Renders

[Psawhn]

Actually, Winter, if you want to be "really" accurate with the turnover, it would take several hours to complete the transition from the Moon to the Earth even at 1g acceleration. In an overly simplified calculation, ignoring gravity and orbital velocities, starting and stopping from zero speed, we get these figures for an Earth-Moon transition.
0.3g: 12 hours
0.5g: 9.3 hours
1g: 6.5 hours
2g: 4.6 hours
4g: 3.3 hours
16g: 1.6 hours
200g: 27 minutes
800g: 14 minutes
10000g: 4 minutes

Sitters' animation falls under the 4-minutes category, but I doubt even the incredible antimatter drives can pump out the bone-liquefying acceleration of 98100m/s^2 .
Of course, the best way to present these would be to cut between different shots of the carriers at different points of their travel.


And in other news: I'm somewhat an idiot. For the simple shot of a space telescope observing a Carrier's in-jump, I had it all set up with planetary atmospheres and overexposure and stuff, wasting time without actually getting any important bits of the animation done. /Thwack Self

[Winter]

Actually, Winter, if you want to be "really" accurate with the turnover, it would take several hours to complete the transition from the Moon to the Earth even at 1g acceleration. In an overly simplified calculation, ignoring gravity and orbital velocities, starting and stopping from zero speed, we get these figures for an Earth-Moon transition.

Oh, I know. I think of the animation as using time-compression (at least in places), as I wouldn't want the intro to go on for hours.

Of course, the best way to present these would be to cut between different shots of the carriers at different points of their travel.

Agreed, that's what I'd prefer, but sitters is making the vid, not I. No vid-making skills here.

And in other news: I'm somewhat an idiot. For the simple shot of a space telescope observing a Carrier's in-jump, I had it all set up with planetary atmospheres and overexposure and stuff, wasting time without actually getting any important bits of the animation done. /Thwack Self

Well, you're not on a time limit. Just try not to let yourself get too carried away.

Regards,
Winter

[Psawhn]

Actually, cutting the video up into several shots would also cut down on rendering times. You'd only have to re-render parts of animation, and the overall length could also be cut down. I also render to multiple image files - sometimes you'd only have to re-render a matter of frames.

Oh, I'll also plug Blender's sequence editor here for vid-making from existing video/image files. It's capable, plus the only thing it costs is a bit of time to learn.

And the thing's rendering right now. It'll be done in the morning and if it (hopefully! ) looks okay I'll post an xvid of it. A lot of the effects I've wasted time on worked on won't be in the video, namely Earth (plus its atmosphere) and post-processed overexposure.

But it does include shakeycam as applied to a gyroscopically-controlled orbiting telescope.

Edit: Done

Here's the initial draft. https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/final_anim10001_0325.avi

There are a few things I'd want to fix. One of the biggest is that the shot passes in front of the moon, but I forgot to turn the moon on. (Oops). I could probably extend the shot of the engines burning for several seconds. I also think the pace is much too fast. And I also meant to have an initial movement of the camera (search mode.)

[Winter]

Actually, cutting the video up into several shots would also cut down on rendering times. You'd only have to re-render parts of animation, and the overall length could also be cut down. I also render to multiple image files - sometimes you'd only have to re-render a matter of frames.

Oh, I'll also plug Blender's sequence editor here for vid-making from existing video/image files. It's capable, plus the only thing it costs is a bit of time to learn.

And the thing's rendering right now. It'll be done in the morning and if it (hopefully! ) looks okay I'll post an xvid of it. A lot of the effects I've wasted time on worked on won't be in the video, namely Earth (plus its atmosphere) and post-processed overexposure.

But it does include shakeycam as applied to a gyroscopically-controlled orbiting telescope.

Edit: Done

Here's the initial draft. https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/final_anim10001_0325.avi

There are a few things I'd want to fix. One of the biggest is that the shot passes in front of the moon, but I forgot to turn the moon on. (Oops). I could probably extend the shot of the engines burning for several seconds. I also think the pace is much too fast. And I also meant to have an initial movement of the camera (search mode.)

To be honest with you, it looks a bit weird currently -- images captured by a space telescope being in that resolution, especially at that range, and the telescope moving to track the UFO?

What I'd prefer to see rather than a 'search mode' opening is the same clip, first played at a very large distance at a stupidly wide-angled resolution (featuring both Earth in the corner and the moon, and maybe Mars in the background somewhere) so the Carrier is only a small coloured blob in the distance. Then the clip restarts with a blinky zooming-in box over the place where the Carrier arrives, and then it plays out as it does now. This would be (in my humble opinion) more visually impressive, more representative of the power of a 2084-era space telescope, and makes the slow camera a part of the zooming-in effect and therefore more plausible.

One last comment: blue propellant exhaust doesn't really fit the Carrier, as we've used green exhaust everywhere else, and the really long exhaust trail doesn't match up with the other images of the Carrier so far. A trail that long implies ridiculously high acceleration when this thing should ideally come across as a slow, lumbering beast among UFOs.

Regards,
Winter

[Psawhn]

I agree with you that it seems off. I figured it had an onboard computer set to focus on and track anything not predicted in the database. I figured it was that or have the carrier be only several dozen pixels large - though that might work neat with artificial zooming showing a grainy picture.

I never would have thought of splitting up the shot into two passes - that should work really well.

Technically, a long exhaust trail means high efficiency, rather than high thrust, but I see what you mean. I've toned it down, and changed the colour to whitish-green. I don't like the idea of the carrier riding on a soft, fluffy green cushion, though, so I'll try to find a balance.

Edit: Okay, rendered out.

https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_Jump_Final30001_0850.avi

It's fun when you set something to render overnight, then when you get back you immediately see several things wrong with it. 
-Stars don't move properly for the second 'zoomed in' pass. This is because I used a different method of tracking for the second 'zoomed in' camera. I had to use two cameras because Blender doesn't allow cameras to zoom in far enough.
This is why the carrier's movement seems so erratic - it's actually moving properly, but the stars in the background are what's moving erratically.

-You can barely see anything of the carrier in the first pass. The two ways to fix it are either to zoom in (thus clipping off the Earth to the left) or to move the carrier closer to the Earth.

-The Earth is pure white. For some reason, whenever the camera isn't looking directly at the Earth the atmosphere turns really really bright. I can pan the camera out from the Earth to show that there actually is stuff beneath (and the thing actually orbits the Earth, too), or try to reduce the glare, or just leave it as it is as a stylistic choice showing overexposure. (The Hubble telescope doesn't point anywhere near the Earth, Moon, or Sun to avoid damaging its optics.)

I also haven't added the post-pro zooming effect yet, either. These are just the 'raw' passes (plus compositor post-pro for effects).

[Winter]

https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_Jump_Final30001_0850.avi

It's fun when you set something to render overnight, then when you get back you immediately see several things wrong with it. 
-Stars don't move properly for the second 'zoomed in' pass. This is because I used a different method of tracking for the second 'zoomed in' camera. I had to use two cameras because Blender doesn't allow cameras to zoom in far enough.
This is why the carrier's movement seems so erratic - it's actually moving properly, but the stars in the background are what's moving erratically.

-You can barely see anything of the carrier in the first pass. The two ways to fix it are either to zoom in (thus clipping off the Earth to the left) or to move the carrier closer to the Earth.

-The Earth is pure white. For some reason, whenever the camera isn't looking directly at the Earth the atmosphere turns really really bright. I can pan the camera out from the Earth to show that there actually is stuff beneath (and the thing actually orbits the Earth, too), or try to reduce the glare, or just leave it as it is as a stylistic choice showing overexposure. (The Hubble telescope doesn't point anywhere near the Earth, Moon, or Sun to avoid damaging its optics.)

I also haven't added the post-pro zooming effect yet, either. These are just the 'raw' passes (plus compositor post-pro for effects).

My comments:

The original shot is just too far away, we should be able to see more than one pixel moving at all times. Move it slightly closer to the Earth, I'm thinking. It might also be good if it moves in front of the moon. Then we can see something's going on.

It's very close to perfect, just needs a little more work.

Regards,
Winter

[sitters]

Working on an new movie.

Now have an beautifull earth with atmosphere etc. etc.
And very hires textures.

Willem

BTW : psawhn, if we are making the same, i stop with it.
I dont going to waste time for nothing.

[Winter]

BTW : psawhn, if we are making the same, i stop with it.
I dont going to waste time for nothing.

Whah? What Psawhn is making isn't anything like what you're doing. It's a completely different vid for an entirely different purpose. You're doing the game intro, he's doing a UFOpaedia article.

Regards,
Winter

[sitters]

Whah? What Psawhn is making isn't anything like what you're doing. It's a completely different vid for an entirely different purpose. You're doing the game intro, he's doing a UFOpaedia article.

Regards,
Winter

That's what I am asking, if it is for different purposes then the subject cant be the same.
If so then on of us is waste his time.

you cant mix the two videos because they are make, by different rendering software, and when you mix it
by video montage its going to look like shit.

So i like to know what videos are need for the game, then we can split the tasks.
The video Psawhn is making, can also being extracted from the intro, for a UFOpaedia article.

So there must be come an script, of video clips that can be used for video montage,
and can be Used for different purposes in the game.
Also still rendered pictures.

You say in the past this is not an Democratic, then you must also organize the stuff people.
So the work can be done effectively,
and not collect everything in one big container and look afterwards what you can use or not.

Regards
Willem

[BTAxis]

you cant mix the two videos because they are make, by different rendering software, and when you mix it
by video montage its going to look like shit.

So i like to know what videos are need for the game, then we can split the tasks.
The video Psawhn is making, can also being extracted from the intro, for a UFOpaedia article.

Not quite. Psawhn's video is *supposed* to look very different.

Your video, the intro, is supposed to be something impressive: the aliens coming to Earth. It kickstarts the game into the right atmosphere. What Psawhn is making is a video feed from an Earth satellite, for use in the UFOPaedia. The aim of that video is not to impress (well, it is, but in a completely different way), but to convey the sense of realism. What he's making can't be extracted from what you're making, and vice versa.

I assure you, neither of you is wasting their time.

[sitters]

Not quite. Psawhn's video is *supposed* to look very different.

Your video, the intro, is supposed to be something impressive: the aliens coming to Earth. It kickstarts the game into the right atmosphere. What Psawhn is making is a video feed from an Earth satellite, for use in the UFOPaedia. The aim of that video is not to impress (well, it is, but in a completely different way), but to convey the sense of realism. What he's making can't be extracted from what you're making, and vice versa.

I assure you, neither of you is wasting their time.

Then it is OK. 
It's a pity when Psawhn or I put a lot of energy in it, and its not used.
Because it cost a amount of time to render video clips.

Models or still renders are easy to adapt, but video clips must most of the time totally being re-rendered.

Willem

[Destructavator]

(From another thread):

Btw. did you have the time to look into the intro sequence?

I apologize - I'm a student in college as well as the other work I do, I just finished up finals yesterday so I was out of the loop for a while; I haven't checked this forum for several days (things got crazy with studying, etc.) so I had to read through the posts and need to catch up.  The good news is that I'm now off on break and should have more spare time than usual to work on side projects, including contributing to this game.

Regarding the intro, is the latest rendered file the one titled "warp5_xvid.avi" and was there anything in particular that was agreed needed to be done with it?  Sorry, I'm still catching up reading through the posts...

From what I see in the warp5 file, I could add FX, a soundtrack, and if desired, the clip I posted before to the end of it.

(Since this is off-topic, I'll also post this in the other thread so the others don't miss it.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BTW, the warp5_xvid file looks pretty good, I think.

For a soundtrack, is there any particular one from the existing music tracks in the project that everyone would think be good with this?

FYI - I noticed that the AVI is about 3 min and 20 sec long, although I have software that can easily stretch/compress both audio and video to sync, and I can also add to one of the shorter soundtracks by creating some introductory sounds before music comes in.  Or, I could try to just come up with a totally new soundtrack to go with this (If it's the final render).

EDIT:  Just to make sure I'm on the same page now, this is the intro sequence, right?  (Or did I get confused?)

[Mattn]

yes, this is the intro sequence - about the music - use one of the tracks or mix different tracks. please don't use any other track (or it must be cc'ed, too)

[Winter]

From what I see in the warp5 file, I could add FX, a soundtrack, and if desired, the clip I posted before to the end of it.

Just so you know, we don't really want to hear sound effects in space, what with there being no sound in space. We would much prefer a soundtrack for the video that highlights the important events through music.

Regards,
Winter

[Destructavator]

Just so you know, we don't really want to hear sound effects in space, what with there being no sound in space. We would much prefer a soundtrack for the video that highlights the important events through music.

That's a good point, and I'll keep it in mind.  I've seen lots of science fiction movies and TV shows that break this rule (and other laws of science), but I agree, I think it is best to stay away from "bad science" as it is sometimes called.

I'll get to work on it...