Render #22 (animation test bottom page 8)
-
-
This is how the RAW Indigo output looked like as a reference, before I unleashed the postprocessing artillery...
It had a cooler tonality...maybe better than the post processed one?
What do you guys think? (some .jpeg artifacts because of web compression)To view full size: (Firefox:right click- view image) (IExplorer:right click - image save as)
-
I like the cooler one slightly better. Cool plants, btw.
@remus said:
That last one looks like a giant 70s spaceship just landed in someones back garen during a bbq (and no one noticed.)
Look at the color of their skin, man. They're zombies! They don't care!
-
nitpickers!
-
By the way....the animation is cooking
-
Ah, cool.
Don't forget to add some poor soul for the undead to chase! -
Ooooh, an animation, you do spoil us kwist!
-
Chris,
The belly of the beast provides an example of how it's possible to make some interesting use of SketchUp's poor texture projecting. The distorted texture gives the bottom a weathered/patched gritty look that adds weight to the composition. If I had to provide a backstory for the image I'd say it's a 50 year old Zaha Hadid structure that has been down on its luck but is still loved and cared for by its owners of modest means. It reminds me of the sort of feeling that George Lucas was evoking with the battered Millenium Falcon.
Fred
-
How long did that take to cook? it looks very good btw, i look forward to the full thing.
-
Great start!
(OT: It just keeps baffling me what kind of functionality and quality (Sk)Indigo offers por nada.)
-
....and OT back at ya, stinkie : try animation with the (almost) one thousand dollar unbiased packages (Fry,Maxwell): it's a no go.
@Remus: the above small animation was rendered @5 minutes per frame with a framerate of 10fps (which normally should be 25fps for fluid animations).....so go do the math
Heck..I'll do it for you: 10 seconds of animation = 100 frames X 5 min. per frame= 500 minutes= 8 hours
-
Interesting stuff Chris.
-
Cheers kwist, looks like the long render time paid off
Id hate to think aobut the render times if you had anything complex in there though 
-
Thanks Sepo and Remus.
@remus said:
Cheers kwist, looks like the long render time paid off
Id hate to think aobut the render times if you had anything complex in there though This is the typical quality at real size I am getting per frame, rendered for 5 minutes:
When you keep the render size small like this, the quality/speed ratio is reasonable.
Not too shabby for an unbiased engine. -
Very good job but the music almost killed me!
-
@lapx said:
THIS IS REALLY NICE DUDE
I will have to buy this program FFD 
FFD is free by the way just look it up
-
In this scene FFD ('FreeFormDeformation') wasn't used, although it could have been useful.
Instead the following was used:- Subdivide and smooth: (see smustard website).
- JointPushPull
- Surface tools
Those 4 plugins make a fine combo for non-orthogonal modeling.
-
.A preliminary animation as a preview for the full version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0asIfICKEM
[flash=425,344:3exmy7jd]http://www.youtube.com/v/r0asIfICKEM[/flash:3exmy7jd]
-
so let me get this strait, you had to render EVERY SINGLE FRAME in that animation?!?!?!?!?!
holy crap! that must've taken forever!!!
great animation BTW -
The tweens in the beginning and at the end are made from stills.
The middle part was indeed rendered frame per frame. That took something less than 30 hours.
Thanks for the comment.
Advertisement