View Full Version : First test animation

08 August 2005, 05:37 AM
Let me know what you think?

Personally, I think I needed to do something to keep it from looking sort of
static-y-ish or off-grainy or not smooth or whatver term I'm wishing I could think of,
but you can see what I mean by viewing the animation that it NEEDS something, but what?
Or maybe it needed Motion Blur or DOF or more AA or something?
Less haze, clearer atmosphere?

Anyway, at least I got the time the way I wanted it :)
I just want more perfection, is all.

Thanx, and serious critiques are :)
Animation: 7.19megs 30 seconds:

08 August 2005, 07:41 PM
39 views, but NO critiques, thoughts or suggestions?

I was looking for some feedback, as I want to learn.
Maybe there's just not that many who know the program well enough
yet to give any realistic and constructive opinions or points of view?
It's just hard to come up with what might be needed, when you can't
really tell what something will look like UNTIL you render out an animation.
I've seen some animations, including a couple that come with Vue, that look
like they have "too much" blur added to them, and I don't want that either.

Oh :)

08 August 2005, 07:59 PM
Try changing the reflection and refaction.


08 August 2005, 08:12 PM
You mean, on the plants, rocks or ground materials?
Just want to make sure I understand which part I should be looking at?
Since I didn't think I had 'any' of those things in that scene, considering it's nothing
but boring ground and rocks and shrubs and grass with a few dead trees in it.

Thanx, and while I wait, I think I'll get started on the Camera tutorial I promised to post up. :)

08 August 2005, 08:43 PM
Are you asking why the rocks look jittery? Like they are moving a little. I think it may be an illusion from getting reflection early from the light. I thought it was the movies quality setting myself. Render it out at a higher Resolution, and take another look at it.

08 August 2005, 08:59 PM
I'll give it another shot at the rendering output part, but I had set it to the
highest quality DivX had, so I would of figured that would be good enough?
Guess not?

I just didn't want to render to QT or something, as that stupid
thing ALWAYS quadrupples the size of the files, no matter what.
That's why I never use QT for animations.

I'll try out a test of a non-compression format of something and see if that makes
any difference, but of course, that will also render the animation totally useless,
as the file size will go clean through the roof and I won't be able to post it, or to
put it another way, no one will bother waiting for the download time just to watch it.

I spent quite a while last night trying to come up with something that looked
pretty good but still would keep the file size down some,
but I'll give `er another shot and se what happens.

And thanx for taking the time to comment and make a suggestion too :)

Oh, and BTW, I already have the frames rendered out, so that's what I'm working from.
Which also means, if the rendered frames themselves are the problem, then I'm screwed,
as that means UI'll have to spend another whole day rendering out the thing again.
Though, it looks like I'll have no choice in the matter and HAVE TO rerender it all out. :)

08 August 2005, 09:54 PM
Sorry. my fist post disappeared. Was on the run trying to make it to work on time.

Your getting what I call pixaltion. No better name for it. Change the amount of reflection in the material. The setting in the atmosphere also has a lot to do with this. Try playing with its settings.

Could you post you file? I could help more if I could see it.


08 August 2005, 09:59 PM
Why don't you zoom in your camera toward the ground, and set up a smaller animation cycle, only shorter) and see if the rocks are actually moving at the current settings, or something. Like I said, I don't have Vue; so I'm just looking at it with no real knowledge of what your dealing with. Don't waste your time on some huge render when it could be in the manual, or something less time consuming. If you have the manual I would just pull up a chair, and do a little reading, and see if you can get anything out of that. It's bound to help your knowledge of the application on some level regardless. :)

[EDIT] I would go with what dueyftw said while I was writing this post. He obviously knows the application better than I. :thumbsup:

08 August 2005, 01:16 AM
Hey Mark, I was one of those 39. lol Had to run for my train to Siggraph, so no time then to reply. Didn't matter, really, since I know nothing about animating in Vue. I do hope you become an expert, so then you can teach me.

Actually, animation has been around number 9 or 10 on my list of Vue things to try. But our discussion of deserts in the other thread gave me an idea for an animation that I may find impossible to resist. We'll have to see how much free time I have in the next couple weeks. Since I think you know our SoCal deserts much better than I do, I'll be hoping for your feedback.

Juergen S.
08 August 2005, 05:45 AM

nice start. :)

It would be better to see the animation in a bigger resolution and a better compression. Some smear effects looks like they come from DivX. The color look a little flat to me, but this can also be a problem with compression.

08 August 2005, 12:05 AM
Thanx all.

I think it's just the way I tried to get away with rendering out from Vue at the
Final rez instead of using Broadcast, which was more then twice as long to render.

Because the images look this way before I ever even combine them into a video clip.
As for the manual, thanx, but I've been doing more reading then I think most people
on the planet ever imagine doing LOL
Meaning, yes, I've been reading it a lot, but I've done more reading in the Help file
that comes with Vue, as I can get things done a lot quicker, due to the fact that I
can use the search engine to find related topics a whole lot quicker then using the manual.
But, more then that, I've spent even more hours reading every flipping thing I can find on
the internet, like I always do once I get started on something, exspecially if it's
something new to me and I don't know much about somthing.

What I was doing, was trying to cheat with render times, by using the Final render mode,
which as any of you who already know about Vue's different renderings, you know that
the Final mode doesn't quite look as good as the next step up to Broadcast.
But Broadcast adds more then twice the render times.
Then what I thought I could do from there was and is, what I've been doing,
which is to load in the sequence into LW and adjust the antialiasing from LW.
This sort of seems to work, but I only have one test left to try, since it's obviously
NOT working out the way I had hoped for, and that is to do the Action bit in PS
and maybe get better AA done to the sequence of images?

But, at this point, I think I really just need to rethink my settings, i.e. the Atmosphere,
in Vue and other such things, like what has been mentioned here, but of course, that
also means a zillion more hours of renderings, EVEN IF I only do a few frames worth for
a test animation, if they work out, I'll still have to re-render the whole thing all over
again, and at this point, I'm really sick of looking at this same scene LOL

So, to sum it all up, I just want to say thanx to everyone here who has replied,
even the read the manual tip too :)
In otherwords, I really appreciate the time people took to contribute any ideas
and suggestions or comments/tips/or tricks :)

Just out of curiosity, how many here in this forum, are LW users?
I sort of feel like I'm about the only LW'er here, but I think I heard
someone say that they use LW, but are there more then that?

I'm about to post up my tutorial on how you can change the camera
(or any other object for that matter) timing, by stretching out the time
so that you still keep your keyframes intact where they were.
If this doesn't make sense to you right now, it will when you see the tut :)

Oh, and BTW, just to show how badly QT handles things, I set it to the highest
setting and Best and made an anim from those settings, and it took my little
2meg DivX animation and made a 235+megs animation out of the same exact frames!

The largest I got from Divx was a little over 7megs.
And yes, the BEST that QT could offer, still looked just the
same as my little 2meg DivX animation, so it wasn't any better.
Why does QT insist on creating such rediculous file sized animations
compared to ANY other format out there!?

Anyway, thanx and I'll keep you all updated on what I end up finding out that works. :)

CGTalk Moderation
08 August 2005, 12:05 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.