PFHoe Matchmoving test

[Joseppi]

Pretty good test! Even rendering out of Cinema, you could up the shadow map rez. Right now the density is pretty good, but the shadows are more diffuse than the tree shadows in the foreground. But upping the shadow map resolution should tighten up those shadow edges.

Joe

[velarde]

Hey Joe.

Thanks for the comment/tip.

Yep, i need to play a little bit more with the light/shadows option.
Also I guess learn a little bit of compositing would help me (after effects/ shake)

Just wanted to show folk that the $99 tracker is ok for some work. Incredible isn't it..? ja

I was aiming for syntheyes ( very good price) but I guess event that is overkill for me right now...
I could get used to the their interface.... but PF Hoe just makes it too simple for a 3d noob (mostly designer) like me... :)


fjv

[Joseppi]

Oh yes, PF Hoe is amazing for the price! It might be interesting to try a moving car, then in 4D shatter an an object with the "explode" deformer so it broke sequentially, and add some pyrocluster clouds of debris...

If you have After Effects, it's like Photshop for video and you can change the composite elements, like layers in Photoshop, so you can render once, and adjust the elements after. Like render a hard shadow, then control the blur, opacity in AE. Pretty fun!

Joe

[Apophis]

Hello

Nice sample...
Can you give me a short workflow for the import,alignment from objects and settings in cinema4d?

Regards

[velarde]

Hey Michael.

You just:

1) Open the the file exported from PF Hoe ( Ligtwave option)
It already has preconfigured the Render settings in the file 720 x 480 (aspect ratio)
and .9 x 1 (pixel size) which corresponds to the rectangular pixels for Mini dv,
Which is a nice touch I think...

2) You create a new material and put your video there. Use this material in a
background object so you can see everything together.


That's it..... :)

If you want to tweak the scene a little bit parent you geometry to a null and move it around..

This tutorial will help from Cineversity:
How to create Shadow catcher objects. So you can integrate your 3d elements to your video.
http://www.cineversity.com/tutorials/lesson.asp?tid=655

Hope this helps.

fjv


P.D. An update to the test.
Movie Test 2 - QT 2.8 MB (http://www.velarde.com/tests/pfhoe_02.mov)

I moved the geometry a little bit trying to compensate.. but I think it looks a little worse (slipping)...

But I think the shadows look a little better :)

[Joseppi]

Fernando,

The shadows look a lot better, and the rising columns is a kind of neat test element. Remind me of the security installations where barriers rise from within the road to block it. Or you could say "Residential Security Defense System" and have some CRAZY SPIKES, hugely dangerous looking, rise up to block the street. It could be a fake company product, a satire. "Worried about speeders on your street? Install "SafetySPIKE 2000"!

From SythnEyes, the common cause for slipping is the floor (Y) hieght is slightly off. The tracker can find the points, but often ground and roads are not 100% flat, but raising and falling, so if our floor height is based on a slight hill in the road, it would not be the true height and cause slipping. You might want to try the ground plane height...

Joe

[graz]

As a user of C4D and Motion 3.0 can anyone comment on a comparison of the various motion tracking apps. available? I've seen Syntheyes and PFHoe but wasn't sure how they compared in regard to capabilities, interface, ease of use, accuracy, etc.
The interface of PFHoe does seem to be quite nice and not very intimidating.

[velarde]

Fernando,

From SythnEyes, the common cause for slipping is the floor (Y) hieght is slightly off. The tracker can find the points, but often ground and roads are not 100% flat, but raising and falling, so if our floor height is based on a slight hill in the road, it would not be the true height and cause slipping. You might want to try the ground plane height...

Joe

Thanks Joe! I had a notion that may be the problem/solution.. but now you confirm it. :)
I'll have to tweak the ground plane position... I moved it down on this second test... but I guess it wasn;t good enough


Graz:
The guys from PFHoe (pixelfarm) recently released a plugin to export to motion 3, which I guess makes them one of the first...

Haven't tested it... don't have motion 3

I download the demo of SynthsEyes and played with their demo files and they worked pretty good. They have a sample file for Cinema ( lightwave export) that you can check out. Both are good, of course Synthseyes is much more professional ( but costs 4 time as much) PFhoe has a simpler automated approach but it may be OK for you ( I like the interface much much more) Can't place manual tracks in the cheap version ($99 USD) you need the pro version for that $200

Download them both and you can make a decision that fits your needs and budget.. :)

fjv

[danb]

This is very helpful. I just got PFHoe.

I'm going to try to make a character animation interact with real background footage.

Thanks for posting.

[Joseppi]

As a user of C4D and Motion 3.0 can anyone comment on a comparison of the various motion tracking apps. available? I've seen Syntheyes and PFHoe but wasn't sure how they compared in regard to capabilities, interface, ease of use, accuracy, etc.
The interface of PFHoe does seem to be quite nice and not very intimidating.

Graz,

SynthEyes is pretty full featured, and pretty amazing for the price and the control it can give, compared to the previous apps that cost thousands of dollars. SE has been used in some pretty big budget movies so it seem to be up to heavy duty tasks.

It can run in auto mode and has options for manual overrides, etc., BUT on the other hand, with all those features, it IS a bit daunting to grasp the meaning of all the various controls... a lot like someone new to Photoshop... they ask what IS all this... Makes sense to people growing up with Photoshop, but the new viewer can be a bit lost. Some of my first attempts at Syntheyes would fizzle with some cryptic msg. like "constraints not set." On "auto", and trying to find out what the program wanted means reading a nearly text based manual, where you find terms like "leaden", "blips", etc. I've never run accross these in 20 years of graphics and video, so I was like a new photoshop user... huh?

SynthEyes does have a lot of walkthroughs and training vids on the site, and those are pretty good. It all looks simple watching the vids... somehow, I would load in my footage, get some error msg, and bog down in the text manual...

This isn't really a bad thing, it's the learning curve for a powerful and capable program. It has the features and control to get solutions if the basic passes have trouble. But, it's like Photoshop, and Photoshop Elements, where they removed the highend features for mom and pop public.

PH Hoe used to be limited to DV rez, so that was a factor for folks working in film or HD, but I think PF Hoe2 has upped the rez for footage.

PH Hoe (I have that too) is a lot less intimidating, and probably less likely to confuse a user. Synth is pretty powerful, and it's easy to wonder what the heck the buttons are doing if you click out of auto mode.

It really just a matter of more practice, and following along the training vids and manual, and devoting some hours to learning the app. I really have only squeezed in some quick test between other projects, so I like seeing other tracking work here.

SynthEyes is around $350 (?) but the updgrades are very reasonably priced. But, if you just want to get a general experience of tracking, and are using DV rez, the $100 PH Hoe wouldn't be a bad choice. It would still add a lot of bang for the buck, going from no tracking, to 3D camera tracking, which is almost magical, to see 3D elements lining up in real world footage. If you knew your needs and projects needed the mid-high level features of SynthEyes, or if if the SE price is in your budget, and you have time to get up to speed in the learning curve, you could apply the $100 PH Hoe to SE. But if you'd like to try tracking at a lower entry price, PH Hoe may just meet your needs.

Now that I have both, guilt tells me I should invest in getting better a SynthEyes, although it's a temptation to click Hoe and be done with it!

: )

Joe

[graz]

Joe,
Thank You very much for the detailed response. Your explanation was very helpful and validated some of my initial guesses about the two applications.

Fernando,
Thanks for starting this post and including Your video clip. Great to see simple, real world examples.

Mike

[StructAural]

wow, I didn't even know about this product - I enviously eye PFTrack occasionally. *goes to buy*.

[ooo]

What a coincidence. I just got back from a projectmeeting and I need some tracking options very soon. Great thread to get me started! Pfhoe (what's in a name) certainly looks very appealing. Checking it out real soon.

odo

[ooo]

Another great testmovie!
You got me sold!

I checked the Pixelfarm website and saw there are 4 versions of PFhoe 1, 2 and then a Pro and an extended version. Version 2 seems to come with a dongle so that frightens me a lot! I cannot find the differences with version 1. Any reason why I shouldn't buy version 1? I think I'lll have to deal with HD 16/9 footage so anyone with experience if that is a good combination with version 1 (extended or not?).
Thanks!

odo

Edit: strange! My post is not at the end of the thread???

Edit2

OK I found out that the Pixelfarm website is rather confusing and even behaves odd and not correct. But there is also the separate pfhoe.com where I can find a lot of answers!

[velarde]

I'm glad people are finding the thread a little useful.

I did one more (last) test for this scene
This is a more simple camera pan.

Movie Test 3 - QT 4 MB (http://www.velarde.com/tests/pfhoe_03.html)


Things I learned doing this shots:

1) Control the camera shake...:)
So to help the software a little and avoid jumps between 3d and actual footage...

2) Keep the shots short
So people won't notice the mistakes

3) A moving walking character ( even better running) is easier to integrate than a stationary object ( slipping is much more noticable)

4) And learn some basic compositing to integrate the shot better and have more control...


Any tips anybody wants to share/add ?


fjv


P.D. mmh.. I guess the Pixel Farm now owes me a favor.. ja

[Joseppi]

...I did one more (last) test for this scene
This is a more simple camera pan....

Hey, it's Robert Patrick from Terminator 2, just before he turns chrome! Also, thanks for the summary & tips. Also, shots that dolly in to increase the drama with closeups or medium shots, also crop out the feet! No feet, no slipping. A lot of creative FX shots are influenced to cut out a problem... that big splash of lava that flared up? Oh, that was to cover a stagehand who was in the shot, and the lava/fire was easier than painting him out... and fire just looks more cool!

Thanks for posting...
Joe

[Rhs_CG]

One thing to remember in general is that your tracks will be more solid with more camera movement. That was why the boxes were jittering a bit towards the end of your first test. Even if you are doing only a pan, play with the amount of sideway's movement you can get away with and still be happy with the shot, as the tracking software will return better results, even with "amature" apps like PFHoe, which I agree is a steal.

Thanks for posting your test.

[danb]

BTW did you use HD res? I have a regular run of the mill consumer mini dv cam and would like to try to convert the footage to HD res, then run the PFHoe solve. Anyone know if there will be problems with this?

[velarde]

Chris:
Thanks for the tip. :)

Daniel:
I used Mini DV 720 x 480 resolution (but you CAN use HD)

The only difference from the pro version ( I downloaded/tested both)
Is that the Pro lets you add manual tracks, you can import image sequences (instead of movie files) and some extra "pro" export formats.

From their website, comparison chart:

http://www.pfhoe.com/support.htm


fjv

P.D. mmh the forum is acting weird.. this message got posted before Joe's...

[Joseppi]

[QUOTE=ooo]...Any reason why I shouldn't buy version 1? I think I'lll have to deal with HD 16/9 footage so anyone with experience if that is a good combination with version 1 (extended or not?).
Thanks!

odo...QUOTE]

odo,

I thought PF Hoe 1 was limited to DV resolution, and PF Hoe 2 upped the available rez.

And yeah, they seemed to have moved the PF Hoe 2 info to a seperate website...

Joe

[ooo]

[QUOTE=ooo]...Any reason why I shouldn't buy version 1? I think I'lll have to deal with HD 16/9 footage so anyone with experience if that is a good combination with version 1 (extended or not?).
Thanks!

odo...QUOTE]

odo,

I thought PF Hoe 1 was limited to DV resolution, and PF Hoe 2 upped the available rez.

And yeah, they seemed to have moved the PF Hoe 2 info to a seperate website...

Joe

Thanks Joe,

I already bought my PFhoe 2 copy. The Pixelfarmwebsite is a bit outdated and inconsistently but the pfhoe.com is offering helpfull info including available rez etc. I will receive some test footage in a few days so I'm looking forward to the results.

How would one make a transition from the tracking camera to a C4D cam? I need to add some 3D to a HD videotrack and then make a transition to a full CG scene (with free moving C4D cam) and after that return to the video footage cam again. It needs to be one fluid camera move (no breaks or shifts). Any tips would be welcome!

odo

[Joseppi]

BTW did you use HD res? I have a regular run of the mill consumer mini dv cam and would like to try to convert the footage to HD res, then run the PFHoe solve. Anyone know if there will be problems with this?

Danb,

I think that would introduce slipping. Upscalling is going to interpolate new pixels, that have the chance of being less accurate than the original rez pixels. You'd probably get better results tracking the original rez footage, then upscaling to "HD" for the compositing stage. Although there is specialized upscaling software, the results may not be as good as you would hope, and upscaling you could do with After Effects or video editing programs will probably look pretty soft. Try testing upscaling to see how it looks before planning on it for your production flow. Even trying to enlarge DV footage a little, starts to soften/pixelate it, I never went for a dramatic HD type change. If your tests look pretty good, please share!

Joe

[Joseppi]

One thing to remember in general is that your tracks will be more solid with more camera movement. That was why the boxes were jittering a bit towards the end of your first test. Even if you are doing only a pan, play with the amount of sideway's movement you can get away with and still be happy with the shot, as the tracking software will return better results, even with "amature" apps like PFHoe, which I agree is a steal.

Thanks for posting your test.

SynthEyes site has some pre-shooting/planning tips on what contributes to better solves, and basically, it's parallax, where there is moving depth, changing locations of foreground, middleground, background...

http://www.ssontech.com/mmove.htm

and especially this one:
http://www.ssontech.com/pathology.htm

Joe

[heathivan]

velarde,

This thread pushed me over the edge. I took the jump and am very impressed with pfhoes ease. Followed your instructions and I've just successfully tracked my first shot.

thanks again for teaching and sharing your experience,

---h

[velarde]

Yep.. the forum is acting like a Vegas roultette

Let's see where my post ends....
(Posted Sept 1 - 8:00 PM Central time)


Just to make it clear to the persons that are going to the PixelFarm site... (which I didn't check out afterwards and IT ITS very confusing)

I just went to:

http://www.pfhoe.com/

And there saw the 2 options: PFhoe 2 and PFHoe Pro 2 ... (they don;t need a dongle) I think they jump there to PF Track and such.... I don't think I would buy the 1 version.. maybe its old code and won't work on Intel macs (if you have MacOSX)

They also just announced 2.1 which will have Motion 3 export (which you can download now ). http://www.pfhoe.com/press.htm

I think 1 may be even too amateur even for us.. but I don't know...

There's the comparison chart in the "support" section between the regular version and Pro version

http://www.pfhoe.com/support.htm


Would be cool to see other tests and more tips... In this or other thread.

fjv

[Kokosing]

I'm glad people are finding the thread a little useful.

I did one more (last) test for this scene
This is a more simple camera pan.



I'm very impressed with this one: A. because it's a great track, and B. because I had no idea that Hoe could handle a shot like this. I've worked with Match and Track quite a bit. I would probably expect my old version of Match to fail on this shot simply because it's a combination of free camera movement and nodal pan - the sort of things that matchmovers hate. I know Track could handle it but that's because it's designed to deal with that sort of problem - and has a price to match. If Hoe can do this, well, that's very cool.

W

[ooo]

I also have to deal with footage with free camera movement and even zooming. I did a rough test with a lousy copy of the footage and that was already very usable. Some sliding does occur though... Wih a bit of tweaking and the HiRez footage that I suppose to get things can only be better. Really very impressed with this tool!

odo

[Siahpoosh]

i think its have problem ... the boxes have noise move.

but scene orientation is great.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.