PDA

View Full Version : with mograph or compositing soft for this ?


sweep
07-27-2006, 12:15 PM
Hi
hi have a little question...
which are the tools used for the final packsot, it was created with mograph ?
http://perso.orange.fr/pekos/NET-C4D/arabograph.gif

Thanks in advance

neosushi
07-27-2006, 12:25 PM
Hi
hi have a little question...
which are the tools used for the final packsot, it was crated with mograph ?
http://perso.orange.fr/pekos/NET-C4D/arabograph.gif

Thanks in advance

It was done using MoGraphs SplineMask object and AfterEffects.

cheers
::neosushi::

Newstream
07-28-2006, 12:43 AM
It was done using MoGraphs SplineMask object and AfterEffects.

cheers
::neosushi::

First of all, I really love MoGraph, its magic and I use it in my work all the time but if this clip is indeed AE-generated then I think its slightly misleading to demonstrate a rather prominent effect (http://www.creativecow.net/articles/hansen_jaysen/growing/) in the last few seconds of a software showreel (http://www.maxon.net/pages/products/c4d/modules/mograph/movie_showreel.html) that's actually dependent on a completely different piece of (not so cheap) software, in this case After Effects.

However, if the purpose here was to also demonstrate just how well C4D integrates with AE and somehow make this point obvious to the viewer / customer, then it wouldn't raise any eyebrows. I don't understand why Maxon didn't do those last few seconds entirely with MoGraph thus demonstrating (with confidence) just how ass-kicking awesome MoGraph really is without the need to fall back on this very AE-looking, MTV-esque, effect.

Just my 2 cents
/ Alex

unseenthings
07-28-2006, 03:13 AM
First of all, I really love MoGraph, its magic and I use it in my work all the time but if this clip is indeed AE-generated then I think its slightly misleading to demonstrate a rather prominent effect (http://www.creativecow.net/articles/hansen_jaysen/growing/) in the last few seconds of a software showreel (http://www.maxon.net/pages/products/c4d/modules/mograph/movie_showreel.html) that's actually dependent on a completely different piece of (not so cheap) software, in this case After Effects.

However, if the purpose here was to also demonstrate just how well C4D integrates with AE and somehow make this point obvious to the viewer / customer, then it wouldn't raise any eyebrows. I don't understand why Maxon didn't do those last few seconds entirely with MoGraph thus demonstrating (with confidence) just how ass-kicking awesome MoGraph really is without the need to fall back on this very AE-looking, MTV-esque, effect.

Just my 2 cents
/ Alex

I think someone was asking about it when the video first came out and the response was that yes, that effect *was* done in/with MoGraph and not done using AE in the typical fashion that most of those are done in. I don't know if AE was used for compositing, but it's my understanding that the core of the effect was done with mograph. NeoSushi probably knows more about it than I do, though.

Edit: I spent about 5 minutes and whipped up a quick "drawing" movie with mograph and spline mask, as mentioned... it's a really simple test (moving/scaling a circle) but it shows that this effect absolutely *could* be done in mograph and so that one (from the demo reel) almost assuredly was.

Drawing Flowers (http://www.unseenthings.net/cgtalk/drawing_fleurs.mov)

Duffdaddy
07-28-2006, 06:27 AM
Nice, but I think doing a really complex mask might prove difficult...

See this complementary thread..

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=363301

unseenthings
07-28-2006, 02:49 PM
Nice, but I think doing a really complex mask might prove difficult...

See this complementary thread..

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=363301

Yeah, I'm posting in there, too. And I sent in a bug report to Maxon about the "Spline Mask / Spline Wrap not playing well together" issue. I don't think it would be difficult so much as just time consuming to do something a lot more complex. If spline mask/wrap worked, that would make it significantly quicker and easier, but I think it's far from impossible. I did mine specifically with a font/spline because I know that's how it's commonly done.

You could still use the spline mask/extrude method with a spline and some good ole fashioned PLA.... it works fine.

sweep
08-04-2006, 05:09 PM
thanks a lot for your participation and your links !

my notification by mail is down ! i will be vigilant

Neil V
08-05-2006, 02:59 PM
I wouldn't say this is misleading at all. Does that now mean that every 3D still I produce I have to quote that I used Photoshop to colour correct or sharpen it? I don't think so.

Neil V

Newstream
08-05-2006, 04:32 PM
I wouldn't say this is misleading at all. Does that now mean that every 3D still I produce I have to quote that I used Photoshop to colour correct or sharpen it? I don't think so.

Neil V
No, of course not, you're free to use whatever tool you like.
But if you're a software company selling software to paying consumers, promoted via your official website with eye-catching demonstrations that (unbeknown to the consumer) contain segments relying on other undisclosed software tools, it isn't the most forthcoming marketing technique in the world. Sometimes, it isn't a question what a salesman tells you, its what he isn't telling you that represents the bluff no matter how trivial.

/ Alex

Neil V
08-05-2006, 06:59 PM
Yeah, I take your point Badtastic. But so many film and software companies these days go on about how Maya or Lightwave or 3DS Max or XSI was used in the production of its 3D visuals but what they really mean is they used Maya / Houdini / Motionbuilder / Shake / Flame / Houdini.... etc to achieve that result.
Remember the time when we were all high-fiving each other because Cinema was used in the production of Gladiator? We couldn't care less that it was used primarily for the backdrops of the colleseum; we were just delighted that Cinema had been used in a real Hollywood blockbuster.
Maybe we're coming from different standpoints on this but as long as MoGraph was used somewhere in the production I'm not personally too bothered whether it was enhanced by AE or not. Just a different perspective I suppose.

Neil V

No, of course not, you're free to use whatever tool you like.
But if you're a software company selling software to paying consumers, promoted via your official website with eye-catching demonstrations that (unbeknown to the consumer) contain segments relying on other undisclosed software tools, it isn't the most forthcoming marketing technique in the world. Sometimes, it isn't a question what a salesman tells you, its what he isn't telling you that represents the bluff no matter how trivial.

/ Alex

AdamT
08-05-2006, 07:08 PM
I don't know how/where the graphic was done, but it seems perfectly natural to me that the reel would include C4D<>AE stuff. After all, the whole point of the module is to produce motion graphics.

Newstream
08-05-2006, 11:41 PM
I don't know how/where the graphic was done, but it seems perfectly natural to me that the reel would include C4D<>AE stuff. After all, the whole point of the module is to produce motion graphics.

True.
I guess I'm a purist when it comes to product presentation. 13 years in retail design does this to you ;)

Maybe it was simply a question of time pressure that caused the segment to be AE generated instead of MG generated. If they'd added "outstanding integration with Adobe After Effects" (which is true!) in connection with the segment it would be totally kosher.
/ Alex

MJV
08-06-2006, 12:27 AM
You guys have got to be kidding. That effect is childs play with Mograph and would take no time at all once you have the splines. I don't know if AE was used or not but there is certainly no reason is would have needed to be.

govinda
08-06-2006, 01:07 AM
You guys have got to be kidding. That effect is childs play with Mograph and would take no time at all once you have the splines. I don't know if AE was used or not but there is certainly no reason is would have needed to be.

Exactly! What was that bizarre outrage all about? :rolleyes: A lot of people did this kind of thing with C4D and other packages before there was mograph; it's just easier now.

You have two choices when doing things like this: do it 2D using masks or mattes and either the Stroke, 3D Stroke or some luma fills in AE. In that case you're stuck with flatness. Or do it in 3D if you want some Z, using splines and sweeps. Path Deformer, MSA and XFrog made it easier, and now mograph brings the functionality under the hood. If you can't tell how it was done until suddenly you zoom around the model and see some z depth, more the better for the drama of the piece. I just don't think they did quite the camera moves on this piece to show off how nicely it was made in 3D.

Neil V
08-06-2006, 07:36 AM
You guys have got to be kidding. That effect is childs play with Mograph and would take no time at all once you have the splines. I don't know if AE was used or not but there is certainly no reason is would have needed to be.

My reply wasn't to whether the effect was easy or not in MoGraph. I just found it odd that Badtastic took such a stance to say that Maxon were misleading us with its marketing. Hence my original post.

MJV
08-06-2006, 02:38 PM
My replay wasn't aimed at you Neil. Only meant to say that Mograph alone can do this easily so it's silly to worry about whether AE was used or not. It wouldn't have to be used at all.

Newstream
08-06-2006, 02:47 PM
It wouldn't have to be used at all.

Exactly my point. If MoGraph can do this easily, why use AE to acheive the effect?

Neil V
08-06-2006, 03:11 PM
My replay wasn't aimed at you Neil. Only meant to say that Mograph alone can do this easily so it's silly to worry about whether AE was used or not. It wouldn't have to be used at all.

I take your point absolutely. And I didn't think you were having a go at me personally. I was just elaborating on the fact that it doesn't matter to me whether AE was used or not because a number of tools are used collectively to achieve a given result in most people's day to day projects.

But I do agree with you that if MoGraph can easily achieve this (I haven't delved into MoGraph yet) then there really is no use at all producing this piece in both Cinema and AE and then spouting on about how great MoGraph is.

govinda
08-06-2006, 07:13 PM
Exactly my point. If MoGraph can do this easily, why use AE to acheive the effect?Anything you can do in 3D, you can normally do in 2D in 1/500th the time...

(if you can do it in 2D)
(if it doesn't involve the retarded AE camera)
(if you don't need to see z depth)

Per-Anders
08-06-2006, 07:41 PM
Exactly my point. If MoGraph can do this easily, why use AE to acheive the effect?

Who said it was? David said it was done using MoGraphs splinemask and After effects. Which effect beyond the spline masking (which as has already been stated was done in C4D) in that sequence are you thinking about here? AE would have been used ot color correct, maybe edit etc the usual things that compositing software is better for than 3D software, You don't suppose the entire reel was a single huge scene rendered in one go do you?

Coincidentally I believe the music wasn't composed in C4D :eek:.

Newstream
08-06-2006, 07:58 PM
Anything you can do in 3D, you can normally do in 2D in 1/500th the time...

(if you can do it in 2D)
(if it doesn't involve the retarded AE camera)
(if you don't need to see z depth)

As an AE-user, I can only agree with you. If one can get away with creating something looking great in half the time without anyone noticing, then its a credit to your skills and grasp of the various software-tools at your disposal. It shows you know your stuff. Bravo. :thumbsup:

Now, if on the other hand (hypothetically speaking) I were trying to sell a product like MoGraph with a demo reel focusing on its tricks, I wouldn't take any of the usual AE shortcuts. I'd want every single frame of the reel to be a 100% pure MoGraph since its obviously the magic of MoGraph that I'm trying to sell and NOT those of After Effects. That's all.

Cheers / Alex

Neil V
08-06-2006, 09:05 PM
Anything you can do in 3D, you can normally do in 2D in 1/500th the time...

(if you can do it in 2D)
(if it doesn't involve the retarded AE camera)
(if you don't need to see z depth)

Really? Hmmmm..... let me think about that...... I wonder why so many fx companies invest heavily in 3D software, training, A&R etc... when most of it can be achieved in 2D? We already had a 2D Gollum in the 70s and I don't think he really compares to the latest incarnation.

stevester1
08-07-2006, 03:34 AM
Coincidentally I believe the music wasn't composed in C4D :eek:.


I just can't seem to agree with you on that one :)

govinda
08-07-2006, 03:38 AM
Really? Hmmmm..... let me think about that...... I wonder why so many fx companies invest heavily in 3D software, training, A&R etc... when most of it can be achieved in 2D? We already had a 2D Gollum in the 70s and I don't think he really compares to the latest incarnation.

Dude, I don't know where this got off the main line, but if something can be done in 2D equally well as 3D, you'd have to be a howling idiot to do it in 3D. That's just simple sense. ;)

AdamT
08-07-2006, 05:19 AM
Dude, I don't know where this got off the main line, but if something can be done in 2D equally well as 3D, you'd have to be a howling idiot to do it in 3D. That's just simple sense. ;)
Maybe a little oversimplified sense. :)

Neil V
08-07-2006, 09:23 AM
I totally agree with you. But you did say that practically anything you can do in 3D you can achieve in 2D. So 'practically anything' means what? 99%? Unlikely at best.

Dude, I don't know where this got off the main line, but if something can be done in 2D equally well as 3D, you'd have to be a howling idiot to do it in 3D. That's just simple sense. ;)

CGTalk Moderation
08-07-2006, 09:23 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.