JUNE

JUNE

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 03 November 2011 - 11:45 AM

Particle System

Attached File  a.jpg   303.63KB   172 downloads
Attached File  demo.jpg   186.52KB   185 downloads

Thanks

#8 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:07 AM

wow how did you do it?

#9 bfloch

bfloch

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 04 November 2011 - 08:40 AM

I would go for the UV approach.
Comp attached.

Attached Files



#10 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 04 November 2011 - 09:43 AM

thanks for the comp!
you guys sent me to school today :blush:

#11 Dunn

Dunn

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 04 November 2011 - 10:54 AM

Pretty Cool!
wish you guys a pixelate(d) weekend! :mf_Dr_Evil:

#12 mdharrington

mdharrington

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 02:35 PM

I would go for the UV approach.
Comp attached.


that is pretty clever..
makes me feel dumb :)

#13 bfloch

bfloch

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:51 PM

Flattered. But don't overestimate me. I call this one "brainfart" ;)

#14 mdharrington

mdharrington

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 01:33 AM

we all have our talents :)
i would not have come up with this on my own....i am still trying to understand the logic behind it....

question...since you are preserving some of the original particles UV space (not much..... but a small amount) doesn't that introduce some mapping errors

also...why do we need the original UV space at all in the merge? to my understanding what you where accomplishing was overwriting that original UV space with the one created by the BKGD tool? couldn't we just outright discard that original UV space information? why is it needed in the first place?

#15 bfloch

bfloch

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 04:33 AM

If you disable Merge1 you see the effect.
The problem is that the particles can only show either one bitmap or one color. The Rendered Gradient looks like single colors therefore you can only have one pixel per patch (disable Merge1 to see the pixel effect).
The real uvs on the other hand have the 0-1 gradients per patch but are all in local space from 0-1. Connect the Render3D1 to the Texture1 node directly to see the effect.

The trick is to divide the UV space to a fraction of patches add it. That's all folks. Probably a good trick to make a video tutorial from. I will do it. Now that ... :mf_Dr_Evil:

The BC_substractFraction is poop btw. Seems like it wasn't needed or there is a logical mistake. I did this in literally 5 minutes so excuse this flaw.
  • zhaomingyou likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users