|
|
oh please guys, i've been using afterfx for years,
and i can still do stuff that flame guys don't get.... it's a great
tool!
but, i digress......
we tried compositing with separate mattes
(both rendered from 3d as passes and pulled channels from the RGB
renders)
compositing using track mattes creates the same
issue, as it does when using composite with matte in FX tree
what i find weird is, we have never seen this
before, i was tempted to lay the blame with mray, but maybe it was there all
along, and
only with us having to work at full HD all the
time, does it now become apparent
hmmmmm
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:19
PM
Subject: Re: Alphas, mattes, adds and
overs
When will people understand that AE is for motion graphics and
not vfx comp...
On 6/26/07, Robert
Chapman <
tekano.bob(at)googlemail.com> wrote:
yeah,
bin the AE guys, its not *that* complicated to think about now is it, they
should go with what works and stop whining. :)
on a more
constructive note, perhaps its possible to isolate out the 'add' part in the
alpha channel only and use a track matte - which might not confuse the poor
dears so much. bless.
On 26/06/07, Alan
Jones < skyphyr(at)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi
Guys,
Got a production question for you as I'm a bit stuck coming
up with a
"good" solution (read solution artists find acceptable) to
this issue.
Say you run a couple of objects in a couple of
passes/framebuffers and
the block each other with 0,0,0,0 as you do.
This means along the edge
you'll have pixels with an alpha of n for
object a and 1-n for object
b. Which would be "the right answer"
(tm).
You then go to composite this. Artist pulls an over node and
of course
this winds up with slightly transparent line running along
the join.
If you use an add (and it adds the alphas as well) then you
get the
result the artist expects (between the two objects we know it's
solid,
but viewing either individually that's not the case), but of
course if
add was used in a scenario where they was overlap then you'd
get glowy
grossness etc.
The guys don't like the idea of using
an add because it seems counter
intuitive to them. Where they'd just
use an over if it went over a
plate (of course - the plate is solid so
you really are going over).
It's not a huge issue (if you ask me anyway
;-) - for node based
compositors) because you just use the add node
where it's required and
over where it's needed, but it's freaking the
After Effects guys out
because it apparently means subcomps and other
things to obfusificate
the comp when they're looking at it.
So
- was that obscure and long-winded? Anyone got any comments/suggestions
etc.
Cheers,
Alan.
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in
body:
unsubscribe
xsi
|
|
