Re: Alphas, mattes, adds and overs

["peter boeykens" <peter_b(at)skynet.be>]

> at the risk of taking this WAY OT......
> the reasons i use afterfx are;
>
> you can often CREATE (remember that feeling?) something 100 times quicker 
> than you can in 3d
> you can apply fast motion blur (ehem mental ray?)
> you can generate extremely useful fractal patterns with oodles of 
> animatable parameters for use as textures (ehem, xsi?)
> you can get a colour solid with one click (ehem FXtree?)
> other compositors (namely shake and the fxtree) are just that, compositors 
> (take this, plonk it over that, add basic color correction)

You have some good points there.
But at least those "other" compositors know how to do a composite, without 
falling over.
Its not often that I run into an edge or masking problem that isn't easily 
fixed in fusion.
Even when it gets though, with transparency, motion blur on some passes but 
not on others, hair and fur, some passes that can't be rendered with a 
proper alpha, some chroma keys, and whatnot...
The right tool for the right job, and for slapping a lot of passes together 
that tool is a node based compositor. period.

If you want to do creative finishing in aftereffects, perhaps you should do 
some precompositing in another software then. Its no different when going to 
flame.

> this might be enough for all you film people that use XSI as part of a big 
> factory style pipeline (right....)
> but i want something CREATIVE in my compositing software, so i can fix the 
> odd thing without resorting to re-rendering!
>
> /end rant
>
> Adrian Wyer
> Fluid Pictures
> 33 Glasshouse Street
> London
> W1B 5DG
> T: +44 (0) 207 434 5133
> www.fluid-pictures.com
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andy Jones" <andy(at)thefront.com>
> To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Alphas, mattes, adds and overs
>
>
> > Probably the same day we stop hiring them to use AE for vfx comps.  No 
> > matter how hard I try to convince our producers that AE is not the right 
> > tool for every compositing job, they still try to do everything with it 
> > because it's cheaper (both software and labor).  I'll never give up the 
> > fight, though.
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Axel Akesson wrote:
> >
> > > 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 
> > > <mailto: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
> > >     <mailto: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
> > >         <mailto:Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM> with the following text in 
> > > body:
> > >         unsubscribe xsi
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in 
> > body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi 

---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi