Jump to content


Photo

Tilt Lens Flare Fuse Question


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 John Paul Docherty

John Paul Docherty

    Power Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 10:21 AM

Hi Tilt

Just a quick question - I've been using your very nice lens flare fuses to overlay an existing flare that gets cut off in the comp and it's working very well - many thanks for such a flexible and helpful tool. One question though - in an old post (2011 I think) you said -

"Not that I can compete with optical flares, but at least anamorphic is possüble with my fuses if you base it on images with an anamorphic pixel aspect. And the occlusion mask serves as a multiplier, so you can create a noisy map that makes the flares brighter in some places.
gonna look at the other flare video later..."

The flare I'm doing is anamorphic, but I find that even though the image I'm feeding your flare multi fuse has a 2:1 pixel aspect, the rings created are circular rather than oval (width = twice height) as they would be from an anamorphic lense. I'm working around it by running the flare on black then stretching it width wise with a 2D transform but this does make tracking the light source a bit fiddly. I just wondered if you meant something else in your comment or if I was missing something, and rather than root around further I thought I'd ask. I did have a look at the fuse code to see if there was any obvious way of making the circles oval but to be honest I've never even dabbled in fuses and it was all greek to me . . .

thanks again in advance

#2 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:03 AM

Hi John! Thanks for your feedback. I'm glad that Fuse is useful to you. I've got to look at my code to see if the FlareMulti supports anamorphic. Maybe I did something wrong and only FlareCircle has proper anamorphic support.
The flares are supposed to be circular on an image with a 2:1 pixel aspect ratio. They are oval when you remove the pixel aspect correction in the viewer (1:1 button). But they won't get elongated horizontally (like anamorphic flares in other plugins). If my Fuse doesn't have a bug you can force this look by setting a custom aspect ratio (1:2 maybe) for the background that you draw your Fuse onto.

#3 John Paul Docherty

John Paul Docherty

    Power Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 12:38 PM

Ah, I get it! You're quite right, if I feed a bgd with x=1 y=2 pixel aspect I get the lenticular rings. What was confusing me was that when I then comped them over my anamorphic footage which had pixel aspect of x=2 y=1 the rings went back to being round. The trick is to do the comp with the bgd set to pixel aspect x=1 y=1 then resize back to x=2 y=1 after the flares have been put on. Problem solved.

Many thanks for the quick response and tip (and the nice fuses)!

PS As an aside, I have been following your fusion 7 release exchange with some interest, and I certainly agree that the tracker is in sore need an overhaul. Much as I'm loving the new bits (especially the alembic and fbx upgrades) I'm a bit concerned that some of the basics - things that are needed on every shot - are being neglected, i.e. a tracker that is severely limited compared to the competition (in spite of eyeon's statement that it is "rock solid"), lack of a decent keyer (Primatte works for some things but the ultra keyer is awful and with support for keylight gone . . . thank heavens for Pieter's KAK) and the clunkiness of the linear work flow set up all spring to mind.

#4 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 04:00 PM

I'm glad you found the Fuses helpful!

About the keyers... well, I never use Primatte for more than core keys because it's so good at removing all kinds of imperfect green hues. Never got around to actually learn how to use it properly for despilling or semi-transparencies. I love KAK (or IBK) and maybe with Fusion 7 there can be a fast Fuse version of it. I've read in the changelog that Fuses can now use internal erode/dilate functions... Pieter? Any plans? :-) Nothing against a 100-node macro but it kinda bloats the comp file ;-)

#5 ChadCapeland

ChadCapeland

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,975 posts

Posted 01 July 2014 - 11:45 AM

I've recently had a terrible time getting linear keys off of motion blur. Assuming a uniform speed relative to the camera, the motion blur should be linear, but I can't seem to pull keys with Chromakeyer, Ultrakeyer, Primatte, or Keylight that actually result in a linear alpha edge where the motion blur is. If the shutter is open 360 degrees, you SHOULD be able to average the frames together and get a smear, but I'm always getting "scalloped" alphas.

- Chad

#6 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 10:44 AM

Thanks for the kind words!

I do have plans for KAK. Some fixes, some rethinks and plenty of new features. I haven't touched it since 2.7 because of lack of time - how surprising :)...

I have thought of getting into Fuses for sure. But that's uncharted territory for me, so something like KAK would be a pretty huge undertaking to start with. I'm also not sure how useful they would be, given how much is going on in there. I have discussed developing it further as a plugin with Raf, but in its current form it's not clear how much benefit that would offer, because Fusion's native tools are so fast and efficient. I also take quite a bit of care to not calculate anything when it's not necessary. But who knows, this is still an ongoing conversation. ;)

@Chad - is there any way you could send me some of that footage and a comp to illustrate? I would love to take a look at it and see if I can get KAK to do that properly...

#7 ChadCapeland

ChadCapeland

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,975 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 01:30 PM

I think I can get footage as well as a synthetic test too. I'll try to assemble this weekend.

- Chad

#8 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 01:42 PM

Joy! Thanks Chad.

#9 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 03:12 PM

I have thought of getting into Fuses for sure. But that's uncharted territory for me, so something like KAK would be a pretty huge undertaking to start with. I'm also not sure how useful they would be, given how much is going on in there. I have discussed developing it further as a plugin with Raf, but in its current form it's not clear how much benefit that would offer, because Fusion's native tools are so fast and efficient. I also take quite a bit of care to not calculate anything when it's not necessary. But who knows, this is still an ongoing conversation. ;)


Well, a plugin or a fuse would allow you to have a dynamic GUI that changed depending on the mode KAK is operating in. But I can imagine that it's hard to make a Fuse that is faster. Per-Pixel operations are just slow if you don't use OpenCL.

#10 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 03:37 PM

Yes, dynamic UI would be reason number 1 to do so, I agree. I wish that were possible with macros. Especially with Eyeon's paradigm of having few tools that do a lot. That would fit right in there.

But let's see first if I get to do some fusing over the summer...

#11 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 03 July 2014 - 05:57 PM

Oh what the... I only now saw your Kickstarter campaign. Congrats on getting funded!

#12 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 04 July 2014 - 03:12 AM

Yes, dynamic UI would be reason number 1 to do so, I agree. I wish that were possible with macros. Especially with Eyeon's paradigm of having few tools that do a lot. That would fit right in there.

But let's see first if I get to do some fusing over the summer...


Yeah, dynamic GUIs for macros... that would probably go along well with one of my other pet peeves: using UserControls to add a custom button that can execute scripting commands.


Oh what the... I only now saw your Kickstarter campaign. Congrats on getting funded!


thanks! I've already done one or two shots for that trailer in Fusion... but never got around to making a breakdown. The headphone antennas extending shot for example. Syntheyes matchmove + 100% Fusion.

#13 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 04 July 2014 - 11:37 AM

Hah funny! Just yesterday I sent a request to Eyeon for exactly that: would love to see the possibility to make custom buttons that launch scripts.

I just did another request for dynamic UI in macros. That would be insanely awesome.

Keep us posted on some progress of your project! :)

#14 Tilt

Tilt

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,137 posts

Posted 05 July 2014 - 02:08 PM

woah! our wishes have been heard:


Button controls can now execute a string, or a script (using @ prefix) when pressed, via the BTNCS_Execute attribute (which can be added to User Controls).



#15 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 05 July 2014 - 02:34 PM

:mf_w00t2: YEEEHAAAA!

That is soooooooooo great!

See? They DO listen! requests@eyeonline.com everyone! :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users