In the final video of the demonstration, the balls are rotating. This would suggest that some additional 3D rendering was added to the photo.
It felt like such a good demonstration. Why did they have to cheat at the end?
yeah, I noticed that as well.
The whole tutorial is kind of odd though, because pretty much everyone that has access to after effects has known about this technique for the better part of a decade. I'm not exactly sure who this is supposed to be targeted towards.
it's supposed to appeal to people who have no idea what after effects is but want to make 2.5d animations of their holiday snaps to show off at the next family reunion.
you could get away with it if you use spherize or cc ball. no need to do 3d rendering.
did the editors really have to cut in the drop down and splash screen for vcp optical flares? seems a bit of a douche move. maybe they're getting a kick back from andrew kramer for pluggin' his plugin.
There is excellent free software that can do this and much more. Check out this blender camera mapping tutorial on youtube,
From the voice, it sounds like the creator is Mick Jagger
Personally, I hate this stuff when I see it utilized on a documentary's archival olde-time photographs.
Are Ken Burns' zooming/panning techniques really so inadequate and primitive that we have to sex it up with obviously "false" and dissonant 2.5D representations?
But this one's a hour long! Guess what people will choose?
Of course, at the end of this hour you will probably feel like you've learned more than from this AfterEffects video... if you get there.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.