MAXON CINEMA 4D: Cinema 4D Forum Adobe After Effects Forum

Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements

COW Forums : Maxon Cinema 4D

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Hilary Tsai
Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 5, 2017 at 4:32:01 am

Hi!

I am planning a projection-mapping music show, and I was wondering, specifically, about the workflow between C4D and Aftereffects. How viable is it to import my entire modeled set of objects with animations, into Aftereffects and then create 2D designs that appear to interact with the models? For example, if I created a particle emitter on a 3D speaker that makes it look like sparks are flying from it, will that look way too feeble in comparison with the C4D stuff? From what I've seen, AE has a lot of things C4D doesn't, but I'm afraid of the 2D stuff looking tacky next to 3D. Can anyone speak to the process of blending C4D models/animations with 2D effects?

Thanks!! I'd appreciate any advice!


Return to posts index

Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 5, 2017 at 10:01:26 am

We do our warp for the projection map in C4D and get that all fitting perfect to the geometry in the world. Then we export a vertex warp pass. This is just a still that will change a flat 2d render to the shapes in the world. (or a movie if you have motion control objects in the real world you can match to)
Then go and get revision effects ReMap plug in for AE (its pretty cheap). This can sit as an effect in an adjustment layer above your 2D or rendered 3D footage in AE, with the vertex warp from C4d plugged in to the effect. This will warp any 2D render to your final shapes in the real world and you can turn it on and off to check stuff. You can use the vertex map as reference in AE for where the "seams" are in the real world (where columns edges are or where the mullions in windows are). Plus you can output the viewport in AE to your projectors live (assuming you have a gfx card that can do this). Any footage renderered in 3D that is already in perspective or warped for the world should sit above this adjustment layer in your comp.

A 3D package is great for getting your geometry right to match whatever you are mapping too but in the end what you are projecting is 2D so you have the choice of going C4d or AE or both for the content. The 3D aspect of your content (just content here, I'm not talking about the 3D stuff that matches the architecture) has nothing to do with the real geometry of real world objects. So don't limit yourself to one or the other just because you are mapping. Think about content as though you are working on a flat surface and then start working on the depth aspect.

In fact you can get into trouble with doing stuff in 3D only and thinking this way because your projectors can't actually focus on more than one plane at a time. So you can end up designing something really cool that you can't really pull off (in this physical universe anyway).
The thing that makes projection mapping work is the changes in lighting and shadows that match the geometry of your real world objects - and that can be done in either 2D or 3D.



Return to posts index

john ord
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Sep 7, 2018 at 12:51:46 pm

Sorry to bump and jump this thread. But i was wondering if you had contact details Steve, and if i may pick your brain and potential work.


Return to posts index


Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 5, 2017 at 10:06:07 am

We do our warp for the projection map in C4D and get that all fitting perfect to the geometry in the world. Then we export a vertex warp pass. This is just a still that will change a flat 2d render to the shapes in the world. (or a movie if you have motion control objects in the real world you can match to)
Then go and get revision effects ReMap plug in for AE (its pretty cheap). This can sit as an effect in an adjustment layer above your 2D or rendered 3D footage in AE, with the vertex warp from C4d plugged in to the effect. This will warp any 2D render to your final shapes in the real world and you can turn it on and off to check stuff. You can use the vertex map as reference in AE for where the "seams" are in the real world (where columns edges are or where the mullions in windows are). Plus you can output the viewport in AE to your projectors live (assuming you have a gfx card that can do this). Any footage renderered in 3D that is already in perspective or warped for the world should sit above this adjustment layer in your comp.

A 3D package is great for getting your geometry right to match whatever you are mapping too but in the end what you are projecting is 2D so you have the choice of going C4d or AE or both for the content. The 3D aspect of your content (just content here, I'm not talking about the 3D stuff that matches the architecture) has nothing to do with the real geometry of real world objects. So don't limit yourself to one or the other just because you are mapping. Think about content as though you are working on a flat surface and then start working on the depth aspect.

In fact you can get into trouble with doing stuff in 3D only and thinking this way because your projectors can't actually focus on more than one plane at a time. So you can end up designing something really cool that you can't really pull off (in this physical universe anyway).
The thing that makes projection mapping work is the changes in lighting and shadows that match the geometry of your real world objects - and that can be done in either 2D or 3D.

With this approach you don't have bring in geometry to AE to put your 2d stuff on - the warp render does that for you.



Return to posts index

Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 5, 2017 at 10:07:12 am

Not sure what happened there. It doubled up the post - I did an edit to add another line and I got the post uploaded again.



Return to posts index

Hilary Tsai
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 6, 2017 at 6:50:21 am

Hey, Steve!

This has been immensely helpful, and I'm going to give all of this a go. I just have some follow-up questions, if I may. (sorry, I don't want to be overwhelming with all these questions, but would love to know:

-By "we do our warp in C4d," do you mean you model everything out to match the real world geometry to begin with, or you create imagery and then warp it to fit? Are you outputting C4D to your projector so you can see what you're mapping? I guess I'm used to "warping" being the equivalent of stretching quads out in Madmapper, where you're in full screen mode and able to trace your shapes live.

-Is Vertex warp pass the official word? Trying to find/look it up and can't find it. Not sure if it's called something different in each version of C4D.

-For your final show, is it all live or are you rendering a video file? Not sure if my gfx card lets me output AE to projector, but I'm going to find out. Up til now, I've been rendering files in AE to project in Madmapper.

Also, in your experience, how much does the distance between the projector and audience pov matter? Assuming you are working with some of the advanced 3D illusions that C4D provides, are you having to consider what the audience sees as opposed to what the projector "sees"? Say your audience is in a small auditorium watching the show front and center, but the projector is 12-14 feet above their heads and projecting at a slight downward angle. would the illusion still be visible for them?

I apologize if this comes off as being obvious/newbie stuff. I'm still pretty new to the C4D world, and this info seems hard to find. But people like you make it so much easier to get answers.

Thanks a lot!!


Return to posts index


Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 6, 2017 at 10:33:49 am

No worries on the ?s, thats what the forum is for.
Let me work that backwards.

First a few basics - it doesn't matter how far the projector is from the screen - ever. If you can get a lens to make the image the size you want from the distance you are at, you could project from the moon and (ignoring air pollution) a 100" image would be just as bright as from a projector mounted 10ft from the screen. Brightness is only only only ever tied to image size and the punch (lumens) of the projector.

Brightness is also effected by screen material or in your case object material and the angle that material is on relative to the projector. More on this later.

The most important color in a projected image is black (actually this is true of any image) The deepest black you will ever have with a projector is the color of the surface in the lighting conditions you will be projecting in (with the projector off). We always say if we could project on black it would revolutionize the industry. No black means no contrast and no contrast means a wishy washy image. Theaters are dark because without any light even a white screen is technically black. A light colored projection surface in a high ambient light space needs a high bright projector to increase the difference between the brightest white the projector can do and the color of the wall with no pixels lit there (in other words, black). The brain interprets that difference, if the delta is enough, as the lack of light being a sort of black.

You also can't over come focus on different planes. If you have some columns, depending on your throw distance, whats behind the columns will not be in focus, if what's on the columns is. Audience distance also affects this- the farther they are from the image the more leeway you have.
And remember that, as in our columns example, there will be a shadow where the column blocks the image from getting to whats behind it. You can over come this with multiple projectors. We've done jobs where we have projectors that only fill in the shadow areas and nothing more.

POV. Where the projector is doesn't matter for the illusion, but you do have to position it to get the best angle on all your surface geometry. And there are some gotchas, but more on that in a sec.
The pov for the audience is key. There is a sweet spot (unfortunately not very big) where all the illusions will work, and as you drift out from that spot those illusions get less and less convincing, and finally they just plain don't line up. This is one of my pet peeves about the marketing of projection mapping (kind of like the hype of Tupac projected on semi transparent film situated on black and have it be called a hologram - it would have looked the same- probably better- if they had just used a screen) The illusion only works from certain angles. Anyway. That POV spot is where you sit when you do your line up and object trace and where you work to move things around to make the illusion work. And thats the only place it truly works. Now you can give the audience a few of those spots by designating some real world geometry (RWG) for other POV points and doing lines ups for those areas while sitting in those spots. So what the audience sees are some areas that are neat but don't really work 3D wise and then there is one area for them that is perfect. And each cluster in the audience can have this experience if you do enough POV spots. And contrary to many posts I've seen you can do this all with one projector. Its just a 2D image coming from the projector after all. You can also do just simple lighting and geom morphs that only use up and down for example, and keep perspective tricks to a minimum and this increases the POV viewing area.

There's a famous youtube video, famous not because it's the biggest gaff I've seen in proj mapping but because it heralded the Colts use of the technology (pistons maybe? - not a sports guy) The half time show on the BBall court was marketed as projection mapping like it was the second coming. The POV spot was on the other side of the arena from where the video camera was, so all the shadows are upside down, the perspective is the most wrong it could be and yet it was heralded - argh.
And just to get your juices going have you seen this? One of the most creative uses of projection mapping - sadly (and again annoying for the above reasons) it can only be seen this way by the roving camera - a person in the space would not see the dimensional effects correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX6JcybgDFo

Here are the gotchas for projection. If you have a RWG plane that is angling away from camera (even a little) the projected image stretches (but you can over come that in your comp with a warp and make it look right), but you can't over come the fact that there are fewer pixels per sq inch at the back of the plane vs the front of the plane, so resolution falls as does the amount of light - add to that the angle of reflected light and that shape will be darker than the rest of your "canvas" and then darker still as it goes back. So you may have to compensate for that with feathered adjustment layers in your comp. (usually you have darken everything else because the projector can't do more bright than bright.)
There are going to be spots that are so extreme angle-wise that the image is smeared beyond flexibility. There is no reason areas of your composition can't be black - make these areas a bold design choice (ya that's it) and make them black.
Different surfaces will reflect light back in different amounts. Again you can compensate to a degree. Same goes for colored RWG but often your hands will be tied. You can project a green Tron graphic on a red and black checked lumberjack shirt till you are Tron-blue in the face and you really won't see much.

As for method. It really depends on your RWG. But lets say you have a classic building facade with doric columns etc surrounding a portico. The natural inclination is that you would get into cinema and build columns and then project you imagery on those in C4D using cinema's projection mapping and then output that for you projectors, but now you are warping your imagery around cylinder shapes twice, once distorted by cinema and once by the RWG, doubling the amount of distortion. Most of what we find we are doing is undoing the distortion that the RWG lends to the projected image so that we can impart our own distortions and depth. And the coolest things in 3D mapping are showing the audience what they think is a flat surface and then letting the dimension leak in.

Usually the process comes down to a flat mesh - with a before and after positioning of the vertexes. One for the planes that you can make content for and the "after" mesh brought into line with the outlines of your RWG. Then exporting a UVW map of that warped mesh to AE, and with ReMap, with the UVW applied, it will warp your content to fit the warped mesh without ever going back to cinema. (BTW you can't do this in AE direct even though you can make a mesh with a number of tools inside AE - the math AE uses to match moved vertices is not quad based so you get curves inside the polys imparted to the footage)
That mesh warping vertex by vertex is as painful as it sounds so I built an xpresso rig that maps the 3D geometry we build, to match the RWG, onto a flat mesh of vertexes, but there is no reason you couldn't do that by hand just moving vertexes on a flat mesh to match a 2D view of your RWG. Remember, from the projectors pov there is no 3D. It's assuming a 2D plane to project onto and something that recedes into the distance the projector sees as it's edges just getting closer together. Hence the mesh with vertexes just getting closer together to squeeze the image together to fit that receding geometry.

Buuuuuut. If you have mad mapper, let me save you hours of grief. Use Mad Mapper. It can match RWG in a heartbeat and do your warp correction for you. You can send any2D content you want into it and that package will look after what we were talking about cinema doing. Then if you want to you can use cinema to make 3D objects that can give the RWG depth that it didn't have to begin with. You can approach it (in cinema) as though it is a flat canvas - so you can just film a flat "screen" with objects extending outward from it and MM will warp that for you.

As for outputting AE - you can designate one of your vid card outputs as the presentation screen in the prefs and that can go to your projector - its a live borderless view of the comp window..
What i don't know is if you can do the same but feed this output to mad mapper because mad mapper will feed the projectors live.

There are lots of other tools you could use for this was well. Cool Lux, Green Hippo, Dataton, but non can touch Mad Mappers price and the former are trying to be all things to all people where as Mad Mapper is tailor made for this sort of thing.

I wish I had map mapper when I was growing up.



Return to posts index

Hilary Tsai
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 7, 2017 at 7:54:03 am

Steve, you're incredible! This info just goes above and beyond, it's very valuable to me as I finalize a work flow. Things are starting to click much better now. Seriously, THANK YOU.

As it happens, I do have Madmapper. When you talk about MM doing the warp correction for you, are you referring to the 3D calibration tool? If not, please correct me. I've not yet used it, but I looked up a video



which suggests designing a model and then 3D printing it (I'd skip that step, as my geometry is not custom designed). Then, with MM's calibration tool, you match the image to the 3D print and then add designs in Aftereffects before loading it back into MM. That sounds like a solid idea; the only part I'm a bit unclear on is: In the video above, C4D comes at the beginning of the process, and you mentioned doing the C4D stuff after the initial calibration/warp. Let's say I skip complex C4D design at the start and just do a sort of matte trace of my RWG. Would I load the trace into MM for an initial calibration and then export that out to C4D to work on? Then, since AE comes after C4d in the workflow, does using MM's calibration again for the final result get rid of the need for re:map? Sorry for my confusing language; I'm just trying to see exactly how using MM affects all the steps you mentioned. It does seem that MM would simplify the process a lot if the calibration tool can adjust the image.

P.S. I checked out the Tupac "hologram." Seems it was CGI + pepper's ghost and cost 400k to put together! Can definitely appreciate your point about it not being a true hologram, for sure, though the concept of bringing dead performers back to life is interesting.


Once again, Steve, thank you!! I can't tell you how difficult this process would be without your helpful explanation.


Return to posts index

Hilary Tsai
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 7, 2017 at 8:15:44 am

Meant to add this as an edit, but couldn't find the edit button:

I need to correct my statement about the video. It doesn't actually say that C4D was used at all, but rather whichever 3D software they used to print the model was used before they added effects. I may have also mistakenly read your explanation to mean that I should warp 2D imagery in MM before using C4D, which gave me the impression that I should warp a 2D trace before and then export the trace to use as a design guide in my softwares--but I'm not sure that's what you meant.


I guess what my question boils down to is: should I do the trace and modeling in C4D at the start, put it into AE, and then use MM to warp it to fit?


Return to posts index


Hilary Tsai
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 7, 2017 at 9:32:59 am

Sorry for yet another post! (wish they'd let us edit)

Anyway, in my above posts, it hadn't hit me yet exactly what Uvw was all about, but now I understand better. I'm used to 2D software, where it's not such an issue--so I must've confused you terribly by thinking I needed to calibrate a 2D trace of my RWG. My mind was stuck on my old workflow, where I'd trace objects in full screen mode in MM and then load it as a png into AE so I could see my outlines; .but I do realize now that With C4D it's more complicated, as I have to think about how 3D translates in 2D application. With that said, the sequence of C4D to AE and finally to MM for warping should be okay?


Return to posts index

Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 7, 2017 at 11:44:16 am

Can you tell me or show me what you will be projecting on? Half the battle is deciding what approach to take. Only experience can aid in this area. Happy to help.
While the idea of building the projection surface in 3D is tantalizing and 3d printing even more so (always looking for new ways to use mine), it can lead you down a painful blind alley.
The UV map that you can use in the calibrator is brilliant but it is meant to be used inside of MM only using MM's mapping of MM generated effects onto the mesh of that object that is stored in MM. Its a great thing, especially the shadow generator. But I know a lot of people have then gone and done a 3D render in C4d with their model and then tried to apply that to the object in MM after calib. It can be done but you have to export every frame as a UV wrapping map and you have to bake the textures. There are a few hurdles on the MM side as well. They may have updated this to meld the warper and the UV calib - its the next logical step.

With the 3D printed object (I assumed to use as a test) this does work but you can't go right from 3D print to full scale without repeating the entire process and in some cases redoing your content. The problem is that, at full size, the width of the lens is usually insignificant and can be considered a single point and that's how the math is done (in fact it needs to be a single point to make the math doable). But when your lens is about the size of the object you are projecting on, the matrix of the projector chip can "see" more faces than it would at full size because the lens is so wide compared to the model - it's literally seeing around corners. So you can use it to test or present to client but you will have to remap once you get full size and probably tweak like crazy.

But while all of the above are cool and good for people without content creation chops or facilities (because you can do everything inside of Mad mapper - its just it will look like the next guy's work who also worked exclusively inside mad mapper), I would recommend going the classic route.
Yes, build a model in 3d but not for what you think. Build it with the warping grid in mind. If you have geometry that has quads that you can overlay over the real scene those can help you align the warp grid to the faces and that will keep you from guessing as to what's parallel and whats not.
Lets go back to my column example. If you try and map the MM quad mesh to a real marble column, you won't have any reference as to how thin to make the quads as you round to the edges of the column (see image below). You can do this with math (its a simple cosin function) but I'm sure you had enough of that in highschool. So the model is not used to project content on to (at least not yet) but to help you know where to put your quads. The hard part (sometimes) is modeling in nice clean regular sized quads.

Or you could use a trick. Just model anyway you want any way you want. Then project a perfect grid (or the checkerboard) on to your model with a long lensed camera inside c4d using the projection mapping tag. (long lensed so the camera, now acting as projector, doesn't add its own distortion) The camera can be centered on the model (squared up) or can be at your POV spot. Both are acceptable but it does produce different results - depending on the effect you are after in the end. Use this image of your model with checkeboard mapped onto it (ignoring the actual 3D mesh it was built from) as your mesh warping base in MM for alignment.
Its not as perfect as modelling in quads but you can always tweak afterward.

With the projector now mapped to the surface you can use a render of your model (or a photo taken from the POV of your building) as your ref in AE or Cinema to animate to. You can use the 3D model to generate shadows etc or silhouettes inside windows - think about it like a flat plane even though its geometry. Remember if you project on to your model it will get distorted twice - rule of thumb - what ever comes out of the c4d render thats what it will look like on the building or whatever your surface is. I prefer using the 3D model for the above mentioned things, enhancing the geometry of the building that is already there and making large lights swoop around that aren't really there but the CG shadows seemingly generated by the building's own architecture are very persuasive, but also using the surfaces on the buildings as planes and adding my own depth within these areas. For this content you can model in 3D but just use a flat plane as a canvas and then comp in this element to whereever you want it. Wizzing a glowing trail across the building face is all done in the warper - just wizz a trail around in AE within the boundaries of the building facade - MM will look after the perspective correction. Just think about depth as you do - so you could arc it toward camera in AE then shoot it back into where the doorway is - the combo of the warp done by mm and the depth in the AE render is almost mind bending in real life.

One other artsty tip that helps with faking perspective - light colors recede and dark colors come forward in the human brain (its because there is so much aerial diffusion at the horizon that it looks lighter, so we assume anything lighter must be farther away because we all know just how far that horizon is before you fall off the flat earth.

11578_column.jpg.zip



Return to posts index

Hilary Tsai
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 8, 2017 at 9:30:01 am

Thank you Steve! Absolutely, I will try to explain more on what I'm projecting on. It's complicated, so I'm sorry if this gets long-winded:

The entire show is interior mapping, in an auditorium with very little ambient light. (auditorium w/ projector throw jpeg attached below) It would use a single 4k lumen projector mounted from an A/V booth in the back, about 15 feet off the ground and aimed at the set-up. There will be no difficult architecture like columns, just three large planar surfaces set up like a folding panel, and some geometric shapes in front, arranged in a way where all planes are visible from a front angle. Materials are yet to be decided; it's a separate area I'm still doing research on. The screenshot attached here is a very crude representation of panels I made in C4D, just to show what I mean. Onto the planes, I'm projecting imagery of rock performers with a variety of effects like silhouettes, glowing outlines and trap code form. The whole thing is supposed to be a mock concert. Realism is definitely not the goal; it will be abstract, and a degree of "flat-lookingness" for the performers can't be avoided, since it's just roto-ed footage w/effects. The background behind the performers will, though, suggest some depth and play with lighting in a way that evokes a concert environment.

In front of and around the edges of the two outer panels will be geometric objects that I'll map with more dimension than the rest. This is where the C4D stuff comes in. They'll be designed w/ music iconography. For example, rectangular object might be mapped as a speaker that blares particles, and those particles would fall onto other geometry and appear to collide with the surface. To some extent, the elements would seem to interact with one another. I'm going mainly with rectangular shapes, since they're simple and versatile--can be mapped like amps and piano keys, too. Then the center panel would have a stage-like structure in front of it. The panel behind it would be where the drummer is, and the stage might do some sort of distortion as though the drums were affecting it. All of this sounds overly-hopeful, but it's only a student thesis project where all that's expected is my best shot and willingness to experiment. I suspect that I will keep simplifying until I get something realistically doable by end of december.

The big thing I kept getting stuck on at the start, was how to export the C4D stuff as a sequence that could be played back in AE but also have all the layers of the C4D project. Last week, someone suggested Cineware for this. As for matching RWG, I used to away with just tracing shapes in MM with quads and exporting that outline as a guide for AE. Then, as long as resolution stayed the same, I could just export a single .mov out of AE, load into MM and it would fit the geometry perfectly. In that way, my use of MM was unconventional since most people have a bunch of quads in their output window. Projector and RWG didn't move in the past, but that may not be the case this time. C4D was the extra challenge that threw off my workflow. I'm sure most of my issues are due to just not being familiar enough with the way C4D mapping works to anticipate problems, but things are indeed coming together and clicking much more as I read more of your helpful posts. The bit about double distortion does makes sense now; after hearing an expert explain it, I realize how in the dark I was on lots of things.

Right now, I am re-reading and 'digesting' your post again to make sure I do fully get it. But I wanted to go ahead and explain what exactly, I was mapping, since I left that out last time. Thank you again! I really appreciate you putting up with all of this long explanation.


Return to posts index


Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 8, 2017 at 10:11:21 am

I'd worry less about the C4d Mapping. In the end you are putting 2d content onto a 3D surface. So you can certainly have a a floating 3D cube casting a shadow on the surface and it will look like it's floating out from that surface but its the warper in MM that's looking after correcting the projected image that would be distorted by the shapes on stage. Dragging a particle emitter left to right, MM will look after it undulating across the various surfaces. You can setup edges in your "2D" c4d comp or in AE that the particles can react to without going through the pain of building a true 3D representation of whats on stage.
But you can also build simple versions of the planes in C4d so that you can have particles bounce around. These don't need to be perfect and can be done by eye. With the exception of the POV spot and edges lining up, 3D mapping is very forgiving. Shadows, contact points, lighting all reenforce the illusion so as long as you get close with these it usually sells. You really only need to be super accurate when you are mapping an image of the building you are mapping onto.

There are a number of plug ins that allow you to import OBJ files into AE and you can use those to help composition or (in some plug ins) texture them directy with sub comps (Video Copilot's element 3D is brilliant at this).
You can also position planes in 3D space in AE and then sub comp them leaving all attributes in the outer comp so you have flat surface to compose on in the inner comp but can be angled and 3D in the outer. And a mask on this solid can be used to trim the shape to match your on stage geometry.
For positioning you can export nulls from c4d that come in as nulls to AE, as well as lights and cameras. If you animate these that data comes in as well. But be warned there is no rotation data you can play with in AE on lights or nulls. But you can bring in a camera and it comes in with everything and is fully rotateable - we use these all the time, not as cameras, but as nulls we can hook geometry to in AE and then play around just as if we're in C4D. Just make sure to turn the cameras you are using as nulls off (the eyeball icon).

We're probably starting to annoy the CC gods with length so here's an email you can send to if you want to send designs etc and I can point you in the (hopefully) right directions. This can be brain melting stuff (should I predisort this? or is the distotion happeing in MM? or should I make it flat?) steveb@sharktankdigital.com



Return to posts index

Hilary Tsai
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 9, 2017 at 7:53:31 am

Thank you for these further suggestions! I agree about the "CC gods". This exchange has given me lots to work from.. Will certainly import C4D camera and null groups for better control in AE. Very glad to know the precision is not of huge importance unless mapping architecture; I'd antagonized over that part so much that I think it overshadowed everything.

Steve, if there is a way to rate you as "best answer" or boost you in this forum somehow, please let me know. You have been very generous with your time and guidance and I truly appreciate it.

P.S. about the auditorium POV, those chairs are just always there by default. For the actual event, I will be able to customize the seating and move them further away.

Thanks!


Return to posts index

Hilary Tsai
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 8, 2017 at 9:33:29 am

Oops, it looks I didn't attach my images correctly that time, so I'll send them here.

Auditorium:



Panel set-up:



Return to posts index


Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 8, 2017 at 12:21:06 pm

So a couple of thoughts. Pictures can be deceiving but that looks like a pretty close audience to a pretty big screen. That means that your POV spot is going to be very very small - like two seats. On the plus side the screen geometetry looks simple and clean, which will help expand that spot.
I suppose I'm a POV snob because that's the only place the illusion truly works, but given how people rave about projection mapping even when they have seen it upside down and the perspective is inside out perhaps I'm the only one who cares.



Return to posts index

Steve Bentley
Re: Projection-mapping interaction between 3D and 2D elements
on Aug 9, 2017 at 4:45:34 pm

One other thought. You are going to be wasting a huge amount of light and resolution because your projector can't do that format and encompass all screens in one shot. So there will be tons of pixels above and below the screen. This would be better with three projectors, one for each flat. The larger you have to blow up the image the dimmer that image becomes and for that size of screen, 4k isn't a lot.



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2019 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]