Patryk, didn't you do something like a few years ago using Photoshop?

That could have been done in Vegas.

bstro, look at the headlights and you'll see how it was done. Note that the headlight farthest from the camera is on the outside of the fender. Defintely some photochopping and/or lots of masking there.

Nice effect but not necessary to do it in AE.

Patryk, fantastic work.

I see white gloves being taken off for a challenge.
In a program such as Caligari TrueSpace I could set it up in minutes,
this is a free time challenge to try it in Vegas.

Mind if we download your zips and try?

Sure. i used to do it the old fashion way wy doing everything in 2d and approximating the move, however with a floating camera in AFter Effects it's much easier, plus you cut your wok in half.

My question is, Why do it?

Paul, my question is - Why not?

I asked first.

OK, still pictures have their purpose and charm and then there are video clips, to which you can say the same. Most hybrids are nonsense; my favorite being a combination of a still camera and a radio I bought in Germany in 1967. This is along that same line. It takes away the stillness of a good still and adds zero to it but for the digitized annoyance. It is highly pretentious.

Patryk, very clever work!!!

DrLumen, good observation on the headlights. But I have done some AE 3d camera and I'm still not able to figure out how the windshield was done.

Jerry

In still photography why use black and white? (infrared??)
Because it is an art.

Patryk has a talent for very smooth movement . Sometimes you may get a client
that has only stills. You can do a boring "slideshow" or you can create
something they will love and better will tell others about your business.

Paul, I can see both sides of this question.

On one hand, when anything calls attention to itself, it has failed (I think that's what you're saying).

On the other hand, the first time I saw this effect, I was amazed. I've seen it used in a number of documentaries.

Too, I think it's a fad. We've become enamored technology and gadgets. Story takes a back seat to technology and effects. I think once everyone has seen and it gets a bit threadbare, it'll be used less and less.

An thought just came to me. If a filmmaker, for example, were to get the rights to use a copyrighted photograph then apply this effect to said photograph, would the filmmaker be guilty of copyright infringement--altering the original work?

For me, as I said, I like the effect, but I use would use it very judiciously. In some cases it may be just the thing.

"It takes away the stillness of a good still and adds zero to it but for the digitized annoyance. It is highly pretentious."

The "stillness of a good still"? It's your attitude that's pretentious.

very nice.

So for something like this, is there an advantage to using a "free floating" camera in AE vs a 3d app? You can get some 3d apps free so let's assume you have both.

Personally, I'd say the AE advantage is that it's not another app you need to learn (well, you need to learn how to use the new features).

I think question of "Why?" isn't totally appropriate because it's a work for hire so someone saw a potential for their production to spice thing up. Moreover the image produce somehow altered reality not totally still photo and not totally moving image, that weirdness of the vibe makes the effort worthwhile. Of course as any technique this one too has to be used appropriately, recently i saw a Frontline doc that abused the technique (plus the images were altered in an amateurish way) where the attention was diverted from the real issues of the program.

Patryk, did you get my e-mail?

I did, are we in a vortex of lost emails???

I'll send you another one right now.
P

Bummer! Try jaygladwell at hotmail dot com.

Thanks!

I'm fairly certain that Vegas cannot work with true 3D objects, only 2D objects moving in a 3D world. For instance, those pictures in AE are basically mapped out onto 3D surfaces - they're not just layers of depth.

In Vegas, you would need to create every object as a two dimensional surface, and then adjust each layer independently to seemingly move along with the rest. Going over a smooth surface (like the car) would require possibly hundreds of individually controlled layers to give the illusion of being true 3D space. You could spend less time searching for coins along your local beach that would eventually accumulate the wealth that it would be required in order to purchase Adobe After Effects and then create the effect in there.

Or you could just wait for the Sony Creative Software's AE Response.

Besides AE (too expensive for the limited amount I'd need it for) and the 3d-album software (too cheesy... seems limited to their templates), is there any software that can somewhat easily work with photos in 3D like these examples?

If anyone has used a program like iClone, I'm wondering if you could use their 2D jpg/bmp background import, then use the "cameras" to move around within the photo(s).

you can get a free version of Truespace 3d 3. That should do it. I'm also thinking that any 3d game can do that relatively "easily" (easy being subjective to your knowledge of the game).

but it being incorporated in to a effects app would be really really handy if you wanted to do other FX.

Jonathan, Vegas and AE are the same here. Both can only navigate among 2D objects in a 3D space. The 3D camera in AE just makes this navigation easier than the manual keyframing Vegas requires. That is why I am having a problem understanding how Patryk did the windshield.

Patryk, care to elaborate on this?

>I'm fairly certain that Vegas cannot work with true 3D objects, only 2D objects moving in a 3D world. For instance, those pictures in AE are basically mapped out onto 3D surfaces - they're not just layers of depth.

Jerry

Patryk,

Nice. BTW, what software did you use to make the Flash videos on your website?