I'm currently rendering falling bombs for the play. It takes forever the way Cinema 4D does motion blur. It takes 17 passes to render each frame so just doing a 1 second render takes a lot longer than you'd expect. LIke most things, it works MUCH faster the sooner you can get into the 2d world so I'm rendering the 3D animations with alpha channels and compositing them in After Effects rather than working completely in 3D. 2.5 D, my friend. Ahhh. This is one of those learning-on-the-job projects. I had to learn how to adjust the F-curves (acceleration curves) and do a stretch in Cinema 4D. It wasn't that hard, but because I'm using an older version (8) and I don't have the docs (they didn't get installed on my machine for some reason), it's all trial and error. Plus, I don't know the software that well since I generally avoid working in 3D whenever possible.
I've been thinking about the seeming contradictions in my thinking about noise film. If you remember, one of the things that interested me in the project was the way it was based on a non-cinematic idea. And then, more recently, I've been recounting how we didn't force certain ideas to work when they didn't seem filmable. So which is it?
3 comments:
You realized part way through that "non-cinematic" doesn't look so great on film.
So are you saying that noise film ending up being cinematic? Are you sure? What about all the words at the end where it's like reading a book and looking at pictures??
The original idea is more theoretical but to deliver it on film instead of just writing it down you had to conform to some parts of film vocabulary to set up the big delivery of the idea at the end. When it comes out it comes out written down with pictures.
Am I sure...
Post a Comment