Using the Alpha Channel

[Moonsire]

Hey folks.

 

I have a bit of a delima. I am making a short subject film, and the render times are a little out there for the small choreographies that I'm doing. I just spent 72 hours with my computer tied up rendering an eight second choreography. Unfortunately, it was a 75 hour render, and when it crashed at 72 hours, the avi was unuseable. It is clear to me that the most memory expensive bit in the choreography is the warehouse-brick-front and the street/sidewalk.

 

Attached is a copy of the image. The building, street/sidewalk, and fire hydrant are the only non-moving items. The horn character and the van (on the right) both move. The character moves behind the hydrant and the van in the forground. I have looked at the forum enough to know that my best bet is the alpha channel, but I haven't a clue how to do it. I suppose the building and street/sidewalk would be rendered only once, but how do I set the thing up so that that happens. Also, I'm guessing that the character, hydrant (because the character goes behind it and the van in front), and the van all get done on another render in TGA.

 

Again, I don't follow the settings, and once I have 298 frames in TGA format, what am I supposed to do with them? And, there are shadows, as you can see, on both the side walk and the building. I would really love to get a crystal clear explination of how to do all this if someone out there has the time.

 

I will be happy to answer any questions if it means I don't have to wait another 72 hours for my system to crash before it can finish the render. Just a small point of information here, I don't think it was A:M's fault the system crashed, but until I get my other tower tied into my computer so I can run renders on it while using my computer, I just can't tie it up with a 75 hour - 8 second render.

 

This short subject uses this and another building, the street/sidewalk and other items that could be done with the Alpha Channel method, and save me a lot of time on the render end of things.

 

Thanks

Phil Moon

 

[Rodney]

Phil,

You are definitely on the right track but obviously some pain has put you there.

 

Unfortunately, it was a 75 hour render, and when it crashed at 72 hours, the avi was unuseable.

 

An important lesson hopefully learned.

NEVER render out large scenes to AVI, MOV formats.

 

Render out to TGA format and then collect them again into AVI or MOV formats.

 

For what you are trying to do you don't really need to use the Alpha Channel at all.

If you are wanting to separate the elements of your scene (which is a good idea!) you'll want to use Alpha Channels.

 

There is a decision you need to make here but the initial answer is this: Render your scene to sequential TGA images.

 

Once you've got those rendered you can open them in A:M and save them out to MOV/AVI etc.

 

Steps to compile your sequential images:

 

In the Project Workspace

- Right Click on the Image folder

- Open your image as a sequence of images (make sure you check the box for sequential images or you'll just get the first frame).

- Once imported Right Click on the Image and Select "Save As Animation"

- Select the format and codec

- Name the file

Done.

 

JohnL3D has a tutorial that takes you step by step through this process in the Tutorials section.

 

...Now using the power of Alpha Channels.

Lets explore that once you decide that is really the way you want to go.

[Rodney]

For completeness sake I'll add a few links here.

Hopefully John will add the link to his video tutorial as I can't seem to find it just now.

 

Sequential Image Numbering Discussion

 

Sequential Image Numbering Options

 

These don't have anything to do with Alpha Channels but its more important to understand sequential TGAs first.

 

There is another way to compile your images using a camera rotoscope.

It's a bit more flexible (as it allows for adding to and altering your imagery) but its not as quick as Right Click/Save As Animation.

[Moonsire]

Rodney,

 

Thanks for the quick reply. I will look for JohnL3D's tut, and check out the other links you suggested. I will make sure to use the TGA process, as it sounds like a sure fire way not to have to do it all over again, and again, and again...

 

I'll let you know if I have any questions after reading the tut/links, and again,

 

THANKS

 

Phil...

 

 

For completeness sake I'll add a few links here.

Hopefully John will add the link to his video tutorial as I can't seem to find it just now.

 

 

 

These don't have anything to do with Alpha Channels but its more important to understand sequential TGAs first.

 

There is another way to compile your images using a camera rotoscope.

It's a bit more flexible (as it allows for adding to and altering your imagery) but its not as quick as Right Click/Save As Animation.

[ArgleBargle]

An important lesson hopefully learned.

NEVER render out large scenes to AVI, MOV formats.

 

Render out to TGA format and then collect them again into AVI or MOV formats.

 

I desperately wish someone had let me know this when I started with A:M. I think I've lost weeks from not knowing this. These days, I use After Effects. I can't see doing sounds any other way. It's a bit of a pain, but the results are better.

[Moonsire]

An important lesson hopefully learned.

NEVER render out large scenes to AVI, MOV formats.

 

Render out to TGA format and then collect them again into AVI or MOV formats.

 

I desperately wish someone had let me know this when I started with A:M. I think I've lost weeks from not knowing this. These days, I use After Effects. I can't see doing sounds any other way. It's a bit of a pain, but the results are better.

 

 

I have been using A:M for a little while now, and have produced a few short films (mostly exercises) that have only had short render times, and this is the first time my system crashed. Not however, the first time I was concerned about it. I will be looking into After Effects because I see so many people, including A:M users make effective use of the program, but so far, I am really pleased with A:M.

 

I have decided that I would like to know more about using the Alpha Channel to make the render time faster. While I understand that rendering can, and will, take more time, the more sophisticated my animation becomes, I would still like to cut the production/post-production time down where possible. Any help there will be highly appreciated.

 

Phil...

[Rodney]

As your topic title is 'Using the Alpha Channel' I think we can explore it pretty well here.

I'm all for it!

 

When it comes to Alpha Channels and separating objects in a scene there is A LOT to cover so that's why I want to hit the easy stuff first. You mention Shadows for instance. Its easy to forget about that.

 

Where using Alpha Channels takes more time is in the planning and design stage.

Where the 'extreme' benefits come to play is in post production as you can then manipulate all the elements of the scene independently or in groups.

 

There is also A:M's extremely powerful EXR format to consider.

The upside is a years worth of discoveries while the downside is that EXR formats vary and other programs most likely won't be able to read them in their raw format.

 

Then of course there are layers. Gotta love them!

Rotoscopes! Oh yeah.

 

Understanding the needs of your project is important.

Keep it simple but experiment a little along the way as time and budget constraints allow.

And perhaps most important, ask questions and share what you learn from the answers with others.

 

We are all A:M Users and thats the reason this forum is here.

 

 

 

I'll try to post a quick down and dirty "Just Do It!" type of tutorial here for the dscussion but here to get the discussion started are too oft used references.The first one is the classic tutorial by Jeff (Tin Can) Cantin:

http://www.am-guide.com/TinCan/AM_&_Alpha.htm

 

Note: When using A:M Models you'll always... always... ALWAYS... get a better Alpha Channel than if trying to do it in another program in post production. When possible render your characters and objects (animated or otherwise) with an Alpha Channel for compositing later.

 

A bit more technical and of certain interest to those that will be importing images from other applications:

http://www.ypoart.com/tutorials/Alpha-about.htm

[Moonsire]

As your topic title is 'Using the Alpha Channel' I think we can explore it pretty well here.

I'm all for it!

 

When it comes to Alpha Channels and separating objects in a scene there is A LOT to cover so that's why I want to hit the easy stuff first. You mention Shadows for instance. Its easy to forget about that.

 

Where using Alpha Channels takes more time is in the planning and design stage.

Where the 'extreme' benefits come to play is in post production as you can then manipulate all the elements of the scene independently or in groups.

 

There is also A:M's extremely powerful EXR format to consider.

The upside is a years worth of discoveries while the downside is that EXR formats vary and other programs most likely won't be able to read them in their raw format.

 

Then of course there are layers. Gotta love them!

Rotoscopes! Oh yeah.

 

Understanding the needs of your project is important.

Keep it simple but experiment a little along the way as time and budget constraints allow.

And perhaps most important, ask questions and share what you learn from the answers with others.

 

We are all A:M Users and thats the reason this forum is here.

 

 

 

I'll try to post a quick down and dirty "Just Do It!" type of tutorial here for the dscussion but here to get the discussion started are too oft used references.The first one is the classic tutorial by Jeff (Tin Can) Cantin:

http://www.am-guide.com/TinCan/AM_&_Alpha.htm

 

Note: When using A:M Models you'll always... always... ALWAYS... get a better Alpha Channel than if trying to do it in another program in post production. When possible render your characters and objects (animated or otherwise) with an Alpha Channel for compositing later.

 

A bit more technical and of certain interest to those that will be importing images from other applications:

http://www.ypoart.com/tutorials/Alpha-about.htm

 

 

Well now, there you go. I have some reading to do. I'll get right on these links and start learning. And I look forward to the quick down and dirty "just do it" tut as well.

 

I read as much as I could make sense of on other forum posts and understood that shadows were something to keep in mind. There is so much to learn and always plenty more where that came from. I work as an actor (currently background actor) in L.A., and had solidly declaired that I never wanted to be a director, editor, producer, writer or other "production" side entity. I am an actor. Heh. On A:M, of course, I am all of the above. There is a lot I've learned there that I can see using on A:M. And always, there are people who help. Thanks for all the help Rodney.

 

Phil...

[Rodney]

I work as an actor (currently background actor) in L.A., and had solidly declaired that I never wanted to be a director, editor, producer, writer or other "production" side entity. I am an actor. Heh. On A:M, of course, I am all of the above. There is a lot I've learned there that I can see using on A:M.

 

Your experience will definitely serve you well in your endeavors with A:M.

 

One of the things I'm striving hard to do (and failing) is remembering all the things I've learned. These are certainly perishable skills.

 

I've got the basics of the 'down and dirty' tutorial put together but now need to make sure it makes sense and hits the areas of relevant interest.

 

Anything in particular that interests you regarding Alpha Channel? (I'll re-read your posts)

 

Since I'm just kind of wandering into the tutorial its hitting about everything that springs to mind. There are a lot of interconnected disciplines, gotchas and inspirational moments in the art of animation. Its fun too but we've got to focus on the goal; in this case, Alpha Channels.

[Moonsire]

Your experience will definitely serve you well in your endeavors with A:M.

 

One of the things I'm striving hard to do (and failing) is remembering all the things I've learned. These are certainly perishable skills.

 

I've got the basics of the 'down and dirty' tutorial put together but now need to make sure it makes sense and hits the areas of relevant interest.

 

Anything in particular that interests you regarding Alpha Channel? (I'll re-read your posts)

 

Since I'm just kind of wandering into the tutorial its hitting about everything that springs to mind. There are a lot of interconnected disciplines, gotchas and inspirational moments in the art of animation. Its fun too but we've got to focus on the goal; in this case, Alpha Channels.

 

I am webmaster on six web sites, three of my own, my daughters and her husbands and a friends. One of the things I find a little challanging is that when I haven't had to update or deal with any of the sites for a long time, I have to relearn many of the skills I have forgotten. Always a lot of fun.

 

My main interests in the Alpha Channel are:

 

Cutting down on the time it takes to render by rendering the backgound once.

Making sure the fire hydrant is where it needs to be, and there I suspect I must render it with the van and character.

And getting the shadows to show correctly.

 

I am most concerned about the above issues because I will be able to reuse this in the other scenes in this short, and of course, in future efforts as well. I am not at all adverse, however, to any little gems that may turn up in the tutorial. My method of learning includes a lot of self directed efforts that often result in picking a subject and then learning the skills I need to complete it. My web writing skills came about the same way. It often means I get ahead of my skill level, but when I'm done, I'm no longer at the former skill level.

 

When my nieces came to visit, I didn't even think about the possible difficulties, I just decided to make an animated movie using their voices. I had four days, and got it done and on DVD. No great work of art, but the kids loved it. Even when you hit a brick wall (and in this short, I am trying to make a brick wall that looks good) you learn something. Sometimes, it's just that you find out what else you need to learn. Heh.

 

Phil...

[Moonsire]

Your experience will definitely serve you well in your endeavors with A:M.

 

 

 

Phil...

 

 

Rodney.

 

I just realized another aspect of the scene that I didn't take into account. The windows. They reflect the image of the van and the character. E-Gads, this is getting deeper and deeper. I rendered the building and sidewalk seperately, and then rendered the character, van and fire plug into TGA images with proper numbering. That cut the render time down quite a bit. Of course, now I must go on to the next step. Naturally, I have also returned to work, so time becomes more of a factor. There will be less of it. Well, O.K., there will be the same amount of time as before, just allocated in a less A:M friendly manner.

 

I also have a question off topic.

 

I have done (over the last year) several of the exercizes in the book. Three of them, (Can-can, Walking, Secret) are in a single movie and others I will have to find. Is it O.K. to post these on the Newbie lists to go towards my eventual graduation? And how does the not remembering of dates effect all this?

 

Alright. Enough for now. I must play some more with A:M.

 

Thanks,

Phil...

[robcat2075]

render times...

 

Are your lights all raytraced?

 

Raytraced lights (sun type, lightbulb type) take longer than Kleig lights set to "shadow-map"

 

You seem to have several shadow casting lights. Multiple lights take more time too.

 

A daytime outdoor scene will only have one... the sun. You can make other "fill" lights non-shadow casting.

 

Do you really need the reflection in the window? Make them dirty windows and it won't matter.

[Rodney]

Let me tackle the easy stuff first.

 

 

I have done (over the last year) several of the exercizes in the book. Three of them, (Can-can, Walking, Secret) are in a single movie and others I will have to find. Is it O.K. to post these on the Newbie lists to go towards my eventual graduation? You certainly can... but post them to the TaoA:M forum area (I think they've separated here with the new forum updates).

Maybe not though... it may just be creative filtering.

 

You are free to post them out of order, sequentially or even while standing on your head.

Note: I recommend sequentially and NOT standing on your head for optimized experience.

 

And how does the not remembering of dates effect all this?

 

It doesn't. Just put the date that you either post them or as close as you can remember to completing them.

The important date (for your certificate) is the date you finish them all.

 

 

Now to attempt the harder questions.

 

I just realized another aspect of the scene that I didn't take into account. The windows. They reflect the image of the van and the character. E-Gads, this is getting deeper and deeper. I rendered the building and sidewalk seperately, and then rendered the character, van and fire plug into TGA images with proper numbering. That cut the render time down quite a bit. Of course, now I must go on to the next step.

 

This is indeed where things get complicated and using Alpha Channels may not be in your best interest if you can just render the whole thing out at once.

 

Here's an idea to consider...

If there are only a few frames where the reflections are in the window you need only render *those frames* with everything turned on. Render each time to a different folder (one for separated elements and one for complete scene) with the frame filename targetted and then replace only those frames you need. Its a bit more logistically complicated but might work in some instances.

 

You could also render the window and car together and composite that in with the scene but you'd probably have to 'disappear' the window from the scene first.

 

This is yet another reason to render to TGA (or at least individual images).

This is also where our discusion could turn to EXR format but we won't yet.

 

It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on TGAs and Alpha Channels if you are already rendering out separate elements.

 

Hopefully the models you are testing this out with are fairly simple... proxy models... standins... the mo simple.... the mo better.

Once you find something that works you can then set up your scene with the desired resources.

 

I'm not trying to hold you back so keep testing and exploring.

I think a video tutorial would probably work best to demo all of this but my computer isn't set up for video recording right now.

I am working it though.

 

Rodney

[Moonsire]

Here's an idea to consider...

If there are only a few frames where the reflections are in the window you need only render *those frames* with everything turned on. Render each time to a different folder (one for separated elements and one for complete scene) with the frame filename targetted and then replace only those frames you need. Its a bit more logistically complicated but might work in some instances.

I will look at this as one possible answer. See how many frames that would be etc...

 

 

You could also render the window and car together and composite that in with the scene but you'd probably have to 'disappear' the window from the scene first.

 

I have been toying with this one as well. I have even deleted most of the building to see if it would work. This does not deal with the shadow that hits the building though. Actually, there is no shadow in the TGA Alpha Channel, but there should be one on the wall if consistancy is to be served. Truthfully, I would be willing to pass up the shadows if I had to, but there is that part of me that feels a shadow is the only right way to go.

 

I have also considered using a different building, thus solving the window problem. Haven't rejected that notion. Might be the easier way out.

 

 

It sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on TGAs and Alpha Channels if you are already rendering out separate elements.

I tend to experiment. The worst that could happen is, I have to rebuild the scene in the project, and this is a simple scene, all things considered.

I know that I can take each TGA Alpha Channel and place it on the one image of the building (this done in Gimp) thus getting the image that I was trying for and then following the directions for gathering them into A:M and exporting them as .mov or .avi. Alas, I don't know the easier way to do this in A:M. There is an easier way right?

 

 

Hopefully the models you are testing this out with are fairly simple... proxy models... standins... the mo simple.... the mo better.

Once you find something that works you can then set up your scene with the desired resources.

 

I have heard reference to this many times, but as yet haven't done it. At this point I don't know the machanics to the process. I presume that this allows for actions to play out as well. If there is a tut on the forum explaining it, I'll find it and give it a try. Some times I need to be reminded of the shortcuts. Thanks,

 

Phil...

[Rodney]

Sorry, my keyboard failed on me there. Rough times in the world of computer for me these days.

I'm back now though. As I often say...with computers... 99% of the time its a connection.

 

 

If you are willing (and able timewise) I'd like to suggest we conduct an experiment.

It might go something like this:

 

We set up a scene and share it.

Then only one of us renders objects while the other only renders (composited) images.

Eventually we'd update and share this scene as we move on to more complex considerations.

 

If this sounds like something you'd care to try then you are welcome to pick your preference.

If we share a common file it'll help us to attack and explore the same things.

 

I've got a super easy setup that we could start with.

Although it may not be complex enough its easy to make it more complex once we start adding in images with alpha channels.

[Moonsire]

Sorry, my keyboard failed on me there. Rough times in the world of computer for me these days.

I'm back now though. As I often say...with computers... 99% of the time its a connection.

 

 

If you are willing (and able timewise) I'd like to suggest we conduct an experiment.

It might go something like this:

 

We set up a scene and share it.

Then only one of us renders objects while the other only renders (composited) images.

Eventually we'd update and share this scene as we move on to more complex considerations.

 

If this sounds like something you'd care to try then you are welcome to pick your preference.

If we share a common file it'll help us to attack and explore the same things.

 

I've got a super easy setup that we could start with.

Although it may not be complex enough its easy to make it more complex once we start adding in images with alpha channels.

 

Sounds like a good idea. I'm willing enough. Timewise, I'll discribe my situation.

I'm a background actor. My days (when I'm booked) range from an adverage 8 to 12 hours (with the occasional 4 to 6 hour day like today). I can put my main project on hold while we do this experiment, as there is no time table, and learning the ropes will advance this and future projects. But my response time could be anything from a few hours to a day or two, depending on my schedual. If that is O.K. with you, I'm all for it.

 

What do you have in mind?

 

Phil

[Rodney]

What do you have in mind?

 

A basic project with minimal assets assigned.

As we get deeper into the exploration we'd add more to it.

 

I broke my Alpha Channel project so will recreate it and post it here.

 

I should email Steve Sappington to see if he still has his Layers project.

That'd be a good one to experiment with.

[nimblepix]

I hesitate to bring this up at this late hour, but it's an easy way to speed up render times with a camera that doesn't move. Just render the static scene, and then apply it as a camera map to every object that doesn't move. Have the objects receive the mapping and shadows but not take part in any of the other rendering. Then, you just animate your moving objects among the static camera mapped ones.

 

Of course, I may have not read your post thoroughly enough, and may be way off track on what you want to achieve.

[Moonsire]

A basic project with minimal assets assigned.

As we get deeper into the exploration we'd add more to it.

 

I broke my Alpha Channel project so will recreate it and post it here.

 

I should email Steve Sappington to see if he still has his Layers project.

That'd be a good one to experiment with.

 

Sounds like a plan. I look forward to doing this.

 

 

 

I hesitate to bring this up at this late hour, but it's an easy way to speed up render times with a camera that doesn't move. Just render the static scene, and then apply it as a camera map to every object that doesn't move. Have the objects receive the mapping and shadows but not take part in any of the other rendering. Then, you just animate your moving objects among the static camera mapped ones.

 

Of course, I may have not read your post thoroughly enough, and may be way off track on what you want to achieve.

 

Being as I don't know exactly what you're talking about, I await the learning experience.

 

However, I have a 7:00 am call on the set of Old Christine at the WB in the morning, so a 5:00 am wake-up call. Off to bed now.

 

Night all. I'll catch up on this tomarrow.

 

Phil...

[nimblepix]

Good luck on the call.

 

"Being as I don't know exactly what you're talking about, I await the learning experience. "

 

I was afraid of that. : )

I'm preparing for classes starting next week and such,

but I'll try to put together a short tutorial in the next week or so.

[ypoissant]

Why don't you just render the animation straight to TGA?

 

You've been discussing different approaches to splitting the renders into different types of layers so you can cut render time but given that you want the cast shadows and the reflections, any splitter approach will only make the project more and more complicated. Plus, now you will have to spend large amount of time finding the proper techniques to do that and lots of time post processing all that. By the time you do that, your little animation would be completely rendered a long time ago. I'm all for learning new techniques and approaches but those seem overkill for this project.

 

You started this topic jan 1st. If you had rendered, let's say 8 hours a night, your 75 hour render would be more than half completed now. If you had rendered 15 hours a day (assuming you render during night and during you are away for your day job), your animation would be done by now.

[Rodney]

Yves,

Up a few posts you'll see we discussed that aspect. That is definitely the easiest, most direct way.

Phil wants to explore Alpha Channels (see topic title) so... here we are.

Rendering to TGA alone wouldn't be sufficient to explore the power of Alpha Channels.

 

Do you have any projects laying around that clearly demonstrate the benefits of Alpha Channels?

The sooner we get it covered the sooner we move on to other subjects of interest.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Moonsire]

"Being as I don't know exactly what you're talking about, I await the learning experience. "

 

I was afraid of that. : )

I'm preparing for classes starting next week and such,

but I'll try to put together a short tutorial in the next week or so.

 

Thanks for that, and it probibly is not as much a thing as I make it sound. I have been all over the boards in the last week, lookin here and there, and just not finding exactly what I need. Nicely laid out tutorials tend to help me more than most other things out there. Back in the day, when programing in basic was popular, I was a module programer (on more complicated programs). That is to say, I would look at programs that had some aspect of what I wanted to do, and borrow the module or lines of code that did it. Then I would play with the numbers to see what they did, make them do what I wanted, and continue on in that vain where I needed to. I tend to do the same thing with A:M, in that I will take a model (or whatever) and play with the settings. I will follow as best I can the comments made in the forum and, if I can, I try to see if I stand a chance of figuring it out. Sometimes I learn, and sometimes I burn.

 

If I have the correct idea, I understand that you can put a picture in the camera as a background, the same way you do with most other things, that is to click and drag. Haven't a clue what to do after that though.

 

Why don't you just render the animation straight to TGA?

 

You've been discussing different approaches to splitting the renders ... I'm all for learning new techniques and approaches but those seem overkill for this project.

 

You started this topic jan 1st. If you had rendered, let's say 8 hours a night, your 75 hour render would be more than half completed now. If you had rendered 15 hours a day (assuming you render during night and during you are away for your day job), your animation would be done by now.

 

So true, and somewhere along the way that may end up happening, but I am also at a point where this is something I really think will serve me well not too far down the line. This project will likely only be one minute or so long when fully rendered, plus credits. The nine second segment I attempted to render in .avi (I know now, TGA is the only way) took 72 hours (before the crash). I have one system to work on, and it serves all my computing needs. 420 hours is a long time to render, and I suspect there will be places that Alpha Channel work would come in handy in cutting that time, and shadows and reflections aren't always an issue.

 

 

Yves,

Up a few posts you'll see we discussed that aspect. That is definitely the easiest, most direct way.

Phil wants to explore Alpha Channels (see topic title) so... here we are.

Rendering to TGA alone wouldn't be sufficient to explore the power of Alpha Channels.

 

Do you have any projects laying around that clearly demonstrate the benefits of Alpha Channels?

The sooner we get it covered the sooner we move on to other subjects of interest.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

One of the things that I have learned over the years is that I do much better at learning when I create a project for myself, and have someone to turn to for questions and answers, and right off the top here I would like to say thanks for all your inputs. I love that people just jump in with ideas and advice here in the forum, and I'm greatful for the number of tutorials that have been written, and look forward to learning to use this program enough to be able to write a few myself. But that's a cart and horse matter for now.

 

Like most entertainers, I have a long list (and growing) of ideas I want to bring to animation. Storys to tell, you know. I'll need all the skills and understanding of the hows, that I can get. And now I'll sign off so you folk don't have to read this post all night.

 

Thanks all,

Phil...

[ypoissant]

Yves,

Up a few posts you'll see we discussed that aspect. That is definitely the easiest, most direct way.

Phil wants to explore Alpha Channels (see topic title) so... here we are.

Rendering to TGA alone wouldn't be sufficient to explore the power of Alpha Channels.

 

Do you have any projects laying around that clearly demonstrate the benefits of Alpha Channels?

The sooner we get it covered the sooner we move on to other subjects of interest.

 

Thanks in advance.

Yes. I saw the topic title but I was not sure if it was from a misguided or misinformed desision. I had the impresion hat the underlying goal was to get that animation rendered. But if the goal is actually to really learn about alpha channels, then I say go and explore away.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have a project that is designed to explore alpha channels. In fact I only use alpha channels for decals. I don't use them in an attempt to cut down render times by splitting down a render into multiple layers and composite them later. If I had a need to proceed in that way, I would just render the background, midground and foreground separately with alpha channels turned ON so I can composite the layers later usng A:M composites.

 

But even this is something I don't like to do. I'm a "render it all in one stream" kind of guy. I like to see the computer do the work for me as much as possible. If I render in layer, I have to figure a way of doing it appropriately, then I have to setup the scenes for those separate layers and launch the separate renders, then I have to collect those layers into the compositor, then I have to figure the compositing order, operators, etc and then I have to render the composited pictures. That represents a lot of additional work for me with a lot more steps that can go wrong and that I might have to redo.

 

I know other people like to render in layers and composite and I respect that but it is just not my bag so this is why I advise to just render the animation to TGA during night and off-work time. I advise that only because this is the way I do it.

[ypoissant]

... and I suspect there will be places that Alpha Channel work would come in handy in cutting that time, and shadows and reflections aren't always an issue.

Hmmm... You must understand that what takes render times are shadows and reflections. I seriously doubt that in scenes that don't have shadows and reflections, you will have those same render time issues. So you would most probably end up putting a lot more work into them and gaining no significative overall turnover time.

 

The corollary of the above render time rule is that to cut down on render time, your best first bet is to visit your shadows settings. Robert Holmen asked you a question about that and you did not reply. I think you are underestimating that aspect and you should seriously consider this first, before any other approaches. I'm shure Rodney can guide you on this just as well as on alpha channels.

 

I know you are a new user and I'm just trying to set you on the right track.

[Rodney]

But even this is something I don't like to do. I'm a "render it all in one stream" kind of guy.

 

Yves,

What you state (in your post above) is an important consideration in making the decision to use Alpha Channels.

I'm surprised to hear that you don't use compositing!

 

There are extremes in all cases.

Some A:M Users want to create one really big, gigantic, really huge Choreography that contains everything they need to complete the next feature film/movie.

 

Some break everything down into the most minute pieces they can to get absolute control at every level of production.

 

Somewhere in the middle then is the power of Alpha Channels.

 

The key usage, I'll guess, is in compositing.

For those who have no interest in compositing images the Alpha Channel will be of little use.

Its all about manipulating imagery in Post Production.

 

Now if we are going to composite images... any images... we must master the use of Alpha Channels.

 

Luckily with Animation:Master this is really straightforward.

- Render images (or animation!) with Alpha Channels

- Composite

- Adjust as needed

- Finish the job

 

With the advent of EXR format in A:M even greater options are made available as lighting and effects can be adjusted 'on the fly'. This is especially advantageous when working with other people.

 

When the Art Director says, "That area over there is too dark", or "Lets move him a little farther to the right there" we immediately feel the pain of not using composited imagery. It can take a long time to rerender those scenes.

 

In my estimation compositing is a sophisticated hack. Its a tool providing the means to an end.

The question then becomes one of where to use composting to full advantage.

 

It'll remain a hack but one that puts powerful options in the hands of the artist.

[Moonsire]

Hmmm... You must understand that what takes render times are shadows and reflections. I seriously doubt that in scenes that don't have shadows and reflections, you will have those same render time issues. So you would most probably end up putting a lot more work into them and gaining no significative overall turnover time.

 

The corollary of the above render time rule is that to cut down on render time, your best first bet is to visit your shadows settings. Robert Holmen asked you a question about that and you did not reply. I think you are underestimating that aspect and you should seriously consider this first, before any other approaches. I'm shure Rodney can guide you on this just as well as on alpha channels.

 

I know you are a new user and I'm just trying to set you on the right track.

 

Hey Yves.

 

One of the things I've been doing is reading David Rogers book "Animation:Master 2002 - A Complete Guide, and he makes comments about shadows/reflections and the render times involved. As to Robert Holmen's question, huh? I missed it, or didn't get the question. Would you point it out to me, please.

 

I am always happy to have advice and guidance from others. I have a tendency to pick and choose what I follow, don't we all, and it is true that we all have our own styles, but input is always welcome.

 

 

 

There are extremes in all cases.

Some A:M Users want to create one really big, gigantic, really huge Choreography that contains everything they need to complete the next feature film/movie.

 

Some break everything down into the most minute pieces they can to get absolute control at every level of production.

 

Somewhere in the middle then is the power of Alpha Channels.

 

As an actor, I have two backgrounds. The first is as a stage actor, and that one has the advantage of a long term influance. When I started working on animations, I wanted to do them like a play. In Rodney's words, "...create one really big, gigantic, really huge Choreography..." and do it all at once. Like a play.

 

But my most recent exposure is to T.V. and Movie work, and there, you film/tape a scene, close-ups, two shots, mid and wide shots, and put it all together in post. I think the T.V./Movie influance is going to win. I like the idea of setting up a scene and shooting it, and then going on. It also allows the chance to render just the scene, see where your going.

 

The key usage, I'll guess, is in compositing.

For those who have no interest in compositing images the Alpha Channel will be of little use.

Its all about manipulating imagery in Post Production.

 

Until recently, I didn't realize how much of the plans I've made (for animations) will likely include the need for post, and compositing. I want to pick up as much as I can, even the hacks. So much to learn.

 

 

Anyway, Yves, please feel free to continue commenting and suggesting. I can't learn in a vacume, and I figure out pretty quickly what things will suit me best for my style, and that often is bits and peices of everythings.

 

Thanks.

Phil...

[ypoissant]

Rodney,

 

No, I don't use compositing. I don't work that way and I don't think that way. I tend to see my scenes in a wholisitc way. I don't use light lists for the same reason. To me a scene is an indissociable whole and everything must be well integrated. If a light is cast on a character, then that light must also cast shadow on the ground or the walls around that character. I would never think of rendering a scene without any kind of shadows either. But at the same time, I like to only populate my scenes with the objects that are seen in the scene. Anything that don't show (either directly, or through reflections or shadows), I don't put. In this regard, I like to use foreground objects to help mask part of the image so that I don't have to include unnecessary objects in the background.

 

To do a good job with layers and compositing takes a lot of time backed up by vast experience. I'm always amazed when I see the amount of layers that were composited in some movie sequences. I'm amazed and at the same time, I find that so archaic. I remember at Adapt 2006 a conference where Jeremy Birn showed how he did the layers and compositing for some movie sequence he worked on. I was really amazed at how archaic it was. I kept repeating myself, thanks goodness we don't need to do that in A:M. The steps he had to take to end up with what I consider vey normal lighting effect was convoluted to say the least. It turned out all this was necessary because the rendering software they were using on that movie was not capable of propely rendering some very simple lighting effects.

 

It is amazing that A:M can do all that in one single render pass. And I left that presentation with the feeling that those "professionals" don't know what they are missing. Their "layer" way of thinking have been shaped by years of working with difficult to use tools that have been costomized by pipeline technicians inside a work pipeline that forces to think in terms of minute steps that are all combined together in the end. This is so far off from A:M working approach that is one tool for one artist to make one movie.

[ypoissant]

As to Robert Holmen's question, huh? I missed it, or didn't get the question. Would you point it out to me, please.

It is still on the first page of this thread.

[Moonsire]

render times...

 

Are your lights all raytraced?

 

Raytraced lights (sun type, lightbulb type) take longer than Kleig lights set to "shadow-map"

 

You seem to have several shadow casting lights. Multiple lights take more time too.

 

A daytime outdoor scene will only have one... the sun. You can make other "fill" lights non-shadow casting.

 

Do you really need the reflection in the window? Make them dirty windows and it won't matter.

 

Robert.

 

I missed your question, and Yves had to point it out to me. Sorry about that.

 

I actually have a three light system set up. I'll try turning off the shadows on the other two and just use the Kleig light for that. As to the reflection, no. I don't need it, though it's kinda cool. The other building I was thinking of using has no windows. I could make these dirty and solve the problem. Still, I want to see about rendering without the building, and combining them in post. A great time to dirty the windows too.

 

I had forgotten about the raytraced shadows taking longer. Thanks for the reminder.

 

Phil...

[NancyGormezano]

Hmmm... You must understand that what takes render times are shadows and reflections.

 

Another area that takes up render times are some procedural materials versus using decals. E.G. some of the dark tree materials take an obscene amount of time to render (20x) when they could easily be duplicated using a decal. I'm not sure if you're using any materials (the brick?, concrete?), but this is for future reference.

 

And of course there's hair; using final render (no multipass - usually shorter) versus # of passes for multipass; size of frame; % frame that's transparent; density of particles, etc.

 

Those are a partial list of other areas which impact render times (not in your current scene), but also might lead you at some point if you don't want to change the components of your scene to consider post-compositing to cut down render time.

 

(Caution: I'm an impatient slobby hack compared to Yves sublime perfection)

[ypoissant]

Another area that takes up render times are some procedural materials versus using decals. E.G. some of the dark tree materials take an obscene amount of time to render (20x) when they could easily be duplicated using a decal. I'm not sure if you're using any materials (the brick?, concrete?), but this is for future reference.

Oh yes. Materials. They not only take more time to render but are harder to antialias right. Use decals instead if you can and it could save you huge render times.

 

Phil,

I did a quick calculation and from the numbers you posted it appears that each frame takes about 15 minutes to render. For such a simple scene, this seems exhorbitant. Something is definitely going on there so check your shadows, reflections and materials.

[Moonsire]

Hmmm... You must understand that what takes render times are shadows and reflections.

 

Another area that takes up render times are some procedural materials versus using decals. E.G. some of the dark tree materials take an obscene amount of time to render (20x) when they could easily be duplicated using a decal. I'm not sure if you're using any materials (the brick?, concrete?), but this is for future reference.

 

And of course there's hair; using final render (no multipass - usually shorter) versus # of passes for multipass; size of frame; % frame that's transparent; density of particles, etc.

 

Those are a partial list of other areas which impact render times (not in your current scene), but also might lead you at some point if you don't want to change the components of your scene to consider post-compositing to cut down render time.

 

(Caution: I'm an impatient slobby hack compared to Yves sublime perfection)

 

 

Alas and alack, Nancy, I too am often impatient.

 

The building is the brick warehouse in the Model/buildings library in A:M. Almost everything is made up of magerials. Only a few little decals for dirt and grime. Maybe I need to pick my buildings better. But I don't have one with decals, and that means building my own. My own attempt at building brick walls has been less than spectacular, but I haven't given up yet.

 

Phil...

[Rodney]

Yves,

This is where we reveal the levels from which we are both operating.

I think Phillip can appreciate the full spectrum.

 

I exist at the primordial level. I grasp at just about any solution I can find.

You are known to work at a level of excellence honed by your experiece. The results speak for themselves.

Your work demonstrates the highest quality, a more thorough understanding and a greater sophistication than I can comfortably aspire to.

 

It takes time, commitment and experience to achieve that level of expertise.

 

This is important distinction and should be considered by new users of A:M.

Do we set the standard at perfection? Is good enough ever... good enough?

Again I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

 

When adding titles or credits to a movie who immediately thinks of Compositing?

I know I do.

 

There is a lot to explore in Animation:Master!

[Moonsire]

...I exist at the primordial level...

You are known to work at a level of excellence honed by your experiece. The results speak for themselves...

 

It takes time, commitment and experience to achieve that level of expertise.

 

This is important distinction and should be considered by new users of A:M.

Do we set the standard at perfection? Is good enough ever... good enough?

Again I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

 

When adding titles or credits to a movie who immediately thinks of Compositing?

I know I do...

 

 

My goal with A:M is to be able to use it to tell my stories. This means that skill will develope while learning and performing with this tool, and as it does, I will have ever increasing ways of telling them, but if my skill is simple, then I will tell the story in a simple way. When my skill is greater, I will still use only what I need to tell the story. I will just have more choises to make.

 

As to perfection or good enough; I don't worry about perfection, I don't think it exists. Good enough is a judgement that should be left to critics.

The simple lines of Charlie Brown, or the complex detail of Toy Story, were for each, good enough for what they needed to do.

 

Phil...

[Moonsire]

I am off to pick up my daughter and her husband at the airport, and will be back before long.

 

Phil...

[ypoissant]

As to perfection or good enough; I don't worry about perfection, I don't think it exists. Good enough is a judgement that should be left to critics.

Amen!

[Rodney]

As to perfection or good enough; I don't worry about perfection, I don't think it exists. Good enough is a judgement that should be left to critics.

Amen!

 

The trouble I have absorbing this is in finding that moment when we call our effort 'done'. In my experience, this moment almost never occurs (perhaps its when we die?). As such I find I always get to a point where I must finally say, "good enough".

 

 

At any rate, a little more on Alpha Channels as we haven't quite hit that point of 'good enough'. The following is from the Tech Ref on compositing (multiplane):

 

 

The composition of a scene is important; ask any artist. Your mind uses visual cues to understand an image, otherwise the raw, cavalcade of information would be impossible to understand. It is always better to provide a feeling of depth. A painting or an animation or a frame of film is not simply objects floating over a sea of blackness; other things should be visible: such as the sky, ground, and possibly a tree in the distance. Simply stated, every scene is composed of many layers. The layers add a richness to the story, providing a vast treasure trove of clues for your imagination’s weaving. Usually, the better the layers are integrated into the scene (for example, casting shadows), the better the image.

 

The art of compositing is not a new concept. The multiplane camera used by Walt Disney Studios was the first of many attempts to add perspective and depth into compositing. The art of digital compositing is fairly new however, and the possibilities are endless. "Multiplane" layering in Animation:Master is the modern day equivalent of the multiplane camera, but of course, adding much more flexibility and power.

 

When we designed our digital composition functions in the "Multiplane" section of Animation:Master, we had animation in mind, (most paint programs only composite single pictures). Animation compositing is repetitive and can be left unattended: a perfect job for a computer to do, and one we can take advantage of.

 

To create a layer simply right-click (Control-click on the Mac) the Objects folder and select [New][Layer]. This will prompt you to pick an image or animation for the layer. Once a layer has been created it can be added to a choreography by dragging it into a choreography window or under a choreography icon in the project workspace tree. A layer can be manipulated using the same tools as all other objects. For instance you can use the Translate manipulator, Scale manipulator, and Rotate Manipulator to move and change the orientation of the layer.

 

Note my emphasis added. I smiled when I read the words 'flexibility' and 'power'.

Makes me think we are on the right track.

[Rodney]

I'm revisiting some resources of the past before taking time to create new resources.

It's always a good idea to inventory the resources at your disposal before expending time and effort reproducing possibly inferior results.

 

Heres a great tutorial from the past by Darrin Mossor. Thanks to him for keeping it alive on his site!

In his tutorials he explores the world of layers (see text on multiplane above) using images painted in a graphics program.

For imagery created within A:M the effect can be even more seamless.

 

Layers in A:M by Darrin Mossor

[Moonsire]

Hey Rodney.

 

I've read the above and have printed out the tutorial to read in the morning. Bed time now. But I have one question I haven't asked anyone yet.

 

What is with http://www.AnimationPitstop.com. People keep saying what great stuff they have, and all I have ever seen there are paid ads and pop ups. Is there a deep dark secret not shared with outsiders that I know nothing of, or is there really content on the site that isn't just ads?

 

Now I can walk the dog (she'll like that) and go to bed.

 

Phil...

[Rodney]

Animation Pitstop has been shut down for well over two years now.

I believe its operator's bad health was the reason it could no longer be maintained.

 

You'll be glad to know that many (but not all) of the resources once found on the site are now included on the Extra DVD. A few resources I just couldn't track down... the dinosaurs in particular if I recall correctly. I haven't given up though!

 

Lucky for you that you are going to sleep.

Here's a post for the technocenti. I admit I haven't read it (just skimmed).

I'm told there are actually people out there that understand this stuff!

 

In other words... I don't expect many to be interested at this level but its here for completeness sake.

http://grail.cs.washington.edu/theses/ChuangPhd.pdf

 

If I can find it I'll post the link to Ray Alfee and Ed Catmull's documents related to Alpha Channels here later.

 

 

To keep this in the real of utility here is a use of Alpha Channels for decals.

Yves mentioned he using them for that process and in the following tutorial Frank Silas does too. He demonstrates an alternative to rendering hair.

 

http://www.franksilas.com/Hair.htm

[ypoissant]

The trouble I have absorbing this is in finding that moment when we call our effort 'done'. In my experience, this moment almost never occurs (perhaps its when we die?). As such I find I always get to a point where I must finally say, "good enough".

I find the trouble with deciding when "good enough" is actually good enough comes when I'm working on my own porojects. For some of my own projects, it seems to be lifetime indeed.

 

For commissioned projects, it is way much easier as it is generally related to time and money budget or to ownership. It is good enough when the deadline is reached, when there are no more money, when there are no more days/hours, when the customer had a very "personal" need and he won't see the difference anyway, when the customer requests changes that I don't agree with, when I don't feel ownership of the work anymore. There, the work is usually "good enough".

 

One good in-between situation is to participate in community type of challenges and voluntary-based projects where there is still submission deadlines but there are no customers to boss around. I'm thinking of the image contests and TWO (or any similarly structured projects). Clear deadline, better ownership and as a bonus, feedback as opportunities for improvement.

[Rodney]

All good points Yves.

 

When it comes to deadlines in this vein (Tutorials and how Tos) my utilimate goal would be the one page tutorial. When you reach the end of the page.... done.

 

Obviously some subjects would be broken down into multiple pages covering various aspects.

[Moonsire]

The trouble I have absorbing this is in finding that moment when we call our effort 'done'. In my experience, this moment almost never occurs (perhaps its when we die?). As such I find I always get to a point where I must finally say, "good enough".

 

Now if you could teach George Lucas to embrace this thought...

 

 

 

I find the trouble with deciding when "good enough" is actually good enough comes when I'm working on my own porojects. For some of my own projects, it seems to be lifetime indeed.

I have looked at things I have done, and my thought is "Ah, I could have..." or "Ah Hah, I should have..." and I know that those projects are done. Next time, I take what I have learned and make the next project with that extra bit of awareness. Still there will come a moment when I am likely to say, "Ah, I could have...", but that is they way of things.

 

For commissioned projects, it is way much easier as it is generally related to time and money budget or to ownership...

 

And the bar is raised or lowered by the level of your personal investment. Just a reality. I work background, and get paid minimum wage. The star of the show gets paid gobs more (which is the way things are) and we both have a different level of investment, thus bars are placed differently. After the 10th take, I can see how "good enough" is reached. The star, however, may want to go for take 11, or may take it futher. When I am in his spot, the bar will be higher.

 

One good in-between situation is to participate in community type of challenges and voluntary-based projects where there is still submission deadlines but there are no customers to boss around. I'm thinking of the image contests and TWO (or any similarly structured projects). Clear deadline, better ownership and as a bonus, feedback as opportunities for improvement.

 

When your giving your time and effort willingly, and without monitary compensation, and the love of the art, or even the stroke of the ego is involved, improvement is alway ready to be had by the one who keeps his or her eyes open. You just want to do your "best". Good enough becomes a higher bar, by choise. That's a good thing.

[Moonsire]

Animation Pitstop has been shut down for well over two years now.

I believe its operator's bad health was the reason it could no longer be maintained.

 

You'll be glad to know that many (but not all) of the resources once found on the site are now included on the Extra DVD. A few resources I just couldn't track down... the dinosaurs in particular if I recall correctly. I haven't given up though!

 

When does the DVD com out?

 

Lucky for you that you are going to sleep.

Here's a post for the technocenti. I admit I haven't read it (just skimmed).

I'm told there are actually people out there that understand this stuff!

 

In other words... I don't expect many to be interested at this level but its here for completeness sake.

http://grail.cs.washington.edu/theses/ChuangPhd.pdf

 

Just a 147 pages of light reading? The math is likely beyond me, but I like the pictures. <g> I'll look it over, over time, as I can't print this one out.

 

To keep this in the real of utility here is a use of Alpha Channels for decals.

Yves mentioned he using them for that process and in the following tutorial Frank Silas does too. He demonstrates an alternative to rendering hair.

 

http://www.franksilas.com/Hair.htm

I have seen this one before. I'll print it out and read it along with the Darrin Mossor tut on Layers. I have seen the Mossor tut before too, but didn't make connections.

 

Phil...

[Rodney]

When does the DVD com out?

 

Its out! Hash Inc is mailing it with new updates.

Those that have missed it should visit a Hash Inc booth at a tradeshow near you and get yours.

 

I'm hoping mine will arrive on monday.

[Moonsire]

When does the DVD com out?

 

Its out! Hash Inc is mailing it with new updates.

Those that have missed it should visit a Hash Inc booth at a tradeshow near you and get yours.

 

I'm hoping mine will arrive on monday.

 

I'm still operating on V12 and will be for a while, as funds don't allow an upgrade now. The tradeshows are out for the same reasons, though I might be able to scrape up shiping and handling. Will a phone call to Hash inc. generate such an arangement?

[Moonsire]

My oh My! I have had an epiphany! Back On Topic.

 

While going through the Mossor tutorial, I got this really clear image of what I sould be doing.

 

1. Run render of background only (with fire plug for shadow).

2. Run render of Van, Character and fire plug (car in front, character behind).

3. (If I want the shadow of the Character to show (not worrying about the car)) then I can put a white plane where the street is and one where the wall is and render. In Gimp, remove the character, Invert the image, move on to the next frame and repeat. There are not that many frames with the shadow. So not too bad a job.

4. Import the background image.

5. Import the group render from 2.

6. Import the group render from 3.

7. And this step (for what I want) is different than what the tutorial calls for, because somehow, I should be able to export the bunch as a .avi or .mov.

 

So, assuming 1 through 6 are right, what is step seven?

 

Phil...

[Rodney]

7. And this step (for what I want) is different than what the tutorial calls for, because somehow, I should be able to export the bunch as a .avi or .mov.

I'd suggest again exporting/rendering to TGA (for similar reason as we've discussed above).

Then when all is completed convert the TGA sequence to AVI or MOV in A:M. You'll have your TGA images as backup then too.

 

I had considered your Step 3 but didn't think that option would appeal to you.

I'd be a quick post processing solution if it meets your needs however.

 

It sounds like something I'd do so that automatically makes it suspect.

I use CorelDraw and CorelPhotopaint for that type of quick fix.

 

As epiphanies go... that's a pretty good one.

 

Will a phone call to Hash inc. generate such an arangement?

 

It probably would but... one problem not all the resources on the DVD are compatible with v12. I believe many still are though.

[Moonsire]

I'd suggest again exporting/rendering to TGA (for similar reason as we've discussed above).

Then when all is completed convert the TGA sequence to AVI or MOV in A:M. You'll have your TGA images as backup then too.

 

How do I run the render again with the group images, and how do I place them?

 

I had considered your Step 3 but didn't think that option would appeal to you.

I'd be a quick post processing solution if it meets your needs however.

 

It sounds like something I'd do so that automatically makes it suspect.

I use CorelDraw and CorelPhotopaint for that type of quick fix.

Gimp is what I have that can do the job. Photoshop Elements doesn't do TGA with Alpha Channels.

Step 3 is a little more work, but worth it I think. I'll watch my shadow placement in the future.

 

 

As epiphanies go... that's a pretty good one.

 

...one problem not all the resources on the DVD are compatible with v12. I believe many still are though.

 

Thanks.

 

I called Hash today and it's in the mail. I'll take what I can get on the compatiblity front.

 

Phil...