Setting-up A Scene In ASP5 using textures.

[dlangdev]

i'm not sure if this idea will work in ASP5.

i'm thinking of setting up textures in PS, then set them up ASP5.

Each object will be translated, rotated and scaled on an axis, resulting to this kind of 3D space.

my color style will be similar to art lozzy.

any comments will be appreciated.



last time i tried it i got some weird flashing line when the camera translated near the plane.

[dlangdev]

noticed the gradients didn't render well.

what's the solution for this one?

also noticed the pixelated region of the image near the camera.

files: http://begonza.com/animation/aspro/ocean.rar

[scunge]

I think the pixelated part of the water nearest to the camera makes sense. If you are in Photoshop or whatever program and you work at 72 DPI and then zoom in it will get pixelated the closer you get.

So, wouldn't that part of the water closest to the camera be pixelated in ASP since it is like zooming in on it as if in Photoshop?

Have you tried making the images/textures at higher resolutions like 150 or 300 DPI? Maybe the textures would hold up better. What about using 16-bit instead of 8-bit? Gradients in 8-bit only have 256 levels of gray.

Of course I have just started using the program this month so I could very well be wrong.

[heyvern]

Sorry but I can't see the point of using images in this situation or technique (rotating layers for 3D).

The shapes and effects are simple enough to be done in AS with vector layers and then there would be absolutely no pixelation ever.

I could see using an image here or there in the background elements that are "static" but NOT for that water layer (or the trees in the first sample). If the camera zooms in you will ALWAYS get some "fuzzing" or blurring of the image unless the resolution is HUGE.

Each ENTIRE image has to be as big as the closest point to the camera it will be seen. This would require gigantic images. For the water example this would mean "infinity" . This is the nature of raster. When you zoom in it is just like resizing a small image to a larger size, the details blur and soften, tiny pixels become huge blocks. It is like an "old style" first person 3D game. The closer you get to an object or wall the worse it looks.

It could be done but at what cost in render time? The massive resolution would probably be wasted 90% of the time just for those few moments when the camera is close to it.

Just my opinion.

-vern

[Genete]

The shapes and effects are simple enough to be done in AS with vector layers and then there would be absolutely no pixelation ever.

I agree with the waste of render time to recreate an infinity image rotated background, but disagree with the rotated effects. Splotchy and spots are the non continuous effects that makes sense when create a work art (like the sea) but sorry the don't rotate... In fact none of the effects rotate like he would like they rotate. Halo is halo, and cannot be rotated...

The sea I used for the "brights on the sea" I did in other thread, was done rotating a splotchy image layer. The rotated splotchy vector layer did not work to me.

I think you can rotate image layers to create a static background. You can finally render once again, once its position is defined and reduce image size and render time. Use this composition to animate backgrounds in Z depth would be a little rough. You can make different static shots of the same "3D" scene using the original 3D layout but rendering to single image backgrounds. It would save time to you instead of draw a background everytime in your favorite art painting program. And also would make the 3D references consistent.

But better go for vectors.
-G

[dlangdev]

thank you, scunge for commenting.

i did some test on png and used png-24 in attempting to remove the gradient bands.

it did remove some, but not entirely, though.

i guess, what this means is avoiding gradients and probably use a different technique.

[dlangdev]

regarding pixelation, i did some tests on it by flying the camera on it, heading toward the island. it turned out pixelation created a nice effect.

it might turn out pixelation could be useful in this case.

[heyvern]

To smooth the gradients add some noise.

Noise in a gradient is critical. The banding is due to the fact that colors on the screen have a limited dynamic range. You only have 255 "steps" for the gradient (I'm simplifying a bit).

All gradients are made of 3 grayscale channels. Imagine a blended gradient from 100% black to 100% white. No problems, smooth gradient.

If however you try to get a smooth gradient from 20% black to 30% black... yikes!!! You will get banding up the wazoo! There isn't enough dynamic range in the color space to create a smooth gradient.

Adding noise in a gradient helps hide the banding by breaking it up. Not a lot is needed depending on the colors used for the blend. Photoshop has this built in to the gradient tool. A check box for adding noise (Dither).

Sometimes I will get banding on gradients in photographs... adding a tiny bit of noise makes it go away.

In this case however it could be a problem. The noise will "enlarge" and may become noticeable as the camera gets closer to the image.

-vern

[dlangdev]

vern, adding noise removed the banding.

i owe you, again.

the mist effect is still in there, which is nice.

[dlangdev]

i played around with another test and it seems that i could probably get away with bitmap textures, though.


http://begonza.com/animation/aspro/scen ... .01.01.bmp

http://begonza.com/animation/aspro/scen ... 001.01.bmp