United3dArtists Archive

Is 16-bit rendering a possibility?

My gut tells me we're limited to 8-bit rendering out of tS itself.

Seems like the only solution for those of us who want to stick with trueSpace, but gain greater latitude for post grading, would be some sort of external/3rd-party renderer which could import trueSpace geometry and render.
The issue comes with how to export that geometry when using things like MotionStudio, as MotionStudio does the mesh deformation/animation in realtime (ie. the character's animated geometry isn't saved in the file.)

What are you guys' thoughts on this?

Bryce can render up to 96 bits per pixel for file formats like tiff and it can import TS cob and scn files.

Can't help you with Motion Studio.

"What are you guys' thoughts on this?" I think if you find yourself plunging deep into the ocean and drowning you should let go of the anchor. Use other software that has not been discontinued.

Have you made any films lately? Haven't seen you on the forums for a while.

Thanks, Finis!

Have you made any films lately? Haven't seen you on the forums for a while.

Working on another feature at the moment, experimenting with anamorphic adapters...
...and still using trueSpace for odd and end projects.

Hope you are doing well!

What's an anamorphic adapter?

Widescreen adapter. It allows you to shoot a "squeezed" image onto your camera's (camcorder, DSLR) sensor, which you then - in post - "un-squeeze" into a wide image.
Tricky part is you typically have to focus two lenses, so rack-focusing is not easy.
So I've been messing with a DIY solution...

More info:
http://www.frankladner.com/single-focus ... e-adapter/

what realy is my question is what does one need anamorphotic lenses today in
digital production? since squeezing optically is almost the same quality loss as just
using a portion of the digital file....?
Peter

Hey Peter! I know where you're coming from, but there actually is a pretty big difference between shooting anamorphically vs. not.

Here's a test image I shot to illustrate that:
http://www.frankladner.com/images/anamo ... -after.jpg

Frank in old days thats true but today your simply just limited by the amount of pixels (wide) you have in your
digital file... in your picture you could have used a wider lens and cut the top and bottom which is exactly what I do with video
today.......If you use 4K which I do today with the Sony Alpha 7s and the digital Recorder ... there is ample amount of quality left
even for projection in a theater... if you want to spend less the Pana fz 1000 does most of it minus shallow dof....at fraction of the cost...
If you realy want to increase the Quality of your videos with Canon cameras ... an external Recorder coming from a clean hdmi out does the trick....
The small star from Atmos is very small and ist just around 250 $...
Peter

I'm shooting on a Blackmagic Pocket (nabbed one when they went to 1/2 price for a month) and the quality is much greater than I was used to with a DSLR. Sharper, greater latitude, and a MUCH better codec.

At any rate, there is a true aesthetic difference between anamorphic vs. chopping the top and bottom of the frame (which I actually do in some cases - for convenience - like when I'm shooting with the Tokina 11-17 /wide.)
Oval bokeh can be simulated with cardboard (http://www.frankladner.com/cheap-anamor ... eh-filter/) and horizontal flares can be achieved with fishing line (http://www.frankladner.com/cheap-diy-an ... re-filter/" ) but what I really like about shooting with an anamorphic adapter is I can use an 85mm lens for many shots and it behaves more like a medium. ...and my 50mm f/1.4 acts like a medium/wide.
(Shooting with old vintage primes.)

If I go without anamorphic and simply letterbox the top and bottom in those cases, I'm still missing out on an actual wider field-of-view.