Jump to content


Photo

Camera Motion Compensation For 2D Particles

Macros Particles Gringo

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

Poll: Camera Motion Compensation For 2D Particles (17 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think?

  1. That's what I need sometimes (10 votes [58.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.82%

  2. I know a better method (2 votes [11.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

  3. I don't understand how it works (1 votes [5.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.88%

  4. What are you talking about?! (4 votes [23.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.53%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 05 March 2009 - 02:49 PM

Sometimes there can be a problem when you generate 2D particles like fire or smoke from bitmap masks in shots with a fast-moving camera.

Particles are static not in the scene space, but in the frame space.

To solve this you can use a little improved pDirectionalForce.

Connect the Center parameter to a tracker and set the Motion Factor parameter to set strength of the effect.
Set the Image Aspect that is Width/Height*Pixel Aspect (1.33(3) for PAL)

The tool will calculate direction and speed of the camera and apply reverse motion to particles.

Attached Files



#2 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 05 March 2009 - 02:55 PM

Thanks, as always, Gringo!

I think I get it, but could you do a quick visual example? :)

#3 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 05 March 2009 - 03:48 PM

Here you are:

http://www.compositi...n_Fire_Test.mov

Attached Files



#4 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 05 March 2009 - 03:55 PM

Great, thanks! Very handy!

#5 theotheo

theotheo

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 05 March 2009 - 03:57 PM

Wicked Gregory, thanks for sharing!

I pretty much use the 3d space all the time, with the right camera you don't need it. But sometimes its just handy to do it 2d, I'll be giving it a spin (and dissecting your expression :) )

-theo

#6 popo_83

popo_83

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 09:04 AM

just curious..how would a 2dtrack be not at par....?? :)

#7 Pilalitos

Pilalitos

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 09:21 AM

Well the way i see it... there are only 2 solutions:

1) Render the particle FX as a separate element and then composit it into the moving shot

2) Use the particles in 3D space.

I think the most proper way to do it is (2) but what is missing from the equation is a 3D camera tracking tool. So, my opinion is that Fusion needs a 3D camera tracking tool more than Motion Compensation for 2D particles. I know that many people who just want to use 2D particles will disagree with me but the Motion Compensation thingy looks just like a workaround to me.

#8 SecondMan

SecondMan

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 10:35 AM

Well the way i see it... there are only 2 solutions:

1) Render the particle FX as a separate element and then composit it into the moving shot

2) Use the particles in 3D space.

I think the most proper way to do it is (2) but what is missing from the equation is a 3D camera tracking tool. So, my opinion is that Fusion needs a 3D camera tracking tool more than Motion Compensation for 2D particles. I know that many people who just want to use 2D particles will disagree with me but the Motion Compensation thingy looks just like a workaround to me.


With Syntheyes costing only 450 dollars for the 64 bit version, and being as great as it is, with stellar Fusion support, I really don't see the need for Eyeon to develop a 3D tracker which will take years before it's anywhere near as good as that, to be honest. Waste of resources.

#9 Pilalitos

Pilalitos

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts

Posted 06 March 2009 - 11:02 AM

With Syntheyes costing only 450 dollars for the 64 bit version, and being as great as it is, with stellar Fusion support, I really don't see the need for Eyeon to develop a 3D tracker which will take years before it's anywhere near as good as that, to be honest. Waste of resources.


Wow! Syntheyes is exactly what i had in mind!

It's a secret wish of mine that Eyeon will integrate it into Fusion in a similar way they did with Primatte.

#10 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 07 March 2009 - 11:02 AM

1) Render the particle FX as a separate element and then composite it into the moving shot

I agree, that in some cases it's easier to stabilize a shot (to make the camera static), then emit particles from a mask, and then to destabilize everything back.
But if camera pans a lot, you need to extend your canvas size so that destabilization wouldn't expose edges of your particles' layer.
It also leads to some inconveniences of sizes mismatching and double motion blurring.

2) Use the particles in 3D space.

3D-tracking can be hardly possible on close-ups when the main moving object conceals the most of BG or on shots in which narrow lenses were used.

#11 Pilalitos

Pilalitos

    Flying Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts

Posted 07 March 2009 - 09:15 PM

3D-tracking can be hardly possible on close-ups when the main moving object conceals the most of BG or on shots in which narrow lenses were used.


That's correct.

#12 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 13 March 2009 - 10:52 AM

Here is a cleaned up version

Attached Files



#13 Shaelp

Shaelp

    Power Pig

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 18 March 2009 - 05:11 AM

great . ....... thanks .......
nice share .......

#14 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 15 July 2009 - 03:14 PM

This new version based on the pCustom is more simple and precise. It has no inertness issue.

Attached Files



#15 Gringo

Gringo

    Associate Administrator

  • Adv Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,455 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 06:03 AM

A new version which works correctly with motion blur turned on and non-default Sub-frame Calculation Accuracy (connect corresponding macro's parameters to your pRender's parameters with simple expressions)

Attached Files







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Macros, Particles, Gringo

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users