Tremendous. Thanks. I have Slipstream which I haven't played with for a
while so might give that a go.
I don't currently own EMFluid.
Cheers
On 30 November 2016 at 17:56, Jordi Bares wrote:
> Very true..
>
> Plus there is one particular thing (if I remember well about emFluid) that
> I really
Hi guys,
I'm looking for a 3D scanning studio in L.A.
We have a few people's head to scan.
Anyone has recommendations from that area?
Thank you for any help,
MAC
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with
"unsubscribe" in the subject
Very true..
Plus there is one particular thing (if I remember well about emFluid) that I
really loved.. the fact that Houdini fluids are incompressible makes them look
in a particular way and for certain things, specially graphical things, I
prefer emFluid…
jb
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 17:45, Jo
Going back to how to create the advection effect. A major advantage of
emFluid4 is the simplicity of the setup and that you can use a Fluid Box
model which is automatic and requires no Fluid Box at all (it automatically
scales the size of the voxel grid). In testing I found that breaking the
sim up
Really? That is going to be really fun to play with… these guys are on fire!
:-)
jb
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 16:35, Jonathan Moore wrote:
>
> It's also worth noting that the Redshift team are working on true point
> rendering within Redshift (rather than instanced geometry). Can't wait to see
>
It's also worth noting that the Redshift team are working on true point
rendering within Redshift (rather than instanced geometry). Can't wait to
see how that turns out.
On 30 November 2016 at 16:28, Jordi Bares wrote:
> That could be excellent look treatment… look forward to see it!
>
> On 30 N
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 16:25, Jonathan Moore wrote:
>
> Just to try to understand the time difference you mention…
> I am not sure how Krakatoa data pipeline works but you can do extremely
> efficient data manipulation (literally enormous point count) in Houdini using
> geometry shaders which wi
>
> Just to try to understand the time difference you mention…
> I am not sure how Krakatoa data pipeline works but you can do extremely
> efficient data manipulation (literally enormous point count) in Houdini
> using geometry shaders which will;
> - Generate tiny IFD files as the points have been
That could be excellent look treatment… look forward to see it!
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 16:25, Chris Marshall wrote:
>
> OK It's less character based, more like motion graphics with a whispy stylee.
> I shall be sure to show you the end result, when my client is happy with it.
> :-/
>
>
> On 30 N
OK It's less character based, more like motion graphics with a whispy
stylee.
I shall be sure to show you the end result, when my client is happy with it.
:-/
On 30 November 2016 at 16:13, Jordi Bares wrote:
> What I love from the original Aardman version is that the animation of the
> characte
What I love from the original Aardman version is that the animation of the
characters is clearly 2D, they nailed it and it shows… but looks too flat
although is not displeasing at all… really prefer their approach than the full
3D character one.
Look forward to see what you are up to. :-)
Jb
Just to try to understand the time difference you mention…
I am not sure how Krakatoa data pipeline works but you can do extremely
efficient data manipulation (literally enormous point count) in Houdini using
geometry shaders which will;
- Generate tiny IFD files as the points have been already
I would not go with trying to render particles with this effect , think the
original
https://vimeo.com/44743579 was by aardman animation and used a 2d Maya
fluid grid for advecting the stuff off the character.
There is this also,
https://vimeo.com/47181969 similar effect a thin slice of fluid is
>
> Now I want to do a test on speed. ;-)
It's worth it Jordi. The place where Krakatoa wins the day is the smart way
it loads the particles at render time (never overloading the system).
I don't run a studio business anymore due to health reasons (used to be a
partner in Lateral, main client L
Now I want to do a test on speed. ;-)
> On 30 Nov 2016, at 14:38, Jonathan Moore wrote:
>
> I love Houdini for particle advection but it's slow to render in comparison
> to Krakatoa once you're up in the 100's of millions of particles. It all
> depends on the resources Chris has available to
OK Thanks Guys,
Plenty to think about.
Cheers
On 30 November 2016 at 14:38, Jonathan Moore
wrote:
> I love Houdini for particle advection but it's slow to render in
> comparison to Krakatoa once you're up in the 100's of millions of
> particles. It all depends on the resources Chris has availa
I love Houdini for particle advection but it's slow to render in comparison
to Krakatoa once you're up in the 100's of millions of particles. It all
depends on the resources Chris has available to him.
On the other hand, when judged purely on creative control, Mantra is a
magical renderer with hun
I rather don’t invest in plugins if you can avoid it (that is just me), plus
you get a Houdini’s full toolset that in the future will surely prove useful…
plus the price is not that dissimilar (you will need the full FX license though)
Have a look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaJKKgJSNhY
OpenVDB is a good option for rendering, especially in combination with
Redshift. However, I've found that point rendering gives far more control
for this type of effect over VDB (which more often than not still looks
more like a smoke volume rather than fluid dispersion). Additive
plasma-like effec
rendering wise this looks just like a load of points, and some tweaking of
density/alpha to get those 2 levels of density.
For this look the default particles shader or Fury (combined with slipstream
for the advection) would both work, (even the viewport in the old particle
system) – or it could
Thanks for your help Steve, the .data files seem to have been the issue.
Cheers
Patrick
On 29 November 2016 at 20:55, Pierre Schiller <
activemotionpictu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like frikking incompatibility issues on the OS (win 10) C++ core
> libraries (Visual Studio 2015 just jammed my
I would probably do a smoke simulation in blender (you can import the animted
alembic character now), cache that to openvdb and render with whatever.
When you play a bit with the density in the shader you can have the denser parts
more defined.
https://youtu.be/iw8hj2Uycvk?t=11m2s
cheers,
Thomas
It looks very much like a Krakatoa rendering (or anything that can cope
with hundreds of millions of particles).
It's generally achieved by particle advection in a fluid sim (a very
viscous one in the case of the Robinsons ad).
The example here is advecting 40 million particles through emFluid4 a
I might have guessed that. ;-)
Any thoughts on the rendering?
On 30 November 2016 at 12:29, Rob Chapman wrote:
> That's a fluid sim driven by animated characters imo
>
> On Nov 30, 2016 11:56 AM, "Chris Marshall"
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> I'm looking to create an effect similar to the Robinsons
That's a fluid sim driven by animated characters imo
On Nov 30, 2016 11:56 AM, "Chris Marshall"
wrote:
> Hi All,
> I'm looking to create an effect similar to the Robinsons Squash Advert
> from a couple of years ago.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6l47atGxa4
> This isn't the exact effect I'm
Hi All,
I'm looking to create an effect similar to the Robinsons Squash Advert from
a couple of years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6l47atGxa4
This isn't the exact effect I'm after, but would anyone have any pointers
on this, but more specifically the rendering of that look?
Thanks
Chris
-
26 matches
Mail list logo