3rd matching attempt

[darkshark]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXS1PJ7kRYA

This is my 3rd attempt at Camera Tracking, it came out much, much better this time. xD

[who_cares973]

alot better

the shadow is lol

[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.

[MooMoo_Cowfreak]

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]

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

[customstuff]

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

[L0NEvvolf]

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

[darkshark]

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]

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

[Afrobean]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Nightfirecat]

Yes, I know that, but I was pointing out that you shouldn't be complaining about it since you know that already.

And actually, darkshark is a guy. As stupid as the thread is, there's one bit of truth in it.
http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...ad.php?t=70902

[bender5]

That was pretty sweet dude, I didn't even notice that box.

After you pointed out that it wasn't real I could tell, but I watched it like 5 times before I saw that post

[darkshark]

Uhhhh...I'm glad you guys find the box to be realistic? But I didn't texture it at all, I just made a box, and brown was the default color that it gave it, I didn't even bother changing it. There is 1 simple light in the scene, I didn't play with the shadow parameters at all. I wasn't going for realism.....only accuracy...think about that for a second.

If I can get a generic, default colored box to look good in the scene, textured you wouldn't notice the box at all.

ps lolthread

[Nightfirecat]

Originally Posted by darkshark

ps lolthread

Yeah, sorry about that.

Anyway, I think one light source fits this animation well, but more texture/detail might suit the box better. Still a nice job. Very... almost realistic.