Buggy Multiplane Node?

[user_deleted]

I

[user_deleted]

my opinion is that the multiplane node is not suitable for production as its buggy and has a shitty interface.

[deke-kincaid]

You can get parallax quite easily with a Moved3d node but nowhere as nice as the multiplane.

Also the multiplane node is very hardware sensitive. So for example a crappy Ati card gives bad results over an nvidia one. Did you have software rendering enabled for the viewport before you rendered or just hardware(hardware will display different results then the render)?

QUOTE(mikemarcus @ 03/07/06, 01:08 AM) [snapback]230197[/snapback]
as its buggy and has a shitty interface.
What is wrong with the gui? It works exactly like highend 3d apps cameras (xsi, houdini and especially maya). So I'm really confused as to what is wrong with it (besides being buggy).

You wouldn't happen to have gotten used to AE's really crappy 3d camera and controls did you? because that is a perfect example of a horrible gui for a 3d camera

[user_deleted]

beaker - I am a compositor, not a motion graphics person. Occasionally I poke around AE in the name of R&D but otherwise, I have never used it. On the 3 or 4 occasions which we have considered using the multiplane node in production, a few tests have resulted in the conclusion that it really isnt worth the effort. I will give examples of why this is the case.

1) Trying to attatch a layer to a point in a cloud of maybe 2000 points imported from our 3d tracker, I realised that I would need to mouse-over each one in turn until I found the one with the name I was looking for.

2) trying to create paralax in a shot with a panning camera was fraught with usability difficulties. We ended up falling back on tried and tested methods of pan nodes with expressions linking them.

3) Importing a layered photoshop comp, putting the layers on different Z positions and animating the camera turned out to be easy in AE (ergggh, I cant believe I am saying this) and incredibly time consumng in shake.

Conclusion: Multiplane is not usable enough to meet the demands of production.

[user_deleted]

if that helps, matchmover can still export to shake

[user_deleted]

Thanks everybody for your comments.
But still, based in your experience, what software would you recommend to achieve this effect?

www.javisuals.com

[user_deleted]

paralax between layers has been created on shake for a long time before the existence of the multiplane node. Its done like this:

CODE
Checker1 = Checker(1440, 576, 2, 32, xSize/GetDefaultAspect());
ColorWheel1 = ColorWheel(720, 576, 2, 0, 1, 1, 1);
Grad1 = Grad(720, 576, 2, 0.5, 0.5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1,
    0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0);
Pan1 = Pan(Checker1, Hermite(0,[-611.995,88.62,88.62]@1,[-63.9399,88.62,88.62]@100),
    Hermite(0,[0,0,0]@1,[0,0,0]@100), 0, 0.5, 0);
Pan1_clone1 = Pan(ColorWheel1, Pan1.xPan/2, Pan1.yPan, Pan1.motionBlur,
    Pan1.shutterTiming, Pan1.shutterOffset);
Over1 = Over(Pan1_clone1, Grad1, 1, 0, 0);
Over2 = Over(Pan1, Over1, 1, 0, 0);

[user_deleted]

also you could follow the same idea with several move3D linked together, offsetting z position and playing with depth of field...it's so easy to do by hand i finally never posted a macro for it.. if that's all you need (no 3d tracking) i really don't see why spend money on matchmover or PFtrack

[mediasaurus]

I agree that the multiplane isn't ready for production. I was excited at the prospect of being able to import boujou data and do 3d matchmoving in Shake. Unfortunately, it ended up being really difficult. Points were really hard to select and navigating 3d space was really unintuitive.

I simply use Maya with layers on planes. Worlds easier and much better control. I really hope Apple can get the multiplane node to be more workable because 3d matchmoving in Shake would rock!

[user_deleted]

couldnt find a proper forum subject, but could anyone point me into the direction of a site for PFTrack tutorials.

Thanks ThePman

[user_deleted]

Don't want to start a thing here, but as a 2d person, I find almost all 3d navigation in any program counter intuitive. And if you have a friendly matchmover you could export the solve with only the points you want in it. At least you can in PFTrack.

Just to add, the results look nice if you do beat multiplane into submission. So much so that I now prefer to have an agonising extra few hours doing things in shake than resort to a slightly easier but shitty looking job in AE. But if anyone wants to do a Maya for Compositors tutorial, I'm there!

PS Pman, try the Pixel Farm website

[user_deleted]

QUOTE(soupkitch @ 03/31/06, 02:11 AM) [snapback]232880[/snapback]
Don't want to start a thing here, but as a 2d person, I find almost all 3d navigation in any program counter intuitive.

I have no problem with the 3d workspace in Flame!

[user_deleted]

2 1/2d and 3d in a compositing program can open you up to so many creative choices and allow you to do things that you can't do any other way in my opinion. As a compositor it is important to be open to that since we are trying to simulate a 3d world in most everything we do. I'm not saying that everything 3d should be done in a compositing program by any means, but a lot of really wonderful things can and could be. Anything that can offer more flexibility, control and options helps make me a better artist. The multiplane node in Shake isn't quite there yet, but it will be and I can't wait!

Catherine