Sky Replacement Test

[Robbie Comeau]

Added a BUNCH of effects to get this to work. There are some flaws, but this is hard to do IMO. I had to paint out that rafter thing you see because it was so thin. I had to add a key, so I could get my Actor in the forground. I added a bunch of tints to get that blueish tone at the end. I added a Widescreen matte. A couple adjustment layers. And more!

http://blip.tv/file/494520

[Beeblebrox]

It's a good start but it still needs some tweaking. You've got a halo around your actor that can be fixed by thinning your key by a couple of pixels. It's also around the aerial.

Also, your sky plate is way too bright and contrasty for your shot. Try reducing the saturation and contrast on it to push it further into the background. Maybe even add a 1 or 2 pixel gaussian blur. It just dominates your shot too much.

[Matt Grunau]

It's a good start but it still needs some tweaking. You've got a halo around your actor that can be fixed by thinning your key by a couple of pixels. It's also around the aerial.

Also, your sky plate is way too bright and contrasty for your shot. Try reducing the saturation and contrast on it to push it further into the background. Maybe even add a 1 or 2 pixel gaussian blur. It just dominates your shot too much.

I agree. Or try simply dropping the opacity. The sky is very overwhelming and also has much more dynamic range than the video. Probably shot with a decent digital SLR.

Good motion tracking. Did you apply motion blur to the sky layer? If not, you should try it, it will help sell the shot.

[Beeblebrox]

Did you apply motion blur to the sky layer? If not, you should try it, it will help sell the shot.

Also a good note. It does make a difference, even for small movements.

[tcindie]

This clip might look better if you show the replacement sky first in the clip, and then remove it so the original shows. I agree that the new sky is more saturated and contrasy than the rest of the shot, but if you start this example with it already replaced it would probably be more acceptable to the eye.

[Matt Grunau]

This clip might look better if you show the replacement sky first in the clip, and then remove it so the original shows. I agree that the new sky is more saturated and contrasy than the rest of the shot, but if you start this example with it already replaced it would probably be more acceptable to the eye.

I dunno. I would know in an instant that it was a replacement, for the main reasons Beeblebrox pointed out. The halos alone will kill the look.

I have done plenty of sky replacements both in Photoshop and AE, and the best way I have found is to simply dial back the opacity until it looks right. And I usually go with a reference pic to check my work against, usually shot by me with my still cam.

A couple of examples:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/6995/1195605272.jpg

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/6995/1195605315.jpg



And I just realized, finding these that I didn't backup the original video files!!! So I can't give a reference except to say that the sky was completely overcast, and was a solid light gray.

Doh!!!

[Beeblebrox]

I agree with Matt. I would be able to spot that sky replacement anyway. It needs some color adjustment, or as Matt suggested, an adjustment in the opacity.

Here's a sky replacement (www.moserbrothers.com/projects/believers.jpg) I did for the feature film Believers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0878652/).

http://www.moserbrothers.com/projects/believers.jpg

[RokMartian]

There is a great tutorial on sky replacement on videocopilot. http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials.html?id=12

Not saying it looks bad or anything, just thought it might be of help to someone.

[Kdawg]

Not bad actually Como. I see the halo too, a bit distracting. But the tracking looks great.

[tcindie]

I wasn't suggesting that starting with the replaced shot rather than bringing it in after the wipe would totally sell the shot. I absolutely agree that there would still need to be some work done, but it would be a better way to go for this type of example anyway.

Conventionally in FX demo reels the final shot is shown first, and then deconstructed.

[Robbie Comeau]

Ya I saw that tutorial. It's great!

[Robbie Comeau]

I actually used the method from the first tutorial he used, with the d irt biker

[Gord.T]

I think a big part of the problem is that the sky is not in proper perspective.
The sky photo is too flat projection wise. Taken at the wrong angle. A better sky texture that has the horizon better matched would help.

Here's a link to some free sky photos. Try scaling and adjusting the photos vertically and place the horizon with your video. (sky44 may work)
http://www.deusx.com/textures/sky.html

[Matt Grunau]

I think a big part of the problem is that the sky is not in proper perspective.
The sky photo is too flat projection wise. Taken at the wrong angle. A better sky texture that has the horizon better matched would help.



Good point. I saw that, but didn't register it, if that makes any sense.

And he can do perspective changes in AE, just turn it into a 3D layer. Or, do a free transform in Photoshop and hold down the CRTL key and you can do perspective.

Thanks for the heads up Rap.

[Tom Marshall]

I think a big part of the problem is that the sky is not in proper perspective.
The sky photo is too flat projection wise. Taken at the wrong angle. A better sky texture that has the horizon better matched would help.

Here's a link to some free sky photos. Try scaling and adjusting the photos vertically and place the horizon with your video. (sky44 may work)
http://www.deusx.com/textures/sky.html

Hey Raptor, that's a GREAT link!! :beer:

[x-angel]

I agree: Backgroud to bright, and flat, and the halo around the talent make me think of Michael Landon in Highway to Heaven :)

Still... on the whole.. it looks good.