Just as the title says, a tiny, simple, fairy dull animation. Covers from Sunrise in front of the camera to sunset behind the camera. Not much else going on really, I just wanted to make sure I could get a flicker free result. I hope to add a lot more actually interesting bits and render it bigger but it might take was too long on my system. This one is 960 frames and took around 60 hours.
http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=animations&image=first-test-output.mp4 (http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=animations&image=first-test-output.mp4)
Version 2 - March 16, 2011
http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=animations&image=panning-sunrise-tree.mp4 (http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=animations&image=panning-sunrise-tree.mp4)
no flickering !!!!!!!!! Oo
good job !
Wow, very good job!
I love that "sweet seduction" cherry tree. And that animation is very nice, too. Would love to see this bigger, but I know it's a pain to render this on the one machine that you or I have.
The animation really brings out how good that scene looks from all different angles. Looking forward to seeing how you build off of it.
a tiny camera move could be nice too... just a small tiny movement ^^
Very good indeed, agree with all the above, a tiny camera move and of course it would be nice to see it bigger.
Richard
Maybe - if you are too lazy too move the camera - let the wind move the objects ,-)
Sorry - I really like it, but in fact this is the only point I am missing.
Thanks a lot for the suggestions, I will try and get more done with it. Here is a sample frame at 720P, took just over an hour which is at least half an hour longer than I would like. Volker: Not really sure the best way to try and handle wind. Would be easier if there was object motion blur, but maybe just animating the rotation would be enough... more testing to be done.
Awesome! Put it up on YouTube so we can Favorite it. :)
- Oshyan
how did you get flicker free ?
Hi Franck, I mainly just followed some of the recommendations Oshyan made here: http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=11244.msg116406#msg116406 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=11244.msg116406#msg116406)
I set the Ray detail and GI padding at 0.5 (I don't think I needed the Ray detail though since there is no out of camera geometry that would be casting shadows). Detail blending was also at 0.5.
Detail set to 0.5
AA at 6
GI 1/4
GI blur 50
supersample prepass on
Raytrace everything since there is no visible surfaces
If I do some camera movements I will have to change some settings though I think. The scene right now is set up to be as minimal as possible. The grass etc is all in a 10X10 meter square, so if I move the camera I will actually have to put some thought into surfacing the areas that aren't visible.
oh I see. Thanks for the info Ryan ! ^^
Looking great! Soon we need an new category for animations in the forum ;)
Another version - still tiny. Changed most of it from the first version, some of it is better some worse. The camera now pans, and the sun only moves from sunrise to mid-afternoon. Added too much building haze in the afternoon and there are issues with the bucket edges with some of the clouds. I had hoped that reducing the acceleration cache to conservative would have taken care of it, but it looks as though I will have to set it to none to get rid of it completely. Took 108 hours for the 960 frames this time.
http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=animations&image=panning-sunrise-tree.mp4 (http://www.archer-designs.com/zp/index.php?album=animations&image=panning-sunrise-tree.mp4)
Still looks quite nice, though I might prefer the first version (a smaller camera move may be better?). But man the render times for that low a resolution are kind of a killer. I'd be curious to look at the settings to see if there could be further optimization...
- Oshyan
yeah, something's not right. That's an average of 6.75 minutes per frame. Sounds like there is a lot of potential for speeding this up - maybe Osyhan can find out.
Otherwise: beautiful, but agree with Oshyan that a smaller camera move would suffice.
Regards,
Frank