SS Cedric

[sculptorpro]

Here is a sample clip I am working on of the SS Cedric sailing past. I have a PS filtered version with grain and more contrast to simulate a newsreel look, but am having difficulty compressing the final version without the compressor having trouble with the grain effect, any one got any ideas for a work around? The unfiltered version is here for any who want to have a look, it is .wmv format, 519kb.

 

http://www.dsntc.com/SS_Cedric/Cedric.html

 

Ian

[Zaryin]

I love the news reel look. It does seem a little fast to me though... Of course I'm not the best judge when it comes to animation.

[JoshB]

Zaryin--I don't think it is that the boat is necessarily moving too fast it's that the water isn't unjulating (sp?) fast enough. The water seems to be in slow-mo but the boat is moving smoothly.

 

What compressor are you using? And, could you post the negative affects the compressor is having on this effect?

 

How old of a newsreel do you want this to be?

 

Further, the speed that the boat is traveling should cause a bit of splash out from the front of the boat cutting through the water. Is this something you are going to attempt to add later?

 

There should also be bounced light hitting the bottom of the boat where it meets the water--this should get rid of the cut and paste feel it has to me right. Doesn't have to be caustic like or anything just enough to give you a gradiant.

 

J

[sculptorpro]

Zaryn, JoshB, thanks for your comments,

 

JoshB, you're right about the water moving too slowly, will add more movement if I get time, I have tried divx, qt-o2 and sorenson3, wmv. Divx was the smallest file output, but all effect the PS induced grain. Attached is a frame from the filtered version. The newsreel is set in 1911 and is to match still photos from that time. I also used the post effects in AM itself but the grain I feel looked better out of PS. The bounced light hitting the bottom of the boat is a good suggestion and the cut and paste observation pretty accurate because it is actually a photograph on a moving patch. With the grain added a lot of this detail is smoothed over.

 

Ian

[JoshB]

hmmmmm...1911...could you show one of the other images that you are comparing it to please?

 

You should probably cut the grain amount down though. When you take a picture on film there is grain caused by these light sensitive flecks on the film and emulsion. Now, when you expose the film onto paper you add to the grain because the paper also has little light sensitive flecks. Therefore, you will tend to get blurry grain from the negative and then the grain from the paper. Technology of course has advanced to the point where it is possible to make this grain almost unnoticeable even when enlarging photos dramatically in comparison to the size of the negative. However, you won't notice this as much on a film because you are not putting grain on grain.

 

Is it intensifying the grain effect? Because, it doesn't look bad it's just too grainy. If it isn't intensifying the grain effect then what is the "negative affect" you speak of?

 

Also, in 1911 they used hand cranked cameras (if memory serves) which caused minor camera roll from left to right even if mounted on a tripod--possibly unnoticeable--but, may add to the feel. I mean fractions of an inch movement.

 

http://members.lycos.nl/cinemat/schneidercam.jpg circa 1912

 

The second effect you will get from this is an inconsistent exposure time per frame. Though subtle it may be (it's why old films flicker). It won't be to the point of stop motion but it will be there some frames will be lighter than others--and the lighters frames should be less grainy. Because, to make white on a projected film means there is no emulsion for the light to penetrate--no emulsion = no grain. Also, some frames may actually last for 1/36 of a second, while others are 1/26 of a second. It would be interesting to see how/if you can solve that one.

 

J

[sculptorpro]

Josh,

 

here is an example still that I'm using (untouched), the other stills I was planning on adding grain to get a uniform look from still to still etc, however that may not be worthwhile for the movie part because of the compression problem. I had thought of lightening some frames as you suggest which is easy enough because it is rendered out as single tga's, and add some scratches, dust and lines.

 

Thanks for your thoughts

Ian

[JoshB]

This looks like a cropped negative...in other words there was more on the negative than just the girl. When you enlarge a photo from a negative you increase your grain--it is VERY difficult not to. For instance--if you get bored--have a photo lab enlarge a photo from a 35mm negative (preferrably of a high ISO 800+ for demonstration purposes)--and if they can have them crop out part of the photo and put it on 11X14 paper--interesting effect but usually not done on purpose.

 

Look at some of these images:

 

http://sechtl-vosecek.ucw.cz/en/

 

What I would recommend you do to duplicate this look in photoshop. Use the add noise filter--but fade it a little so it's not as abrupt. Also, the black point should not be at 0 lighten a little bit. Now this may not happen on the "real" film because the faded black you see in the photo could be due, in part, to the age of the photo which would be exposed to light, and various other fading elements--which may not happen to film. As wrong as this may be to suggest watch old propaganda films.

 

and add some scratches, dust and lines.

 

This element has almost become cliche (actually it has) if you decide to do this be VERY careful as there is a fine line between good--and cheesy.

 

Hope that helps--and good work so far--looking forward to it.

 

J

 

EDIT**Something I thought of while at school you might also try the bloom post-effect in AM I'm not sure if it will give you the blown out highlights that I hope it will but hey, could hurt.

[nf1nk]

A thought I had on creating the old film look, might be to misalign a frame or two just a little like the film has broken and been respliced, also if durning the spliced portion of the film you lost about five frames you would add to the feeling of lost footage. just a thought

[mediaho]

To give video/CG a film look, there's an excellent After Effects plugin called CineLook. It has some great presets and can be tweaked infinitely. I used it on an old animation - Freeway. (14MB QT)

 

Edit: One of the reasons the file is so big is because when you add lots of randomness to your frames (dust, scratches, blotches, flicker, etc.) it becomes harder to compress since each frame is more different than the last.

[agep]

Nice animation. Well done

How about add some spots in a few frames (black or white)? Not sure how to explain how they look... maybe they are caused by a drop of liquid?

 

btw, pinnacle studio do have a oldfilm filter (easy one) that creates grain. scratches and adds an sepia color, very similar to the filter I have used on the logo on my homepage

[sculptorpro]

Thanks for the replys, suggestions and tips guys. Ed, the look and feel of the "Freeway" buildings and environment look great , the film effects are nice and subtle as well.

Unfortunately I don't have After Effects or Pinnacle Studio, so may well end up using AM's Post effects filters and render/compressat the same time. My main aim was to unify the look of the animation and stills and get reasonable compression for portable display.