Re: Alphas, mattes, adds and overs

["Tim Leydecker" <BauerOink(at)gmx.de>]

imho AE is less than ideal for anything more complex than
animating the opacity of the FG layer "over" the BG layer.

It´s unnervingly complicated to unfringe things, CC intuitively
or simply switch and combine some channels or layers for
further use. I do my precomps in AE currently and I hate it.
(i´ve no plug-ins installed, maybe that´s the problem...)

Cheers

tim



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Lampi" <ericlampi(at)yahoo.com>
To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Alphas, mattes, adds and overs


> I've frequently had problems translating how I set up one of my FXtree 
> comps to an AE compositor.  Seems like a lot of the same blending modes do 
> drastically different things.
>
> E
>
> Freelance 3-D Animator, F/X Artist
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert Chapman <tekano.bob(at)googlemail.com>
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:17:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Alphas, mattes, adds and overs
>
> 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


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