3rd matching attempt

**who_cares973** · 01-17-2009, 04:55 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

alot better

the shadow is lol

**darkshark** · 01-17-2009, 05:02 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Yeah needs some shadow dispersion, but I was just going for match accuracy here.

ps. for those of you that have no idea what's going on, the box on the floor, is not real.

**MooMoo_Cowfreak** · 01-17-2009, 05:45 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Originally posted by darkshark

Yeah needs some shadow dispersion, but I was just going for match accuracy here.

ps. for those of you that have no idea what's going on, the box on the floor, is not real.

O wow it was so good I didn't even notice.

**PsYcHoZeRoSk8eR** · 01-17-2009, 06:06 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

It took me a few tries to figure out what was going on, but it was done very well.

**customstuff** · 01-17-2009, 08:19 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Yeah, it was really hard to even notic anything different... took me about 5 times to realize the box wasn't real :P

**L0NEvvolf** · 01-17-2009, 09:21 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Looks like it would be extreamly difficult. Am I right?

**darkshark** · 01-17-2009, 10:28 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Right. Very hard to create a matched sequence, everything has to be planned out and measured with exact distances to key points in the shot, a scene that is only a few seconds long can take hours and hours of prep work to get the camera track markers to line up right. Once everything is set up, then the program will create a digital representation of the real camera, including its position, rotation, track and dolly postioning, and all other x,y,z information, based on the information you put into the camera trackers.

In other words, it makes a digital camera in 3d space, that follows the exact path of the real camera footage.

**thechild** · 01-17-2009, 11:17 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Didn't notice until you're post said it's not real. nice

**Afrobean** · 01-17-2009, 11:50 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Looks somewhat convincing, but how does it look at a more realistic resolution. Youtube is garbage there, and it's only going to serve to make your effect more realistic looking than otherwise.

**darkshark** · 01-18-2009, 05:10 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

It actually looks better at higher resolutions, it just takes an assload longer to render and I didn't feel like waiting.

Like I said this is just a match accuracy exercise, once you get to this point, you can add pretty much anything you want into the scene, and the result will still be the same, it will all be perfectly synced, and appear to actually be in the room.

Example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfMHM76GINc

**Nightfirecat** · 01-19-2009, 12:29 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Yeah, really nice work. And by the way, afrobean, youtube actually is getting a lot better with quality.. They've stopped compressing it so much, and made a 'High Quality' version that's a lot better. I agree that it's not good for perfect quality, but it's good, considering that it's free.

I noticed the box wasn't real, because of it's uniformity and lack of scratches or scuffs, but I admit, it looks quite real compared to the other ones. 5/5 for almost fooling me <3

**Afrobean** · 01-19-2009, 05:25 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Originally posted by Nightfirecat

Yeah, really nice work. And by the way, afrobean, youtube actually is getting a lot better with quality.. They've stopped compressing it so much, and made a 'High Quality' version that's a lot better. I agree that it's not good for perfect quality, but it's good, considering that it's free.

I noticed the box wasn't real, because of it's uniformity and lack of scratches or scuffs, but I admit, it looks quite real compared to the other ones. 5/5 for almost fooling me <3

Uh sorry, but that the quality on their "high quality" videos is still behind analog cable. I'm running my 1080p TV screen as my monitor, so as far as video is concerned, I would prefer AT LEAST 720 lines of vertical resolution and minimal/NO compression artifacts.

It's those compression artifacts and low resolution that can make something like that box blend in more easily. It's lack of realistic texture won't show through as much, except at a clean and higher resolution picture (assuming the raw footage has a higher resolution to begin with).

**Nightfirecat** · 01-19-2009, 07:04 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Originally posted by Afrobean

Uh sorry, but that the quality on their "high quality" videos is still behind analog cable. I'm running my 1080p TV screen as my monitor, so as far as video is concerned, I would prefer AT LEAST 720 lines of vertical resolution and minimal/NO compression artifacts.

It's those compression artifacts and low resolution that can make something like that box blend in more easily. It's lack of realistic texture won't show through as much, except at a clean and higher resolution picture (assuming the raw footage has a higher resolution to begin with).

Ahem... I think you're fighting the wrong battle. Youtube compresses the video files from anywhere up to a gigabyte down to only about 20 mb. This actually allows the videos to be streamed. I doubt you'll be able to stream anything at 1080p height. If you want 1080p videos, then don't watch youtube stuff. Even 720px height isn't easy to stream from a server that easily gets hundreds of thousands of hits per day. Consider that not everything is going to be suited to your needs, nor any person's needs. They're suited to be of most efficiency to Youtube, and if they weren't, then Youtube wouldn't be around.

**Afrobean** · 01-19-2009, 07:48 PM

Re: 3rd matching attempt

Originally posted by Nightfirecat

Ahem... I think you're fighting the wrong battle. Youtube compresses the video files from anywhere up to a gigabyte down to only about 20 mb. This actually allows the videos to be streamed. I doubt you'll be able to stream anything at 1080p height. If you want 1080p videos, then don't watch youtube stuff. Even 720px height isn't easy to stream from a server that easily gets hundreds of thousands of hits per day. Consider that not everything is going to be suited to your needs, nor any person's needs. They're suited to be of most efficiency to Youtube, and if they weren't, then Youtube wouldn't be around.

She was showing her recent effects work and I was pointing out that Youtube isn't a good medium for this.

Cool your jets, bro. Youtube has a place and a purpose; showing off visual effects is not it.

3rd matching attempt

3rd matching attempt

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment