Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Aa Setings For Animation

28 posts in this topic

#1   Posted

does anyone know exactly what changes when you use the animation preset for anti aliasing as apposed to the still image preset? apart form making it really soft?

im rendering out some animations with GI in R11, managed to cure 99% of the flickering on all 5 subjects, just struggling with one them now but its nearly there,

just curious as alot of the animation files i see have the AA set to animation, but to me it just looks soft and horrible and seems to make no difference other than that,

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2   Posted (edited)

I never use Animation, it's just too soft. I get the feeling it's a left over from the days when we might watch the animation via a video recorder. Now we're on DVD and Blu-Ray I think the Animation Filter's day is over. Not a very scientific analysis so maybe someone out there knows better.

Cheers

Karl

Edited by Lesia44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#3   Posted

kind of what i thought anyway, its just i still see a lot of people using it and i can get much better results with the still image or sinc preset, no big deal just wondered why some people use it when it makes it go that soft,

gotta say im not having too much problem with flickering in r11, you tried it yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#4   Posted

i use still image for everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#5   Posted

I think many people will use it simply because it's called the 'Animation' Filter! laugh.gif

No, I haven't upgraded yet. I'm in the middle of a big animation so I don't want the upheaval of an upgrade when I'm up against the clock! As soon as I get some down time I'm going to upgrade. In fact, I'm pretty stoked about the upgrade to AR - using it alongside Vray is going to make for a great combination. Question: Does AR r11 do Volumetrics when you're using GI? Vray has an 'experimental' volumetric implementation but in reality it's not 'volumetric' light but 'visible' light. Looks OK but isn't much use if you want objects in the scene interrupting the light beams.

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#6   Posted (edited)

yeah thats what i thought, and people wonder why they have problems!

yeah the vray volumetrics should come at some point, sure i did it with r11 yesterday as a test, will try in a min as soon as this render is done,

along vray its good, personally i think AR3 is good, for doing simple clean GI stuff which i have been doing this week it works great, studio setups are going to be easy and fast, not saying that vray isnt, just being so used to AR its quicker at the moment for me,

cant quite get my head round the sky yet, can get some nice stuff with it but tried to render my living room with AR3 and couldnt get anything i liked, that was however only a day of messing around, and i know it can be done from eric smits sky stuff so just need to have a sit down and go through it, but il be happy to use vray for interior and exterior stuff and use AR3 for for everything else. i love them both! vray is awesome, just wish i had the time to learn more of it

Edited by colibert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#7   Posted

is this what you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#8   Posted

By the look of it you've got inverse volumetric on there as the light seems to be coming from the shape of the letters. But yes, I think that answers my question. :)

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#9   Posted

oh yeah! oops,

heres a volume one with some noise in it, renders in 4 seconds with gi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#10   Posted

Can you do another one with the light turned down a little so we can see how the letters interrupt the light. At the moment it's too overblown to see the interaction between the light and the letters.

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#11   Posted

like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#12   Posted (edited)

Yes, that's it. In the second image you can see the top of the 'L' interrupting the light.

The animation looks spot on - ain't no flicker there! You should put it here so that others can see it - it's a neat little piece.

This is what I'm working on at the moment, which is why I asked the question about volumetrics. Getting the sunlight to flood visibly through the warehouse rooflights (and be interrupted by the gantries and stuff) has meant: scene in Vray, volumetrics in AR. Problem is I want the fisheye lens effect which has complicated it a little.

Cheers

Karl

Edited by Lesia44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#13   Posted

Yeah i will do, havnt even showed the client yet, got some more to do, animation rendered in 20 mins, i know its small and not very long but its still pretty fast, now that ive sussed the settings out i can render the other ones now...

ahh i see, thats what its for, looks nice, yeah guess thats bit of a pain in the bum then if your gonna use the fish eyey in vray. is there now way you can apply the distortion after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#14   Posted

I tried all the options in both PS (on individual frames) and AE (on film clips) and they all degraded the image quality to an unacceptable degree. Problem then was that Cinema offers no lens distortion on its native cameras as Vray does with the PhyCam. I ended up actually making a big fat lens and sticking it in front of the camera. All I have to do then is change the material to the appropriate type for the AR passes (volumetrics) and Vray (everything else). So far everything seems to match up.

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#15   Posted (edited)

lens effect post effect no good?! wont match will it

Edited by colibert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#16   Posted

That's one of the things I tried. It wasn't that it wouldn't match (I applied it to everything and dispensed with Vray's lens distortion) it was that it degraded the image. The image was noticeably softer with the filter than without.

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#17   Posted

never easy is it! cant render it out bigger then reduce it all after? would that not compensate a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#18   Posted

Thought about that but then there's a render hit. There is a slight hit with the lens but not as much as rendering significantly larger. Plus my image stays sharp.

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#19   Posted

Hate to disagree, but I have found that "animation" is much more reliable for actual animations. I found that out the hard way when I stared using C4D. "Still Image" makes things too crisp for NTSC/PAL. Are you guys working in the broadcast field? Perhaps it depends on how your animations will be displayed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#20   Posted

ah ok, maybe there are sues for it, as i know very little about broadcast quality im not best to comment, just from my own experience, i have done some pal renders before set on still image and they apparently looked great, i dodnt see them so cant say how they really looked, could well have been to sharp,

im using this particular stuff for web animations so the crisper the better i guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#21   Posted (edited)

Depending on the project I use the animation aa. Since I am trying to match the video quality the animation filter goes nice with video shoots (DVcam and beta) but is far too soft for the HD stuff.

/randy

Wiley:

i have a hard time getting that similar softness in post...

Edited by randyarchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#22   Posted

i don't take any broadcast specs into consideration, besides title/action safe and resolution, when outputing from c4d. things like frame rates, fields, color safe, or chyron assembly specs are established during final output from AE in my adapted workflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#23   Posted

have to agree with wiley....i'd start big with the sharpest image you can get...then let AE do the rest...PAL/NTSC can look pretty disgusting when viewed large with modern screens/projectors...and if you render to that quality you'll never be able to go back up......Start big and you can always turn your large sharp image into a tiny little soft one if you need

my2p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#24   Posted

^ Yep. I do PAL and NTSC and I always start with an absolutely pristine image.

Cheers

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#25   Posted

I think what I was trying to point out, as I do mostly HD work for broadcast, is that if your anti-aliasing is too crisp, it won't matter what you do in AE. After Effects doesn't automatically add any special anti aliasing benefits to the rendering process. Unless you add specific kinds of blurs, or matte controls. It's not that I want overly soft edges, but you need a certain amount of blend when dealing with ultra fine detail, as well as intersecting edges with highlights or shadows. Another issue I have come across, when animating with "Still Image" is that it doesn't handle the subtle play of shadows over objects particularly well - when the object or light is moving, that is. I have tended to see flicker (not using GI) and abnormalities, which immediately go away when I process the same project with the "Animation" filter, instead. Perhaps we just have different objectives with our animations, so the desired results could certainly vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.