ok stupid question here but dangit

[TheSpleen]

I know I know newbiest question ever!

I how do I change the background screen to a .tga of my choosing?

I am finishing off a new animation and need to add the credits.

Thanks.

[TheSpleen]

nevermind I got it

[Rodney]

Ah... my timing is lousy again.

Sorry about that Robert.

 

My title card for 'The Legend of Stingy Jack' is to be my jumping off point for a new exercise/tutorial on Titles. That might have addressed your question even before you had it.

 

Expect to see some basic info on Titles and Non-Linear Animation in A:M as I can find the time to devote to it. Hopefully I can collect some good information on image formats too. More and more people know what the various image formats can be used for these days but there are still a few that don't. If you've already been mastering these things on your own so much the better.

 

Movies have all manner of things in their middles but as a minimum, almost all have a Title and Credits.

[Rodney]

Ever the opportunist I'm going to hijack your topic a bit Robert.

My apologies... If you object I'll move these posts elsewhere.

 

For those looking in, I think you'll agree that most Titles/Credits need text to go with them.

 

To learn more about creating text (animated or otherwise) I highly recommend reviewing the Font Wizard tutorial by Holmes Bryant!

[TheSpleen]

I am interested Rodney

[heyvern]

It can be tricky if you use an image in AM for titles because they can get soft and fuzzy if not at the correct resolution. I tend to create titles in "post" when possible with other applications (like iMovie) that have "live text" that is rendered at optimal smoothness regardless of the out put resolution.

 

To get the best results you may want to use a higher resolution for the titles image than you think you might need. This should help keep the text sharp... but even then antialiasing might cause softening of the image. You may want to render the titles separately without antialiasing or at least do some tests at the "final" resolution to see how it looks. It would be nice if AM had "live text" for credit sequences. Using the font wizard is great for simple stuff but can bog down if you have a lot of credits.

 

-vern

[Rodney]

It can be tricky if you use an image in AM for titles because they can get soft and fuzzy if not at the correct resolution.

 

You must consider the target audience here Vern.

For testing and learning purposes low resolutions will work best.

As the process is mastered the artist can move to higher quality resolutions.

As an introduction to the concepts, features and options available... the more simple the better. (Keeping this simple is the hardest part!)

 

 

Understanding the image formats and options for rendering to different resolutions will help. For many in our target audience 'soft and fuzzy' is going to be more than adequate. Personally, I like soft and fuzzy over most crisp renderings that give evidence that the image was produced with a computer.

 

Similar to your experience, I've found that to get a crisp image for use in compositing requires rendering out to a higher resolution. Rendering out to the Vistavision setting works well I've found. Resolutions less than that won't be adequate in every instance but will work well for our purposes.

 

As far as credits go... most of us make our own movies with little help from large groups of assistants (this great forum notwithstanding). We aren't talking Star Wars length credits here! We are talking 'Joe Smith did everything'. Its more likely that the majority of time spend on credits might be in creating animation or graphics to be included with the credits which might further inform or entertain the viewers.

 

As you seem to suggest, one of the issues that causes soft and fuzzy images is that of using low rez images grabbed from someplace else (internet, low rez cameras, other programs, etc.). Its difficult to suggest to others that this is not the best way to do this but... if you can help it... don't do it. Create and maintain a Library of images for use with A:M that you know will work well. You know they will... because you've made them yourself.

 

This whole issue is compounded all the more when people try to mask out transparencies on images not created in A:M. Those are the famous 'jaggies' you and others have written about (you Vern... Tincan... Yyves... and others have all created classic tutorials on the subject of Alpha Channels and how to deal with the artifacts found in image masking. Great stuff! There is however a very unfortunate aspect to these classic tutorials... they don't take enough advantage of A:M itself to fix the problem. They approach the problem of fixing jaggies from images that are already 'broke'.

 

If anyone is fighting fuzzysoft images or jaggies thats even more reason to create the Title cards and credits in A:M. Let A:M do the work by masking the images for you. They'll composite into your film even better.

 

(...and of course... Save those models and projects you used to make the images in your Library too in case you need to revisit them later!)

 

Ultimately, what is learned in A:M about Alpha Channels, title cards and credits can be directly applied to other programs too. This knowledge will enhance the quality of images brought into A:M from other sources.

[MJL]

Ultimately, what is learned in A:M about Alpha Channels, title cards and credits can be directly applied to other programs too. This knowledge will enhance the quality of images brought into A:M from other sources.

 

Sounds good, Rodney, the more done in A:M the better. So let the instruction begin . . . .

 

Myron

[Rodney]

Sounds good, Rodney, the more done in A:M the better. So let the instruction begin . . . .

 

I will certainly give it my best shot.

[TheSpleen]

I am awaiting with breathless anticipation

[Rodney]

I am awaiting with breathless anticipation

 

Boy are you hard up for entertainment!

 

 

So... by way of getting started lets look at our basic objective; "Create a Title".

 

In general, a title is a word or group of words used to identify an object or person. When applied to a person it signifies a relationship to a creative work or authority. A title is most effective when clear and concise and the relationship is understood or known. Should the exact meaning of a title not be known at the outset the expectation is that it will eventually become known.

 

For our purposes we'll confine titles identified with people to areas where credit is implied. In film it should surprise no one that this aspect is referred to as 'the credits'.

 

Case in point; 'Exercise 1: You're the Director'.

The title and implication is clear.

Its the direction you take that dictates the stories you'll tell.

[heyvern]

Rodney Just to be clear I was only talking about resolution and sharpness in regards to text and title images. Several times I was working on projects with a lot of title sequences in After Effects. As long as the text was "live" it would output clear and sharp at whatever resolution I exported, small, preview, final output etc. If for any reason the text was "rasterized" or I used an image the antialiasing or the rendering process caused the text to soften up. The client pointed this out and I had to redo those titles. It has to do with the scaling and antialiasing of fixed pixels versus resolution independent font out lines. So yes, "soft" can help with the content... but it's not always good for titles and text on screen.

 

-vern

[heyvern]

I've changed my mind. The Font Wizard is FANTASTIC for titles. I've always had slow machines... I forget I have a fast one now. Even a lot of text can work with the font wizard in AM. The font wizard is my recommendation for titles in AM. Of course it isn't live text so editing is a bit of a hassle.

 

In this image you can see the benefit of "live" versus "image based" text. Image based text only works best at an "optimum" size or rendered resolution. Even if you use a high res image and scale down you still risk getting those "jaggies" on the edges. Live text or "vector" text from using the font wizard, has virtually no limits in output size.

 

 

-vern

[Rodney]

Thanks for that update Vern.

After rereading my response I think my stance was a bit too biased in favor of accepting a lower level of quality. I suggest this intentially but should clarify it better.

 

If you can avoid degradation in quality of your image thats is certainly the way to go. With web graphics that may be difficult. Many factors will influence the level of quality that is 'acceptable' in your images.

 

Fortunately, we have a good choice of image formats to choose from and where one format doesn't meet our requirements another usually will. Case in point my Exercise 1 title card above. It was crystal clear when rendered to Targa format but degraded tremendously as the size and resolution changed and the format converted to JPEG. JPEG holds quality pretty well but some color changes don't work as well.

 

The PNG format has one important feature that JPEG doesn't when it comes to posting on the internet... PNG images have the ability to maintain transparency channel... JPEG images don't.

 

I'm fighting myself to keep from getting distracted and discussing image formats. Image formats are important to consider. As rendering formats are discussed between Exercise 1 and 2 I'd say they are fair play.

 

I have high hopes for the Font Wizard.

It works great now but I think in time it will be even better.

The ultimate Font/Scripting Wizard would access and interpret the contents of a text file... automating the task of placing text or objects where you specify them in 3D from the script. (This is not a feature request... its what I hope to program myself some day)

 

Here is an image rendered straight to PNG format at VGA resolution. Lets see how it looks...

 

If you save and import the attache file in A:M the transparency should still be there.

[heyvern]

I agree with you Rodney that the final output is the issue. If it's web video or DVD. My original point is to save time and effort. If you use vector based text like the Font Wizard produces you don't have to worry about the final out put at all. It's resolution independent. If you decide to go with small low res web delivery the text will be "optimized" for that. If you decide to render to a larger format it will work just as well. It's scalable. Image based text... not so much. Image format makes no difference either. Targa, bmp, png. Doesn't matter if you scale the image up too much it still gets the "jaggies".

 

The problem these days is that web video can be as good or better than "traditionally" standard "tv" out put. I don't have an HD tv yet... but I can watch amazing high quality HDTV streaming online in real time on my loverly big monitor.

 

-vern

[Rodney]

Okay... not sure how well it illustrates the objective but... test yourself to see how savy you are on the usage of images in A:M via this (drumroll please)...

 

Image usage test!

In the attached screen capture from my Choreography all text is from the PNG title attached in my last post.

 

Can you identify the three Objects?

Can you explain how the text was converted in color from white to red?

Where is the image applied as a Decal?

Where is the image imported as a Layer?

Where are the Patch Images? What images are they?

Where is the Rotoscope?

How were each of these applied and composited together?

 

...and um... did I forget anything else?

 

For the tie-breaker... try to guess the number of patches.

 

(Project file will be posted later)

[Rodney]

You can definitely see the jaggies in that screenshot.

My monitor resolution is set really low for screencapture at the moment. For better quality screen capture results resolution settings can be turned up.

 

Here is a render directly to JPEG with the quality setting set to high quality.

(Hopefully I grabbed the right image!)

 

Also attached is where you access the image quality settings via A:M's advanced render panel.

[Rodney]

Here is a render of the image types revealed.

Its a bit hard to see the word decal on the vase but its there on top of the patch images.

 

Likewise the film strip holes are hard to see.

They consist of a patch image of one hole set to repeat 3 times in the Y axis for each patch.

 

In the original project three images were used.

The original title card (used variously as patch images, layer image, rotoscope and decal), the dirt image (applied to the whole vase as a patch images) and the filmstrip hole (applied as patch images to both sides of the filmstrip but not the middle).

 

Patch count was 146 give or take a few. Most patches can be found in the vase model which is extremely dense for its simple role (104 patches) with both the inside and outside of the vase modeled. The filmstip (39 patches) is not seen in its entirety). Only 10 patches in view.

 

...and changing the color of the text was accomplished by changing the properties of the Layer's ambience color (red) and intensity.

 

Various settings were used with each image property (bump, transparency, color, displacement, etc. to vary the image effect)

[Rodney]

Of course images aren't the only thing that can be added to your titles.

A few subtle changes in Coloring and Lighting can help produce just about any effect or mood you want.

[Rodney]

...and with the change of even one or two settings you've created variations on your theme.

[Rodney]

...and of course... we haven't even started animating anything yet!

[Rodney]

The last image... just a quickly lathed cylinder with patch images applied.

The change in color on the filmstrip is created by adjusting the Ambiance Color and Intensity on a second set of patch groups. This time changing settings on Groups with no image applied.

 

The underlying images are still effected by the changes in ambiance/intensity on the Groups where no image is applied.