3D PARENT Tracks are only half true....

FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/26/2005, 11:39 AM
Ok - don't know how many of you regularly composite in Vegas but I was trying one of those layered people composites where you move through a bunch of people in a line - thought - hey that's no problem in Vegas - I'll just make all the tracks 3D source alpha, layer accordingly and then move through 3d space in a parent motion past each one and so on - NOT THE CASE!!!

It still only treats it a a 2D plane but they're just layered in that 2D plane - what does that mean? - it means that as I move closer they just get bigger and bigger till they *ALL* go "past the camera" - the 3D space that they were placed in in each individual layer does not make any difference with the depth in the parent 3D motion track.

Just wondering if any of you guys have a work around for something like that - or if it's just time to get a compositor?

Dave

Comments

jeremyk wrote on 10/26/2005, 12:34 PM
I was only able to do this by keyframing the Z positions in EACH 3d track. The amount of pain involved depends on how many layers you have.

Also, it takes ages to render.

Jeremy
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/26/2005, 12:50 PM
Yep - that's what I'd be looking at to do it in Vegas - hmmm - I wonder if they will ever make it with a little different 3D relationship - I'm sure it would take a butt load of work so I'm not holding my breath - it's just that I like to have one UBER APP and to this point Vegas has satiated my needs just fine :)

Dave
jeremyk wrote on 10/26/2005, 1:22 PM
I agree with you on the uber app thing. Vegas is amazingly powerful, even if it sometimes takes some extra farting around to do what you need.

I'm not so sure it would be that huge a task to program -- just X Y and Z coordinates for the camera. They're already doing the math...
David Jimerson wrote on 10/26/2005, 4:28 PM
"It still only treats it a a 2D plane but they're just layered in that 2D plane - what does that mean? - it means that as I move closer they just get bigger and bigger till they *ALL* go "past the camera" - the 3D space that they were placed in in each individual layer does not make any difference with the depth in the parent 3D motion track.

Just wondering if any of you guys have a work around for something like that - or if it's just time to get a compositor?"

I haven't tried to do exactly what you do, but I've zipped through photographs in the way you're describing and had no problems.

If you look at the text sample projects that you can download with Vegas 6, there's a text project which does more or less what you say. Don't know if it will help, but it's a demonstration that Vegas can do what you want it to.
JohnnyRoy wrote on 10/26/2005, 5:07 PM
> It still only treats it a a 2D plane but they're just layered in that 2D plane

Dave,

You’re almost there. In addition to using Parent 3D Motion you also have to place the Parent track into 3D Source Alpha mode. Otherwise it remains a 2D plane (as you have seen).

So just place the parent track into 3D Source Alpha and you should get the effect you’re looking for.

~jr
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/26/2005, 5:45 PM
I did - I can't get it to treat all the child tracks as in different placements in the Z space. Maybe I missed something though - I'll look again.

Dave
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/26/2005, 5:54 PM
Yep - Every track is set to 3D including the parent motion style as well. It just can't read that they are placed in different depths within the parent track. It only does it as 3D space within the 2D plane and then the parent motion moves that 2d plane in 3D space - but it doesn't move the child tracks in 3D space within the 3D Parent motion - or at least I can't get it to.

Dave
GGman wrote on 10/26/2005, 9:00 PM
you need a dummy event on the parent track.

:-)

jeremyk wrote on 10/27/2005, 4:48 PM
you need a dummy event on the parent track.

Well, I put a dummy event on the parent track and that seemed to help, but then I deleted the event but left the track motion keyframes, and it still worked, so I think maybe the dummy event is a red herring.

Note that you have to set the parent track motion, not the regular track motion, on the parent track.

Anyway, this really opens up a bunch of possibilities. Thanks!
Coursedesign wrote on 10/27/2005, 5:07 PM
One thing that makes it a lot easier to organize heavy compositing in purpose-built software like Combustion etc. is the Schematic View.

Yesterday a Combustion artist at Digital Domain showed me a schematic for a shot from the next episode of Battlestar Galactica, it could have choked a horse :O) but was easy to organize and modify because all operators were visible in one view.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 10/27/2005, 7:27 PM
For some reason it's now working the way it should - and I didn't do anything to make it any different.

Anyway - thanks for the input guys.

Dave
Orcatek wrote on 10/29/2005, 8:04 AM
Check out this project on VASST site

http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?id=0f4b20de-207a-4516-bbca-72d7c019a15f

It may help.