#multi-camera howzat?
24 messages in this thread
to anyone and everyone,
logic, being the somewhat overrated thing it is, would dictate that if you
wanted to have multiple camera views over the course of say, a ten second
animation, should be easy to do without having to render all 300 frames for
each camera view. LOGICALLY, using the "hide" command in the tracks section
each camera could be turned on and off when appropriate and no "weeding" of
frames would be necessary to composite the final piece.
howsomever, there appears to be NO hideability for cameras (booooo!) LOGICALLY,
you could create a dummy object, attach both the camera and view to the dummy,
and "hide" and "unhide" the dummy. The "hide" box is certainly there for the
dummy in the tracks display but seems to be inoperational.
is there a practical way of turning cameras "on" and "off" over the course of
an animation without having the render the entire piece for each camera and
spending many anxious moments deleting all the inapplicable frames from those
cameras who don't happen to be "on "on" at that moment?
i would greatly appreciate any assistance in facilitating what should be a real
no-brainer.
thanks, michael
Hi Michael,
<< is there a practical way of turning cameras "on" and "off" over the course
of an animation without having the render the entire piece for each camera and
spending many anxious moments deleting all the inapplicable frames from those
cameras who don't happen to be "on "on" at that moment? >>
Given that you know the range within the animation that the camera is *valid*,
you would use the Render/Range..
jonas[adesk]
jonas,
while your response is quite valid, the amount of extra time spent will be
considerable. i.e., if you have four or five cameras, each of which will be
used for 30 or so frames before switching to another camera, it will
necessitate doing ten animations (as there is no way currently to tell a camera
to render say frames 1-30 and and then proceed to render 120-150).
i guess a more appropriate question would be in the form of a request to
activate the "hide" and "unhide" designators for cameras in future releases.
this seems like a no-brainer given that this feature is available for all other
objects and lights.
thanks for responding in any case.
michael
Hi Michael,
<< a request to activate the "hide" and "unhide" designators for cameras in
future releases…wish >>
got it.
jonas,
thanks for acknowledging my request. it did occur to me that one workaround
would be to "instantly" move the camera to the various positions it needed to
be at any given time but i am concerned that while rendering to fields, i would
produce a bizarre frame between camera jumps. i will construct a simple test
to see if it's possible to do this.
thanks again, michael
Michael,
<< it did occur to me that one workaround would be to "instantly" move the
camera to the various positions it needed to be at any given time but i am
concerned that while rendering to fields, i would produce a bizarre frame
between camera jumps. >>
How about creating a brand new camera any where in your scene. Then write a
script that would take all of the other camera's data and copy it to the new
camera. So you have 1 camera that moves through the entire animation with no
gaps between major moves.
Mark
mark,
sounds like a plausible and interesting idea. now that i've opened this little
box of worms, i guess i ought to try out a couple different approaches and find
out which gives me the greatest latitude. so i appreciate your responding very
much.
michael
Michael,
<< i guess i ought to try out a couple different approaches and find out which
gives me the greatest latitude. >>
Yup, Good luck.
Mark
mark,
thanks. i'll need all that and more.
michael
Michael: I usually plan my renders by RANGE, going cut to cut. But sometimes
have employed a cut via changing a camera position. With key bracketing and
continuity at 0, it has worked very well. I render to PAR, so it is easy to see
if there were any errant fields in this move, and I can re-render a few crucial
replacement frames. However, there was some discussion in using the Field No
Double option in 3ds.set.I would like to know more about that. Also, the idea
of scripting various cameras to one camera… that sounds elegant and I want to
see what's posted on that. [moving ever so slowly closer to scripting, fearful
of falling in and never coming out] Jeffrey
jeffery,
thanks for the input. it sounds like we are on the same wavelength about how
best to do this. hopefully, a provision for multiple cameras will be
forthcoming as it is a very usefull feature. appreciate you suggestion.
michael
Mike:
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
(as there is no way currently to tell a camera to render say frames 1-30 and
and then proceed to render 120-150).
__________________________________________________________________
Sure there is, just render to the NET QUEUE.
Bob
>(as there is no way currently to tell a camera to render say frames 1-30 and
and then proceed to render 120-150).
>Sure there is, just render to the NET QUEUE.
I haven't had much reason to futz around with NET QUEUE but now, with this
solution to the camera render problem, it looks like I have.
Would you mind giving me a quick and dirty "step by step" for something
like……..
Cam1 – frames 1 -30
Cam2 – frames 31 – 60
Cam3 – frames 61 – 90
Cam1 – frames 91 -99
Thanks a lot
I appreciate it
David
David:
The way to use the Net Queue on your multi-camera animation would be pretty
straightforward:
For Cam1 set your RANGE for frames 1-30 and chose NET-QUEUE as your
destination. Give your process a name and your output file a name. Select ANY
as your network destination. When you click OK you will be paused briefly as a
network process file is created and put first in line on the network queue.
Now, just switch your viewport to Cam2, choose RENDER and select the
appropriate range of frames and repeat the same steps for Cam1. Your Net Queue
will now have a second entry and you can add all the rest of your different
sequences to the net que in this way.
Once you are finished adding entries to the que, put your machine in Slave mode
(you'll be prompted to first save your project as your workspace is about to be
reset). Once in slave mode your single machine will go through all entries in
the que in order. You could add processes to the Net Que from different .prj
files as well. Its at this point I wonder why anybody uses command line batch
rendering as the Net Que is just too easy. Oh well, best of luck.
Bob
>…… pretty straightforward:
I find everything in 3D Studio fits that description.
I'll try it tonight, I appreciate it.
Thanks again
David
bob,
the mystery deepens….the net queue? i've obviously missed something quite
intriguing and potentially usefull. i am summarily dismissed to rtfm to find
out what and how this new feature works.
i do hope you are not referring to anything involving multiple rendering
stations as all attempts to make that work have been unsuccessful. i appreciate
your responding and will check it out.
michael
Mike:
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
i do hope you are not referring to anything involving multiple rendering
stations as all attempts to make that work have been unsuccessful.
__________________________________________________________________
Ouch, no success in network rendering? I downloaded the file in the library on
the topic and it made the process very simple. Anyway, nope I was suggesting
that you use the Net Que on a SINGLE machine. It basically will allow you to
pile into a process list any number of segments which you wish to render. This
is great when you have many different projects or different camera views which
you need to render without having to babysit. It is excellent for those times
when you need to crank out 10 hi-res stills from 6 different animation
projects. Pop 'em all into the Net Que, select the ANY option for which
workstation to use, put your machine in slave mode by using the NETWORK pull
down and let your machine crank it all out whilst you relax.
Bob
bob,
jeez, that sounds almost too good to be true but since you have obviously done
it, ever upward, ever onward! there are so many great and interesting ways to
solve problems that one person can rarely find them all. this sounds like a
terrific way to make the machine work for me, not the opposite.
i'll see if i can work through a simple queue and if i get snookered, i may
have to rely on your expertise. thanks for the excellent solution!
michael
Mike:
One thing I forgot to ask you was whether or not you were creating
tga output or
fli/.flc files? If you needed a flic file you need to add one last item to
your que (all of the previous queue entries should be outputting .tga files).
You would need to render an .ifl file (You've got to anticipate all of the
different segment's .tga file names correctly for this to work of course). You
could cut this thing loose and end up with a flic as a preview or a final
render depending on your intent. Let us know if you get this technique to work
for you.
Bob
bob,
thanks for the message. i missed the boat for a couple days here. i'll try
your suggestion and let you know how it works.
many thanks, michael
The easiest way to do it is to:
1) Set up each camera's animation. 2) Render a range for each camera. 3)
String the ranges together in Video Post.
– G
gary,
thanks for the information. jonas provided a similar solution (see my response
to jonas concerning a considerable amount of extra futzing to produce a 10
second piece with five cameras)
the ability you have given us to "hide" and "unhide" objects during any given
animation is an extremely useful feature. while admittedly most animations rely
on only one camera, producing :30 second commercials quite regularly requires
"reaction shots" as well as point of view. since there are two lines currently
not used by the camera in the shot sheet, i just assumed that i was not using
the correct keystroke to activate "hide" and "unhide". i was unaware that
multiple cameras was not currently a supported feature.
i'll just render the 10 "mini animations" and string them along using SoftVtr.
many thanks, michael
BobR's comment about rendering to the NetQueue would seem to cover that
problem, as far as I can tell. What do you think?
– G
gary,
i'm not certain quite how i've missed finding this technique but will certainly
investigate and see if i can divine it's use. actually, i'm sure there is a
slew of great workarounds that i don't know about and that's just one of many
great things about the asoft forum…"from the many, enlightenment!"
my thanks, michael