Bobocop, I'm not sure if that's image's creation is inspired by/a reference to something larger that I don't know about, but as it is right now to me, that's just strange (in a smile/laugh-inducing way)! I love it! (nice work on the shadows too)
Quote by AuggieBenDoggie Does lightwave feature Normal Mapping? I'm a Maya user so normal mapping is a pretty regular feature I use when modeling. ... started work on a TIE attack shot, would love to show you...
I tried to send you a PM as I don't want to start talking generals of doing CG'ing here in this thread (I'll never shut up ), but it didn't go through. Are your PM's turned on?
In regards to recent posts... Maybe someone has a nice kitten picture to happier-ize the vibe? Just a thought.
Actually I had an idea about that, what about a cheat? ... what if the Deathstar is a digital mat painting? I don't see why that wouldn't work.
I suppose one could render just three frames of the modeled surface and stitch them together for a map, then place that map onto a simple plane of the right shape, and the "animation" then would take a brief amount of time as it's only rendering a simple textured plane/disk rather than all the details each frame. My problem is just getting that initial rendering of the DS surface set-up. I don't even have LW versions of the tiles!
Edit, to Mojo_LA who just posted while my writing this: I put a big post in response to yours, a few pages back. (I get the sense you didn't see it as you refer to "a small team" doing Ady's CG for that shot when it was only "a guy")
... a few FX shots that are getting some heat. Nobody is going to think less of you for keeping them as they are...
Just cause I feeling like chatting some more here about this stuff. Nothing heavy, not being defensive.
I can assure ya'll that Ady would've been very happy if I gave him a "Guess what I did!" for the DS surface for that shot, a detailed-ish anim in HD for that composite layer, but that simply was/is not going to happen (without a big upgrade in resources of some sort). To do that in CG (of course making a miniature of that and really filming it is out) with anything less than a decent render farm would be insaneness. Even with very low-poly versions of the tile meshes, we'd still be talking many millions of polygons to render in the end. (I know you know Auggie, but everyone else -> ) Think about what we're talking about rendering here: a solid mile+ of very greeble-covered surface! Even if I could use tricks to cut the rendering materials down a third for the near-same end result, or even further, that's still just not worth it to attempt with my amount of resources (one computer, low experience). I would probably trick it right back down to looking like mush again.
Just saying that it's not a matter of not feeling like giving the elements a boost now. I would love to throw those tiles down and duplicate them a thousand of times over and render them them out in a couple of days to give to Ady for an upgrade for that shot, and I'm sure he'd love to receive such a thing, but there is simply no way to do that on my end here/now. It would take not days, but many weeks to output that, and he doesn't want to wait that long -- and I don't want my 3D computer off limits to my creative playings for that long (putting aside my electric bill! ) But it is cool seeing people thinking that we have/had the capability to just wantonly produce such things as a square mile+ of Death Star surface from scratch for a shot.
Edit2: Whether Ady would welcome other contributors to create such composite layers for him is, of course, his call. Okay, shutting up now.
Originally posted by: AuggieBenDoggie Hey WXM, it's great you hear about your contribution to this edit. ... I applaud your effort.
Originally posted by: Fuser ...but I'd like to extend this to you also for the phenomenal work you've done on the edit.
Thanks, Auggie and Fuser! Ady and I are both pretty happy with how the TIEs turned out. Some of those frames of the anim, damn if those don't look like real filming miniatures! (<-a lot of credit for that goes to MaxwellRender though, not me )
I finally got to see the shot (Ady saw my post) and I must say that I am very impressed! For this shot to go from purely a point on Ady's wish-list to this level of actualization through his efforts (especially with what we had to work with)... stunning! Even if some people don't agree with how the shot fits into the film (slows the pace, etc.), hopefully everyone will acknowledge and applaud the mental energy and drive and cahones it took to bring such a shot about from just about nothing to this level of immersibility. Not that most everybody isn't doing that already, but I'll add my voice too in that regard (at the risk of seeming a bit biased): Rockin' job, Ady, I say! I like it!
I'm going to field this first as I'm the CG guy who did the animating and rendering. I appreciate your feedback! You have good points of course; I'll just point out a few things that will probably just sound like excuses in the end, but it's what it is.
1) This shot is not only my first effects animation, but is basically the first effects shot I have ever done, still or otherwise (the DS graphics are more just "graphics" than effects in my mind). After I did the graphics we testingly slid into feeling out accomplishing this shot. I was giving it my best go doing what the said he wanted, feeding him little tests, seeing what he thought...leading to what you see in this edit (a remotely final composite of which I still have not even seen myself yet!).
2) The camera motion looking "CG": Again, this is my first effects animation, and I am not a student of anyone who does this, have not read up on the art of carrying this out. I felt I was already juggling so much just to get what you see completed. Had I the experience to show/offer Ady such an improvement, he probably would have liked it, but... To my slight credit, for the pan I did avoid just perfectly tracking the center TIE (the kind of thing I actually see movies a lot and it bugs me); the camera turning is done independently, you see the TIEs fall out of frame for a little bit... I'm kinda proud of that, even if it isn't much.
3) I had no composite materials of the shot on my end beyond my renders, did not have his edit of the battle into which I could see what was coming before and after this shot, that was all on Ady's side -- and Ady didn't have a finished, fully blurred render until about five days ago, when he wanted the project released. While I could have requested he send me the layers and such, he was undstandably *busy*, and I didn't want to come across as trying to overstep my bounds. He knew what he wanted, and truth be told it all was fine to me for the most part from what I was seeing, what he was explaining. The guy is good! Had I had the composite layers and more of the edit in my hands, maybe my "CG animator" eyes would have noticed these things you mentioned, like a better/more accurate blur length and the camera being too rock-solid -- or maybe my inexperience would have failed me, which I will honestly say is a possibilty. In fact, I picked the final mo-blur setting here, not Ady -- but it was a virtual shot in the dark for me as I was only going by playbacks in VirtualDub of the raw, uncomposited renders alone. Again, we were kind of hands-tied in a lot of ways putting this together. He's in the UK, I'm in California, I only have dial-up for e-communicating/sending... although I honestly think even just the CG side of this shot looks a bit better than a reasonable expectation for the how the end result could look given the resources and experience of the people who put it together for the kind of shot it is (or maybe not...?)
4) Deadline -- Rendering this was going to take a long time on my computer as it was a 1.3 millions poly scene (<-plus motion blurring that!); With how much Ady was juggling we simply didn't have the time to do many tests -- and besides, our tests we did complete all looked pretty good to us -- and we reached a point where it seemed like a good "go" and we went for the final render to have a hope of getting this thing done. (There's more to the story, but this is already long.)
5) As far as the DS surface looking like mush, we did try to get the jedilaw's "DS surface greeble pack" working for us, but we just didn't have the resources in the end for that to happen (converting the meshes to LW, lighting them, animating, then rendering those MANY polygons!).
Anyway, I hope that sheds some light on this, hope I didn't come off as too defensive. Honestly, it's cool to hear (for me anyway) feedback. Lastly, obviously it's not really up to me if upgrades to effects are done for this edit.
Originally posted by: Kurgan Nice job on the CG, it looks great! I thought at first I'd hate the "red" DS graphics (too much pandering to the so-so AOTC), but they've already grown on me. I suppose it's a good high contrast color for vector graphics (rather than making it say, blue or something).
When I first finished the mesh and was about to render the first anim (the "R2 download" shot), I was also thinking a color scheme other than red might be good and suggested this to Ady, whereupon he showed me Death Star graphics screen grabs from RTOJ, which were both red -- which convinced that red was probably about the best pick after all to keep things feeling the same through the films, OT as well as PT. There were very few things Ady didn't really think through/research ahead of time on this edit I think.
Hi! I'm going to go ahead and introduce myself here as the "3D CG guy" who did the very few 3D created-from-scratch elements that were made for this edit, those being the red Death Star schematics mesh/anims and that one big "incoming TIEs swarm" shot.
I started working with Ady in February of last year and finished, oh, about three days ago. Modeling the red Death Star mesh alone took me probably pushing a hundred hours; definitely wasn't just a LightWave primitive sphere with an eye poked onto it. I'm kind of a detail fiend, so I poured over the very few references I had, did my best to recreate everything I could make out from those (the three fuzzy rotating DS holograph shots from AOTC). Pretty rough! But I'm glad people seem to approve to the end result. (Note that I did only the "from-scratch 3D" portions of those shots for Revisited -- Ady of course did all the frame graphics, Aurebesh text, arrow-lines, compositing, etc.)
I'll chat more later as right now I have to run off to work. Just wanted to pop here in here real quick to say hi and give some info for those curious, if anyone is even curious.
Hmm, i wonder how you got hold of a picture of the new death star schematic used in my edit for your would be avatar
Uh... Oh yeah! Remember when you accidentally posted that image on ratemykitten.com instead of your cat's picture? Well, I was looking at kitten pictures that day -- and due to your mistake and my good luck I was right there to snag your mistakenly posted DS schematic image. Uh, yeah, that's how I got it.
Seeing as how at the theater I work at we can remove the wall between our two IMAX auditoriums and push their screens together to make one big screen, I'm going to be printing and running my own 6-track mag 70mm print of this, made from Ady's master AAE file (which is 9600x3240 res of course, in case none of you knew ). The problem is that the projectors for these auditoriums run only native IMAX, horizontal-run prints, and as I can only afford a regular ol' 70mm print (which runs vertically through a projector) my pals and I are going to have to lie on our sides on the floor of the theatre to watch it correctly. But we still expect it to rock!
(P.S. - I'm not making fun; I'm just excited like the rest of you and it's making me a little funny in the head I think )
Ady, you said on page 34 of this thread that you were thinking about restoring the cut scene where Han, Obi-Wan and Luke pet a bunch of kittens on the Death Star (in the control room closet). You never mentioned it again though, so does this mean you didn't restore that scene? Because if there ain't no kittens in this edit, then I ain't gottn be smitten wit' it.
It just seems like the finish line keeps moving further out as we get closer too it
Well, one long-running obstacle to Ady finishing the edit itself just got cleared. ...though I don't know what that means as far as how long it will take for all the work that is left to get done.
Great blurb! I'm wondering if these could perhaps be made less specific to cut down wording a smidgen...
"...that should have been made in the first Special Edition, but gives us a whole new vision for the movie, tying it to the rest of the Star Wars saga while correcting many of the excesses of the original Special Edition."
Do the improvements not apply to both/all the special editions of SW:ANH and not just the "first," "original" special edition? Just a thought that popped into my head while reading it. If too nitpicky then just ignore me here. Again, great blurb!
maybe not? Somehow I get the idea that a 699 pixel capture could never gain back the 21 pixels.
I'm not sure we're quite on the same page, but I think it's my poor wording. I'll try again, a different approach... The resulting avi from a capture that is set to 720x480 will always be 720 pixels wide. Now, what if the capture card and/or its driver is so screwed-up up that it's taking the VHS picture and making it only 100 pixels wide for your "video capture area" width within the full capture frame? Each frame is still 720 wide in the end, but within that 720 width you have 620 pixels of pure black and 100 pixels of really squeezed video from your VHS.
A capture card is capable of putting the wrong width/height image from the VHS into your 720x480 avi, and BTTool seems to be a way to fix that, that's what I'm trying to say. Obviously, a picture area that is only 100 pixels wide (within the full 720 pixels image) is erroneous, but what if it's 6 pixels off from what it's supposed to be rather than hundreds of pixels off? You might not notice a 6 pixels squeeze with your eye, but it's still wrong and it's good to correct it at the capture stage if possible. That's what the doom9 page I posted a link to was taking about. I'm just piecemeal regurgitating from that page, and I bow to its expertise so feel free to go back there for more straight info.
I believe the ideal capture area picture width from VHS is 702, leaving 18 pixels of black to the left and/or right of that 702 to fill out your 720 width. You and I are more worried about the top of our captures because it looks like there might be cropping happening at the top of the frame. At least that's what I'm worried about, and want to correct. Still have too much stuff going on right now though
Beside my 9911 I have a JVC HR-S3902U -- a so-called "cheapo" JVC S-VHS -- and it actually gives pretty good picture quality for captures (the biggest problem with these apparently is that you can expect them to wear out quckly). Both my machines are actually pretty similar in a lot of ways despite (supposedly) being at opposite ends of the quality spectrum. Even if this SRV101 is more like just a better-built, TBC'd-out 3902U than a 9911U I would guess pretty confidently that it would be a great VCR for low-ish cost capturing if you can't afford the more pro route Moth3r suggested.
Note that apparently the TBC built into these VCR's and external TBC's (like the Datavideo) do different things. Here is a link that I've gone back to time and time again that goes over a lot of this stuff in a brief enough manner. (Look at the example pics at the bottom...) http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/capture/playback.htm
It's weirdly set up. There is a button on the front that says, "DIGITAL TBC/NR". This is a single button with an LED beside it, it's an on-off button. That's the only specific "TBC" control on the whole machine, taking menus into account and all. Like I said, I always turn that off.
Now, within the menu area of the VCR there are several options for picture, none of which say anything about "TCB" or "Time base correction" or anything specific like that. There is "Picture control," "Digital R3," "Video Stablization". I know for a fact that some JVC's that don't have TBC do have "Picture Control" and "Digital R3" as features. So I'm just thinking that maybe there are also some JVC models out there that have in their menus "Video Stabilization" while not having TBC (as with D3 and PC). Maybe TBC and VS are so intertwined in the hardware somehow that you'll never find one without the other, but at least from the controls and labels given to me as a user of the machine, they are not offered to me as the same thing, and you requested something alternatively featurewise to look for so there it was.
Regarding where to get one, I got mine off eBay a couple of years back. I didn't want to get one off eBay, but that was me giving-in to the fact that I couldn't find one anywhere else after weeks of looking around the net. Sorry I don't have anything more specific of help in that area. Hope something turns up. People really are moving away from anything having to do with tape so I'd think something would come your way.
I'm doing what you're aiming for apparently, except perhaps my tapes are in better shape than yours if you feel you need a (built-in) TBC. I'll say that, with tapes in good condition, my tests on the JVC 9911U reveal that having the TBC on lowers the image quality. This is partly because, on the 9911U anyway, the TBC switch is combined with NR (noise reduction) switch. They are the same button; I can't have one on without the other. While the NR isn't bad, the captures still look better/more detailed without it, and I'd of course rather capture more detail and do controlled NR later with (avisynth) filters. So I have it ("TBC/NR") turned off for all my captures except where the TBC has to come to the rescue.
The one feature that I do like on this VCR and use almost all the time is the "Video Stablization." You need to do a little testing to figure out the best settings combo, but once you do it gives a nice, crisp, full frame capture, no video head noise at the bottom. So I say, if you can find a JVC that doesn't have TBC/NR but does have Video Stablization you'd be in decent shape to do capturing if your tapes are in good shape. You surely know about the DataVideo TBC-1000, right?
That's my two cents anyway, for whatever it's worth. Note that I'm not a pro or anything.
Yeah, I know you're only interested in shifting the image down, but I was thinking just one of those little settings might do just that for you. Relooking at that thread, its complication seems to come from all the calculating to figure out stretching the image. If you posted on Video Help something like "BTTool and PDI Dlx card -- I just want to lower the image cap area in the frame!" someone might be able to tell you the easy/specific way to use the tool for only that. Just a thought. I would mess around with it now myself, but I have a lot of other things to juggle atm.
Would you have any suggestions about where else to ask about the PDI image shift?
I saw a thread that went into great detail about inaccurate aspect ratios. Did you know that different capture cards can render the captured the video into the frame at different widths even though it's all supposed to be the same? I.e, Cap card A may make the picture area of the VHS capture 704 pixels wide in the final avi, but Cap Card B might make the same picture area only 699 pixels wide (but all will still give a 720 wide image stream in the end of course). I found that a little shocking personally, but such "play" being possible makes sense when you think about it. Anyway, the reason I bring it up now is because they talk about how to fix your capture's width or height if either is too narrow or too wide. I'm thinking that maybe you (and I) can use this same adjusting tool to simply lower the captured image area within the frame.
After digging, I found the thread... http://www.doom9.org/capture/capture_window.html
Toward the bottom they talk about making adjustments for bt878 cards which, luckily for us, the PDI Deluxe is a variety of. Again, I haven't done this procedure yet, but it's on my to-do list. A pretty cool idea, wish I'd thought of it: burn a DVD with this test pattern then capture your DVD's player's output of this burned disk and see if it's wider or narrower or what. Neat!
What form are your files in now (after your rebuilding them)? Avi, mpeg...? Knowing info like that is a big help in giving advice in how you can keep the picture quality up in editing (and after), which you rightfully are concerned about. (I've never used Rebuilder so sorry if I'm asking something kinda obvious )
I may not be the most qualified to answer this since I don't work in DV video formats/codecs specifically, but from what I've read and seen it's best to do editing with a lossless codec. I use HuffYUV, and Adywan on this forum uses Lagarith to give some examples. These are the most popular for editing I think, but there are others out there too. If you have these codecs on your machine I see no reason why you couldn't edit files done with them in Adobe Premiere. But they will make your files pretty big -- the old trade off, file size versus quality retained.
I know nothing about "MainCon DV 2.4.16" so I don't know if that's the cause of your shimmering woes or not.