#Moving Clouds
14 messages in this thread
Hi John, actually I was thinking more along the lines of fractal
clouds or something like the SMOKE (sxp) that would create random
cloud patterns. I also use DGS which has a shader which can be
applied with opacity that generate random clouds, the problem is that
it is very labor intensive as DGS uses a "Style" sheet which in this
case would have to be modified for every frame to get random motion
in the "shader generated" clouds. Something like the "NOISE" sxp
would work but the pattern is fixed even though you can move it on the
xyz plane. SMOKE looks like it might be able to do it but I would
like to know more about it and how it works. I will check out Jamie's
clouds though as of course cloud maps are very useful for other
projects. Thanks – John
I tried to use smoke to create a puff of smoke and the effect didn't
look real because the IPAS module makes the smoke look like it's in a
bottle or any shapped glass container. Real clouds don't have any
bounding borders. You could retouch the image in photostyler but if
it's a flic that could be a bear. Depending on your layout you could
bound the smoke beyond the image safe zone (overscan). I was told
that smoke.sxp was designed to simulate a light beam through a fog or
smoke.
Don, my thought was to create a long rectangle very thin into the Z axis and
use that as a bounding box then as you travel under the box you would have some
depth, and using smoke as an opacity map render with a blue background, but it
sounds like the SMOKE.SXP doesn't quite do it. We need something that can do
fractal clouds. Technically it shouldn't be too difficult as the NOISE.SXP
would almost work, if you could randomize the values and change the pattern.
Well anyway, thanks for your response, I'll keep looking. – John
San Diego John!
Hey mate, remember me? FWIW, I have a totally impractical idea: Why don't you
do the old movie cloud-tank trick. You set up an aqaurium filled with coloured
water (or similar) and your camcorder at an appropriate perspective and then
mix in the appropriate fluid which will billow like clouds. Some research might
be necessary on this – a trip to the library and looking for a film special
effects book. The trick would be to get the correct fluids and good lighting
You could then use the video for a background. Told you it was impractical but
if you get it right it would be a killer effect <g>.
Martin–
Excellent idea. I really like the idea of compositing traditional film
trickery with modern 'byte' induced hallucinations.
John,
I get lots of ideas from reading books on film effects – we can learn alot from
the old-timers <g>.
Martin, I think you've been in L.A. too long… or you've been hanging out with
the special effects guys instead of the animators! We'll have to get you down
to San Diego for some fresh air and sunshine. All kidding aside, it would be
fun to try. You've got alot of imagination, that's probably why your such a
good animator but don't let it go to your head… LA's got too many of those
types already. By the way I noticed you've been checking out VTR's. I just got
my EVO-9650 and love it, what a sweet little machine. Took me a couple of days
to write the code to control it, and its humming along like a champ. If you get
anymore wild ideas pass them along, they're entertaining and some of them might
even work. Just kidding. CIAO.
John,
Have fun with the EVO-9650 – all the people I know who have one really like
them. I'm really envious since I don't have any of that type of equipment in my
setup 🙁
Well Martin, its taken me four years to finally put a system together that does
what I want and I am very happy with it. To give you a little history not that
it matters much, but I bought 3D Studio when I already had Digital Arts,
because I saw it was the wave of the future, instead of putting the money
towards a deck. I got Digital Arts second hand but it still cost me $6000 and
that of course was before the price dropped because 3DS came in and kicked the
big soccer ball. And of course 3DS is so much easier to work with, things that
took me weeks to work on, I can do in days. And I'm sure with your talent and
devotion to the art you will not have to wait so long. CIAO and no more 🙁 I
appreciate your command of the English language it must be Native.
Just don't forget to take the fish out first….
LAM
Larry,
Oh no! You leave the fish in to give that abstract Dali-look <g>.
Might work if the bottom of the box could be hidden behind some buildings or
other visual obstruction and the top and sides of the box would be outside the
viewing picture area. I'll try it this weekend. If it works you can buy the
module with assurance.
Don – You got the idea.. I'll be interested to see what you think. It should be
workable, just don't know how it'll look. Thanks – John
I've run into a similar "surface smoke" situation in RenderMan…fwiw, I've had
luck with the workaround of duplicating the object a few times, successively
smaller, with the same central point, and applying the smoke at various
opacities…looks better when moving than still. Another workaround was to
create a second smaller/larger duplicate object and fill it with a fairly
transparent color…RMan "glow" (different method than IPAS glow, I think)
works well, too.
There's a package on the Amiga called "Aladdin 4D" that apparently handles
turbulence- and image-controlled volume shading…examples I've seen have had
some surface artifacts, though…anyone have more info on true volume rendering
on the desktop? Do the algorithms and CPUs meet yet, or are we still a bit
aways from that goal?
jd