alpha in animation
laverdet_943f1f7da1
Posts: 252
Hi!!! I have an animated scene, where charcaters are moving... how to render the animation by image sequence, with the isolated characters?
thank you for help!!!
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
First, make sure the characters are the only thing in the scene. There can be no background. If there is, the alpha channel will not be able to isolate the characters.
In the render room go to the OUTPUT tab. Under FILE FORMAT choose MOVIE and pick one of the "sequenced" options that allow for an alpha channel. Then, check the RENDER ALPHA CHANNEL box. That will render each frame to a separate image file and each file will have an alpha channel to isolate your characters.
Go to the Render room and where you set the file output, there is a checkbox to allow you to render an alpha channel. I usually leave the pre-multiplied option disabled, but that's my personal preference.
You also need to use a file format that supports alphas. Since you mentioned image sequences, .png, .tiff, photoshop, targa (I think) all support alphas. .jpg does not. I've had good luck with .png. They're reasonable in size and lossless. .tiff is as well, but it is a much larger file size per image.
If you want individual figures isolated from the group, then you will need to hide the other figures. If you want the surface they are walking on separate, then you will need to hide that as well.
What I do, is I think of my scene in layers. The more complex the scene, the more layers. I also think about elements that interact with each other, either physically or with light effects or shadows. I then create my scene with all the elements in place, and get my camera angle and movement the absolute way I want it. Then I use the SAVE AS command in the File menu to save a scene version for each layer.
For instance, if I did a space battle, I may want a large mother ship in the background and fighters zooming around closer to the camera. If I wanted it to be in orbit around a planet as well, then I may save a version for the starfield as the background (without alpha), a layer for just the planet, a layer for the mother ship and final version of the scene for the fighters all with alpha channels except the background layer. I would then load the scenes in the Batch Queue and set unique file names and folders to save the image sequences for each scene/layer.
First, make sure the characters are the only thing in the scene. There can be no background. If there is, the alpha channel will not be able to isolate the characters.
In the render room go to the OUTPUT tab. Under FILE FORMAT choose MOVIE and pick one of the "sequenced" options. Then, check the RENDER ALPHA CHANNEL box. That will render each frame to a separate image file and each file will have an alpha channel to isolate your characters.
If you mean an image in the scene's Backgound slot, then you are mistaken. If you mean objects in 3D space, then you are correct.
I didn't mean background slot. I meant objects in the scene. I said this because in his other post (out of sky light) he said he had "a plane, as background" in his scene. Since I knew this was how he thought of things, I was speaking to him in terms I believed he would understand.
It looks like that will work for PNG & Photoshop formats, but not for JPG which does not preserve transparency (the alpha channel box is grayed out). Also, it apparently works for Quicktime, but not AVI (again, grayed out). (And yes, I am aware sequenced stills are recommended, but sometimes "time is of the essence", e.g. the 48 Hour Film contests).
It looks like that will work for PNG & Photoshop formats, but not for JPG which does not preserve transparency (the alpha channel box is grayed out). Also, it apparently works for Quicktime, but not AVI (again, grayed out). (And yes, I am aware sequenced stills are recommended, but sometimes "time is of the essence", e.g. the 48 Hour Film contests).
Original post amended.
And of course sequenced is recommended. It's what he asked for. Also, if not sequenced, you'd have to do each frame individually.
FYI…
AVI is not an option on my list as I'm on a Mac.
I'm not sure I understand. If I render a Quicktime file with an alpha channel, the transparency is present in each frame, right?
And just to clarify, I use Windows machines, but Quicktime is supported.
I'm not sure I understand. If I render a Quicktime file with an alpha channel, the transparency is present in each frame, right?
And just to clarify, I use Windows machines, but Quicktime is supported.
I wasn't sure about that bit either. But yes, you'll get an alpha in every frame. The only time you won't is if the codec you are using doesn't support it. The animation is a good codec for QT. I believe from what I've read, it was developed with computer animation in mind.
I'm not sure I understand. If I render a Quicktime file with an alpha channel, the transparency is present in each frame, right?
And just to clarify, I use Windows machines, but Quicktime is supported.
Yes, if you render to Quicktime the transparency is present in each frame. However what you end up with is a single movie file. The original poster asked how to make an "animation by image sequence," which I took to mean a sequence of individual images. If that is what the original poster wanted, then telling him to render to Quicktime is the wrong answer.
I was aiming to answer the question that was asked, not offer him every available option which could potentially confuse him more.
Yes, I know you're on a Windows machine because you had AVI as an option. See image below. Mac doesn't offer AVI. Of course the point is moot as the original poster wants to be able to use alpha channels. Since AVI can't do that, why even bring it up? Don't tell him what can't do it, tell him what can.
AVI is the equivalent of MOV in Mac.
One can also have Avi with transparency but Carrara does not propose it…:-P
It's the equivalent in that they are both movie files but AVI is outdated now. It's since been replaced by WMV. Though many people do still like to use AVI.
That said, it matters not as neither format will help the original poster do what he wants to do.
But thanks for taking us back to 1992.
It's the equivalent in that they are both movie files but AVI is outdated now. It's since been replaced by WMV. Though many people do still like to use AVI.
That said, it matters not as neither format will help the original poster do what he wants to do.
But thanks for taking us back to 1992.
Y'know, why don't you go outside and get some fresh air. It may improve your attitude. Yeesh. :-S
AVI is not out-of-date since the series ADOBE CS6 still use it…
In AE, the best quality of export is done in Avi uncompressed with Windows.
What than it misses in the options of export of Carrara, it is Avi uncompressed (with and without Alpha)!
The WMV is also largely exceeded by H264, which itself will be soon exceeded by another of which I forgot the name, but in any event, in fact they are very compressed formats who are not appropriate for a serious work!
I was asking a related question which I thought was appropriate to the topic "alpha in animation". I still do.
Yes. Oddly, my Carrara Pro 8.1 running on Windows 7 does not offer any practical codecs when using avi, even though other programs do, on the same machine. Also, it does not offer wmv. So I typically use either sequenced images, or full frame avi (huge files) and if necessary compress them in my video editing software to save space. But my preferred format is usually either wmv or DivX (or maybe mov), all of which can offer high quality with relatively small file sizes IMHO.
Yes. Oddly, my Carrara Pro 8.1 running on Windows 7 does not offer any practical codecs when using avi, even though other programs do, on the same machine. Also, it does not offer wmv. So I typically use either sequenced images, or full frame avi (huge files) and if necessary compress them in my video editing software to save space. But my preferred format is usually either wmv or DivX (or maybe mov), all of which can offer high quality with relatively small file sizes IMHO.
When one sees the prices of the HDD now, is it necessary to make compressed files ?
The many work hours to carry out our scenes do not deserve that they are sacrificed to gain a little place on a computer.
I think that compression, it is only in post-production and depends on the field of diffusion (Internet, television, projection in theaters…).
But each one must make its choice but must think that the needs could change later.
I make all my renders in images sequences like you, are composited in AE and preciously safeguarded and sometime encoded according to the present requests.
Yes, storage space has gotten cheap, so the huge uncompressed video files are not as much of a problem as they used to be. But I've also noticed in some cases the huge files don't play back as smoothly, including during editing. This may be due to my drives being 5400rpm instead of 7200 which I believe is recommended for video. Also, my experience with the highest quality settings on codecs (DivX and wmv in particlular) has been pretty good. I.e. I rarely see any loss of quality if I don't recompress much, and the files are MUCH smaller and play smoothly.
So it works for me.
As an aside, I told some video friends that the 48 Hour Fim contest in the past has required "a self-contained SD Quicktime file with no proprietary codecs". They recommend a specific codec (DVCPRO?), and state that if your ~5 minute video is less than a gigabyte, you've probably made a mistake. My friends thought this was crazy, way too big a file, but that's what I get when I use that codec. It does look nice on the movie theater screen at the end of the contest. Kind of a thrill, too, especially when its a good movie and the crowd likes it (not always the case, even for Johnny "Tonto" Depp ...) :coolsmirk:
Yes, storage space has gotten cheap, so the huge uncompressed video files are not as much of a problem as they used to be. But I've also noticed in some cases the huge files don't play back as smoothly, including during editing. This may be due to my drives being 5400rpm instead of 7200 which I believe is recommended for video. Also, my experience with the highest quality settings on codecs (DivX and wmv in particlular) has been pretty good. I.e. I rarely see any loss of quality if I don't recompress much, and the files are MUCH smaller and play smoothly.
So it works for me.
As an aside, I told some video friends that the 48 Hour Fim contest in the past has required "a self-contained SD Quicktime file with no proprietary codecs". They recommend a specific codec (DVCPRO?), and state that if your ~5 minute video is less than a gigabyte, you've probably made a mistake. My friends thought this was crazy, way too big a file, but that's what I get when I use that codec. It does look nice on the movie theater screen at the end of the contest. Kind of a thrill, too, especially when its a good movie and the crowd likes it (not always the case, even for Johnny "Tonto" Depp ...) :coolsmirk:
DVCPro is the standard format that you'll see in most Pro Video editors. It support standard def and high def. The file size you mention is on par for about five minutes. The sound track is usually CD quality so that adds to it. Most consumer level hard drive or flash memory based HD cameras record by default to h.264 (mpeg4), so the file size is going to be much less. The high compression adds the risk of compression artifacts if you need to trans-encode the video to work with it. Fortunately, many modern consumer and pro video editors can work with h.264 so at least that is minimized.
Here a link about DVCPro, the Panasonic's format:
https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/professionalformatsandworkflows/index.html#chapter=3§ion=6&tasks=true
I only learned about DVCPro from the 48 Hour Film contest. Because of my lack of experience, the local (Houston) contest organizer had me talk to the organization's national tech person. She strongly advised me to use DVCPro, and also explaiened that the reason it looked crappy on my PC's Quicktime player was that the free player only showed the video at half resolution. You have to buy Quicktime Pro ($30?) to get playback at full resolution, which I did. Knowing that, the free player isn't all that bad, but the Pro version is what is needed. Prior to all this, I had used Sorenson for Quicktime compression, the tech lady was really against that. And against almost everything else besides DVCPro - you can imagine her position with several dozen videos in each of half a dozen worldwide cities to deal with every week. She was very helpful, but also very firm in her positions.
:zip: :coolcheese: