I’ve placed this question in another forum but related with FumeFx.
It seems that this dissolve effect is more related to particles.
http://www.youtube.com/user/bank508max
Hope someone can tell me something.
I’ve been searching and I find this tutorial from Allan but my objective is to make it based on an image.
http://vfxsolution.com/allanmckay/2009/11/legacy-fx-tutorials/
Cheers
I’ll do that.
Thanks
Is this the one you were talking?
http://software.primefocusworld.com/software/support/krakatoa/camera_mapping_particles_using_dataflow.php
In Maya I remember we can project via nparticles the image.
I though we could do something similar here.
Instead of making this to the geometry I would do it to the image.
Is this possible? Dissolve an image?
Nope.
This is old and more for amusement, plus it uses Box #3 or MAXScript.
This tutorial, although over a year old, gives the basic idea:
http://www.studiodaily.com/studiomonthly/tutorials/trainup/Disintegrate-Geometry-Objects-using-Frantic-Films-Krakatoa-and-Autodesk-3ds-Max_10691.html
In the CGTalk Krakatoa thread, I posted an updated workflow description about 2 days ago. It would be very useful to you to read what is being posted in that thread.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=6522542&postcount=1087
Also, particles with camera projection on them ARE like the pixels of an image, but in 3D.
So there is no need to work on an image when you can use the particles as canvas for your images and do anything with them.
Also, particles with camera projection on them ARE like the pixels of an image, but in 3D. So there is no need to work on an image when you can use the particles as canvas for your images and do anything with them.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
So theres no need for me to create any geometry right?
I asking because the method I was thinking of using was to create the face in 3D and then dissolve from that.
In these examples, you use both. The polygon model was used to render the projection image, then the particles were distributed onto the geometry’s surface. So the geometry was used in the process, just not directly.
But still If I have an image in motion, like a face in my case, I have to have a geometry model for it?
Thanks Bobo
Depends.
You can project an image of a moving face onto any particles. But if you want the particles to have the 3D shape of that face, you would need its 3D mesh. For example, the car examples you see are generally created by taking a 3D mesh of the car, placing particles on all surfaces and projecting a rendering of that mesh through the same camera used in the particle rendering, but using something like mental ray of VRay or Scanline etc. This gives you a 2D image of the 3D mesh that matches what the Krakatoa camera would see, and each pixel of the 2D image lands on a 3D “pixel” (particle) in 3D space. The color of that pixel sticks to the particle so if the particle moves around in 3D space due to Wind or other forces, the color is still the same as if the particle did not move. This produces the effect of the image dissolving because the particles move but their color stays the same according to the projection.
Here is the very first example of the effect created before Krakatoa was even called Krakatoa:
http://software.primefocusworld.com/software/support/krakatoa/work_in_progress_gallery.php#Mini_Cooper_Demo
Notice how all raytracing effects like reflections in the windshields etc. are still in tact even when the particles start moving…
Now I get it.
The geometry of the mesh is completely necessary.
I was hoping not but I have to build the face and the animation corresponding to the image sequence. Some extra work but it will look great thanks to what you said before.
A huge thanks Bobo.
Really appreciate all the help.
I’ll post any further doubts or problems her.
Hope I can post some tests soon.
I’ll work on that.
Cheers
Bobo I think I’m going to try that dissolve effect but in 2D.
When I say 2D there are some considerations that I don’t know the answer.
Has I’m going to try to dissolve a face I wanted to ask you if I could use a plane for example.
His it possible that he could recognize an image with alpha channel?
Thanks
Yes, that should be easier.
*Create a plane.
*Convert to particles - either using a PRT Volume or using PFlow.
*Align a Free Camera to the Plane to project the image onto the plane of particles
*Assign a Material to the particles using Standard Material with Camera Map Per-Pixel map in the diffuse slot.
*Pick the new camera in the Camera Map Per Pixel map
*If the image is a sequence of images (animation), check the “Sequence” checkbox in the Bitmap texture map when loading to turn into an IFL so the animation would get projected over time
*Repeat the same for the Opacity channel, using the Alpha of the image sequence - this will control the Density of the particles so where alpha is 0, the particle won’t render.
*Now use Krakatoa to save these particles to disk as PRT sequence, including Position, Color and Density channels.
*Load this sequence into a new PRT Loader
*Create a Particle Flow with Krakatoa PRT Birth and Krakatoa PRT Update operators picking the PRT Loader. Check the Color channel to be loaded. (for the Density, we will have to do some more work though).
*Apply forces to the particles to dissolve the plane - the colors saved in the PRT Sequence will stick to the particles though.
As mentioned, the Density does not go into PFlow directly because it has no concept of Density. Thus, we will have to add a KCM on top of the PRT Loader, switch the Input node to Density channel, switch the Output channel to MXSFloat and make sure the MXSFloat input is checked in the Krakatoa PRT Update operator of the PFlow. Now add a Krakatoa Options operator and check “MXSFloat->Density”. This tell Krakatoa to read the MXSFloat channel we just copied the Density to as the Density at render time.
This setup will require a light to illuminate the particles, otherwise you will get black. If you prefer to render without lights, you can add a global override KCM in the Krakatoa Render Globals rollout and copy the Color channel into the Emission channel, then enable Use Emission. This will make the particles self-illuminated with the color saved in the Color channel we projected and saved previously…
Note that this is all from top of my head, I have not tried it out yet and it might not work in some points - if you hit a wall, post here. I might try it out after dinner…
Don’t know how to thank you bobo.
Fantastic.
Here in Portugal is 3.30 AM
I’ll try this right in the morning.
I’ll post any doubts I may have.
A huge thanks bobo.
I definitely owe you not one but twenty or fifty.
Talk with you soon.
Cheers
Hello Bobo,
first I would like to thank you for the amazing guide you give.
The only thing I couldn’t do was this:
copy the Color channel into the Emission channel, then enable Use Emission. This will make the particles self-illuminated with the color saved in the Color channel we projected and saved previously…
I have a few doubts about this process.
In terms of particles it looks strange as you can look in the image cause I was expecting in getting it clearly. I increased a lot the number of particles don’t know why it looks like this way - small dots. I’ve noticed that when I’m rendering the particles I’m loosing the image. Should I render this with scanline or krakatoa? I’m not quite understanding the process for the final rendering.
My other question is related with the size of the image. My image is 640*480. How can I do the correct resolution when I’m creating a plane and transforming it to .prt Volume?
I used a wind force perhaps not the best choice to disperse the particles.
I’m going to bed but I’ll do this again and I’ll post my scene file with an single image for you to understand better my doubts.
If you don’t mind Bobo.
In the Global Render Values rollout, press “Create New Global Override Set” and edit the resulting MagmaFlow to output the Color channel (already set as input) to the Emission channel (in the output node). Then check “>Use Emission” in the Main Controls rollout.
You are supposed to render as particles in Krakatoa (or as voxels, if you have to, but that will produce less obvious image). You will need a relatively high particle count to get a solid looking plane, but it depends on the distance from which you are watching and the final resolution of the particle rendering. About a million particles at least.
Since the image is being projected using a Camera Map Per Pixel map and all particles with Alpha 0 will not be rendered, it doesn’t matter much what the aspect of the plane/particle system is as long as the camera projects on the particles.
I also used a turbulent Wind space warp and with the right settings it can look pretty good, although a FumeFX sim would look a lot more “physically correct”.
I am not sure where the renderer confusion comes from - you render the image to be projected in whatever renderer you want (Scanline, mental ray, VRay) and the particles in Krakatoa. It IS possible to render particles as meshes in Scanline, but then you would need some sort of shape mesh on each particle and it will be slow, plus it would require some Vertex Color maps in a Standard Material to make the saved colors visible…
Hope this answers your question somewhat. If not, continue posting.
Since the image is being projected using a Camera Map Per Pixel map and all particles with Alpha 0 will not be rendered, it doesn’t matter much what the aspect of the plane/particle system is as long as the camera projects on the particles.
Ok ok it makes sense. I have to define that in the rendering camera settings to the proper resolution. I don’t have this clear in my head cause of Maya. I’ve started to ork within Max without studying the basics. What as been helping me his a plugin from digital raster that passes some shortcuts from maya to max.
When you talk about aligning the camera the only thing I did was to place it, at the origin in the top view looking down. This is right correct?
but it depends on the distance from which you are watching and the final resolution of the particle rendering. About a million particles at least.
I made 10 partitions probably I’ll need more…
I’ll post my scene file and some imagens of my next test.
Once again THANK YOU
If the plane and the resulting particles are at the origin in the horizontal plane, then a camera placed above them would work. Basically imagine the Camera were a Projector that sends the color information to the particles.
I made 10 partitions probably I’ll need more…
Are you using a PRT Volume or PFlow to create the particles? If you are using PRT Volume, partitioning won’t work - just increase the number of particles per voxel. If you are using PFlow with Position Object operator, then more particles per partition and more partitions are both ok ideas.
I will try to write a short tutorial with screenshots later today.
Are you using a PRT Volume or PFlow to create the particles? If you are using PRT Volume, partitioning won’t work - just increase the number of particles per voxel. If you are using PFlow with Position Object operator, then more particles per partition and more partitions are both ok ideas.
I’ve started using a PRT Volume.
That’s why I couldn’t increase the number or the detail related with the particles.
I used the PRT Volume cause I wasn’t sure how to transform the plane into particles.
I think the process is exactly like in this tutorial right?
http://software.primefocusworld.com/software/support/krakatoa/basic_particle_rendering_tutorial_demo_file.php
Where you change the teapot by particles.
Right?
