ok its done

The tracking is still swimming a little, it's more noticeable on the first two clips than the last 2. Otherwise, looks good, did you use the built-in AE tracker?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
oneinfiniteloop said:
The tracking is still swimming a little, it's more noticeable on the first two clips than the last 2. Otherwise, looks good, did you use the built-in AE tracker?
Click to expand...



I agree. This seems like a time where a 3D head and eyes would do well, matching the movement by, but in that giving proper perspecitve changes for the iris' and such. Not to mention being able to multipass it out.
 
thanks for the comments, well , i dont use track motion because i did this:

in one layer the video, and up the same video changing the levels for giving more clearly eyes and there i used a mask and then animate frame by frame...and i tried to use the tracker too but i cant apply to the mask...later i tried to use an adjustment layer besides the second layer but its not the same effect...if anybody have a good idea i will apreciated
 
kilmyneo said:
thanks for the comments, well , i dont use track motion because i did this:

in one layer the video, and up the same video changing the levels for giving more clearly eyes and there i used a mask and then animate frame by frame...and i tried to use the tracker too but i cant apply to the mask...later i tried to use an adjustment layer besides the second layer but its not the same effect...if anybody have a good idea i will apreciated
Click to expand...

Use a null and track the eyes, then parent your eye effect to the null and hand tweak. But, like Matt said, tracking eyes properly will be much more effective using a 3d solution.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
But, like Matt said, tracking eyes properly will be much more effective using a 3d solution.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't.. that'd be serious overkill.

You'd need a pretty accurate model or at least eye offesets from center. You're
also trying to track pupils, so now you'd have to 'head track'.. then hand animate
eye rotations. Roto or roto combined with 2d tracks is path of least resistance. This
is just a skill he'd need to built up stronger.
 
Greggl said:
I wouldn't.. that'd be serious overkill.

You'd need a pretty accurate model or at least eye offesets from center. You're
also trying to track pupils, so now you'd have to 'head track'.. then hand animate
eye rotations. Roto or roto combined with 2d tracks is path of least resistance. This
is just a skill he'd need to built up stronger.
Click to expand...


It's only overkill depending on what you are trying to do. If it's something like glowing eyes, yeah it is. If it's something where you want to change the iris via texturing, it's not, and if you need to have specularity or accurate reflections it's downright needed. The only reason you would have to head track and do extra work like that is if you go into the shoot with your talent NOT acting with the knowledge it is going to be a composited shot that way. Simply slowing down or eliminating head movement and using audio cues or tempos to move the eyes an head only so much takes much of the work that would make it complicated enough to be overkill. Knowing its going to be a tack shot before you shoot it and moving accordingly is the only key.

Ive done it, both with roto and 2d track, and once set up properly, with a full 3D replacement, and it's not that hard. and the results are a lot more believeable when it's coming with 3D, and with the ability to not only multipass, but to texture differently, re-render, and simply composit back in, it's a lot more dynamic.
 
well, i tried to track, but it is imposible to parent a MASk whit the track because the effect in the eyes is nothing but the same movie ( changing levels to see more clearly eyes) duplicated whit a mask into two circles , so there i can move frame by frame and i have a clear eye moving at the same time whit the original movie.
 
Matt Grunau said:
It's only overkill depending on what you are trying to do. If it's something like glowing eyes, yeah it is.
Click to expand...

Which is what hes doing, thus.. overkill.

Your argument is pretty much, 'if you were going to do a something harder
than this effect, you'd have to do more work''.

I totally agree with that... for this effect, his roto and hand track needs to
be tighter, thats all.
 
kilmyneo said:
well, i tried to track, but it is imposible to parent a MASk whit the track because the effect in the eyes is nothing but the same movie ( changing levels to see more clearly eyes) duplicated whit a mask into two circles , so there i can move frame by frame and i have a clear eye moving at the same time whit the original movie.
Click to expand...

Here's a suggestion: Do the track, apply the track to a null, parent a solid to the null and do your roto on the solid. You'll wind up needing far fewer keyframes. Then use this masked solid as a track matte for the video layer.

-Stu
 
mmmmmm interesting idea!!! ;) i will prove... a question....if i track and parent to the solid using roto im not saving 1 step then create a null??? for what is usefull a null in this case??

ok i tried and look great...but only for one eye, i tracked twice, two null objet and two whit solid...i tried to do the same in the composition and the other solid or ¨eye¨ not matte it keep white.
 
Last edited:
Greggl said:
Which is what hes doing, thus.. overkill.

Your argument is pretty much, 'if you were going to do a something harder
than this effect, you'd have to do more work''.

I totally agree with that... for this effect, his roto and hand track needs to
be tighter, thats all.
Click to expand...


That was kinda my point. I didn't make it too well though.

So I think we are kinda apples and oranges a little, and and still agreeing on both. I thought he was texturing the eyes, hence the 3D route. :)


And you are right that I usually find a reason to incorporate 3D, even when sometimes I dont need to.



kilmyneo said:
mmmmmm interesting idea!!! ;) i will prove... a question....if i track and parent to the solid using roto im not saving 1 step then create a null??? for what is usefull a null in this case??

ok i tried and look great...but only for one eye, i tracked twice, two null objet and two whit solid...i tried to do the same in the composition and the other solid or ¨eye¨ not matte it keep white.
Click to expand...


If you are applying the track data to a solid, you shouln't need a null.

When you do your tracking, make sure you are traking not only position, but rotation also. Then, when you apply your masks for the solid, they may stay better.

Set up your Track for position and rotation, and you will get 2 boxes instead of one in the tracker (the extra for rotation). Put one on each pupil (if you need to, really jack up the contrast/difference between pupil and iris via levels, curves, hue & sat to assist only for the track, and depending on where the tracker is applied in the pipeline, you may need to precompose the layer after you run levels on it and before you track it) run your track, and apply that to a solid, then add your masks. If it still gives you trouble, try tracking it in reverse. go to the end of the clip, and in thr traker dialogue box, track backwards. That helps sometimes. Also, adjusting the track type (RGB, Luminosity) may help after you have tweaked the video layer to assist the track, since each option will track differenly.

For the effect you are going for, you really dont need nulls, since as Greggl pointed out you are simply lightening (I thought you were also adding texture, hence my post before this one, but after reading his last post, I went back and looked, and sure enough, just glowing/lightening) the eyes and only need a solid layer. heck, you may have some luck with just using an adjustment layer with Levels or curves on it playing with the blending modes, and applying the track data to that.


Sorry for the misunderstanding Greggl.
 
Last edited:
Matt Grunau said:
I usually find a reason to incorporate 3D, even when sometimes I dont need to.
Click to expand...

Hehe! I try to avoid 3D at this point :) I much prefer 2D fixes to things.

I just didn't want to see Kilmyneo's head explode after spending weeks learning
a 3D package to do a 2D effect :)
 
I like the animation.

You'll probablly get a hard wrap for the video being shot kind of amertureish. But You work with what you have ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top