Renders

[Sean_E]

The approach sequence should start with them exiting the transport portal as Sitters has it (top forward, primary engines pushing).  But as they come around the moon they transition to a "guns down" position.  I say this because the momentum they will be carrying as they approach will be enough to get them to earth.  Plus I think it would be more dramatic to see them go through the transition as they round the moon and earth comes into sight.

Regards,
Sean E

[Psawhn]

Shakeycam works well if it's done well. As much as I love nBSG, and other series that use shakeycam, sometimes it's just too much. It's like they deliberately put the cameraman on a vibrating platform.

What shakeycam tries to emulate is a documentary-style camera, where you only have handheld cameras and no such thing as steadycam, dollys, cranes, etc...

Have a look on the wiki at the research article 'Alien Origins'. If we get to be able to play videos in the UFOpaedia, it would fit perfectly. Wink

We may have to adjust the distances cited in the article to fit, but that's no problem at all.

And having such a video would, I'm sure, convince our coders to implement it . . .

That's where my inspiration came from.

[Winter]

I really hate it when people use that. Just have a look at the new BSG series. It's impossible to watch it comfortably because the camera bounces all over the damn place.

I love shakycam when it's done well, as seen in Firefly and to a lesser extent nBSG. The wing-mounted shots in Firefly, for example, felt a hundred times more real than the static, clinical and lifeless CG of any Star Trek series (and by extention most sci-fi series in general).

And in this project we wouldn't be happy with it unless it was damned finely done.

The approach sequence should start with them exiting the transport portal as Sitters has it (top forward, primary engines pushing).  But as they come around the moon they transition to a "guns down" position.  I say this because the momentum they will be carrying as they approach will be enough to get them to earth.  Plus I think it would be more dramatic to see them go through the transition as they round the moon and earth comes into sight.

Exactly, that's why the guns are on the 'bottom' of the craft. Now that we're extending the UFO FTL point to the dark side of the moon, then yes, it would be very good to show the Carriers' turnover at some point between the moon and Earth. Would it be possible to show (semi-)realistic acceleration and deceleration during the entire scene, though? *grins*

That's where my inspiration came from.

You never mentioned.

If you do create an animation for that scene, mind you, it should only be a single Carrier. My suggestions: First a second of flashing in and starting up the engines, then it starts heading off to Earth, and then the video would cut to the Carrier making turnover with Earth approaching in the background.

Regards,
Winter

[sitters]

You right winter, there was something wrong with the thickness of the carriers.

Here an improved version, also change some lightning and timing.


http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon12.xvid.avi

Willem

[Sean_E]

Okay, this is me goofing with some new lens effect settings.....opinions:



Regards,
Sean E

[Winter]

You right winter, there was something wrong with the thickness of the carriers.

Here an improved version, also change some lightning and timing.


http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon12.xvid.avi

Willem

Looks better. Further suggestions of mine would either be too small to bother with, or large additions to the animation (i.e. showing the Carriers 'flashing' in instead of simply appearing from the dark side of the moon).

When making the finished movie, though, is there a way you can make playback less jaggy? To me it views like there just aren't quite enough frames in the movie.

Okay, this is me goofing with some new lens effect settings.....opinions:

I don't think it really works, to be honest with you. The lighting doesn't look like it's in space and although it falls across the Carriers nicely it ends up giving the whole image a slightly washed-out effect.

Regards,
Winter

[Sean_E]

Okay, got home and got on a color balanced system. Here is a new render with a dulled down sun without all the flares and rays.
I think this one works better:



Critiques and opinions?  If this is looking decent I planned on using these settings for animation purposes.

Regards,
Sean E

[Psawhn]

For a shot like that, it would really help if some of the self-lit/emitting parts were actually self-lit. If you had an emit map, would your program allow you to do that? Otherwise, it's definitely improved on the previous image.

Sitters, do you have the emitting parts separated in your source texture files? I've made an emitting matte based on pure colours, but it's inaccurate (see the posted carrier a page or two back).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Psawhn/UFO-AI/emit_matte.png

[sitters]

Looks better. Further suggestions of mine would either be too small to bother with, or large additions to the animation (i.e. showing the Carriers 'flashing' in instead of simply appearing from the dark side of the moon).

When making the finished movie, though, is there a way you can make playback less jaggy? To me it views like there just aren't quite enough frames in the movie.


Regards,
Winter

You right, for an movie there arent enough frames in the movie.
But I do that for reducing the render time.
Its just for looking, if the scene is OK.

I  want to make three movie clips, this is the middle on.
I make one the carriers are coming from an worm hole.
And I make one the carriers are going in orbit of the earth, and start the invasion.

Then when all the clips are OK, i make them with normal frame count.
now I have approx 30-40 minutes render time for an clip, then you can multiply it by 5.

But I must also know, what Sean_E and Psawhn are planning for animation, so we dont work on the same thing, and we don't waste time with making the same.
we can better work together for making one movie.


BTW:

Sean_E : looks nice but the carriers are not flying that way, i did make the same mistake in the past.
Psawhn : i have baked an luminance map for the lights, i don't know if you can use that.

Willem

[Winter]

I  want to make three movie clips, this is the middle on.
I make one the carriers are coming from an worm hole.
And I make one the carriers are going in orbit of the earth, and start the invasion.

I don't think you should tack on another clip in front of this one containing just the Carriers flashing in. It would look a lot more awesome if you modified the current clip so that we see the Carriers flashing in abruptly when the camera turns around to see the dark side of the moon.

Would that be okay or are you dead set against it?

Regards,
Winter

[Mattn]

i'm currently reencoding with ffmpeg with the current flags:

Code: [Select]

./ffmpeg -threads 2 -i moon12.xvid.avi -s 1024x512 -minrate 3000000 -maxrate 6000000 -g 1000 -ar 22050 out.roq

[sitters]

I don't think you should tack on another clip in front of this one containing just the Carriers flashing in. It would look a lot more awesome if you modified the current clip so that we see the Carriers flashing in abruptly when the camera turns around to see the dark side of the moon.

Would that be okay or are you dead set against it?

Regards,
Winter

No problem , i look if i can make a nice entry for the carriers, i only render then that part.
for look the effect.

Willem

[Sean_E]

Sitters:  I did make a render with the engines facing camera, but it felt so.... blah

As for animation pieces.  Since you and I (and anyone else) are using different design and rendering engines, it would make sense to only have one person do the animation for consistency purposes.  So, I leave it up to the powers that be to make that decision.  Of course we can work on separate sequences, but I don't think working on the same would be a good idea.

What rendering engine does C4D use by the way?

Regards,
Sean E

[Winter]

Mattn has just confirmed to me that we've now got support for animations in the UFOpaedia, with or without sound. So, gentlemen, we have free rein.

Along with the sequence for Alien Origins (which Psawhn has volunteered for, I think) and the sequence sitters is working on, we also need a sequence that features the Carrier being shot down by a PHALANX-modified space launch gun built into a mountainside. The script goes like this:

The space gun is essentially a massive railgun for launching satellites and stuff, modified by PHALANX to shoot huge rocket-propelled shells into orbit. The Carrier may avoid one or two shots, but should eventually be hit by the gun (resulting in a nuclear explosion of 3 kilotons, the payload of the shell), at which point the Carrier returns fire with its orbital cannons and obliterates the mountain, space gun and all. After this we see the Carrier slowly tumbling down into the atmosphere, gaining loads of heat and speed as gravity takes hold. It will probably break up into pieces at some point during or after entering the atmosphere. The pieces will land spectacularly -- but at least some of these pieces should be intact enough for a tactical mission to be launched at them.

Would anyone be interest in taking on this admittedly complex scene? If so, we can work out a more detailed script together.

Regards,
Winter

[Sean_E]

<raising hand>.....ummmm

What happens to the 3 kiloton shells that miss the UFO?  That's a lot of explosive power coming back down to earth?   

Regards,
Sean E