Why Not 3D? 2.75D Demo for giant screen space Saturn Film

[mickelmoe]

nice work mate. Like the way you explain things... it makes sence. watched the vimeo stuff. its amazing. But you are so bonkers to spend that much time rendering... hope someone with a fat wallet is watching.

[dorbie]

You seem very resistant to 3D techniques when in fact there is no real difference between 3D texture done right at high resolution and reprojecting/warping photos.

In the end you have to do a 3D projection and compositing of images to get this right.

[stephenv2]

If you peruse the comments, I've stated before, your statement is possibly true if you know enough about the textures and light effects to recreate, but for space objects, much of the light/texture is unknown and the only methods possible are guessing which from my research results in 3D images that do not look or behave like the photographs when put in motion.

[stephenv2]

@dorbie perhaps you should see my new clip on vimeo - it would cost far more, take more time and never look right.

[Gamenerd1991]

Hey, it's been over 2 years since I heard you were making this and i was just wondering how much is complete and when can i expect to see it? thanks!

[stephenv2]

progress on funding has been slow. Raised $25k so far which has allowed me to present 4 minutes of test concept shots output to IMAX film at the international IMAX expo. Although slow, progress is steady and prospects look good - release date is now 11.11.11. Follow the film via my blog on the official site.

[ninjafrank1337]

Wow, only 9,000 views?

I can't wait to see this. looks great.

[72734695]

You may want look into WHY a photograph looks REAL and a rendered object does not. Hi Definition video showed us that people rejected movies made using this technique asnot "real" looking even though they were much "sharper". Post production studios had to quickly figure out how to make it look more "film like". It is all about what people accept as "real" and "looks good". The same thing happened when FM radio was introduced. People wanted to go back to the more "real" sounding AM.

[stephenv2]

I'm aware of that but it's not just about "looking real". It's because they ARE real.

[jawproduction]

I cant imagine how you did that without 3D animation. But Im a 3d animation student ... so I only thing in that way ^_^

You really did a good job on those fly-by's.

There's one thing i really like to know... IMAX is larger than life...

So how big was the resolution of your project and didn't you have trouble with pixels in the photo's?

greetz from Holland (Europe)

[stephenv2]

thanks. IMAX filmout is 4k 4:3 (4096 x 3072) and because so many space photographs are low resolution AND low quality, you are right - pixels are a constant struggle but I have many tricks to try to win the battle.

[rangervoyager1]

Whats that smell? I smell four letters SPAM!

[stephenv2]

troll is get smellier.

[Sm3gH3adx]

Brilliant, can't wait to see it.. Space is so awe-inspiring.

[gilivnegil]

love it.

[stephenv2]

Thanks. A new teaser with more shots are coming soon.

[gilivnegil]

Thank you for giving us all a chance to admire the beauty of the Saturn system. I hope our grand grand children will be able to see it in person.

[Kabronyproductions]

amazing great stuff cant wait for your next project

[stargazermedia]

You used photos! I think this is really clever!! Good work!!

[siggyuke]

Cool!

But, couldn't the same effect have been achieved by using real photo's as texture maps applied to 2D planes within a CG 3D scene?

[stephenv2]

I've actually taken that basic concept several steps further but using real photographs instead of texture maps which (1) looks much better (2) looks real i.e. just like the original photographs.

Texture maps quickly distort when you move a 3D camera unless they are complete are very high rez. No such maps exist of Saturn and the Saturn system much less many other space objects, so you have to use fake textures which I will not use as explained.

[siggyuke]

When I think of textures maps I mean any digital image, which can be a hi res, alpha channelled photo as well as a low res painted bitmap.

So have you created your own mip-mapping (image level of detail) algorithms to stop the texture distortions?

[siggyuke]

Oh, light bulb moment!

I think I see your meaning - by using photo's they stay sharp and at true resolution no matter the distance from & / or angle to the 'camera' / observation point.

Un-mip-mapped textures would give similar results, no!?!?

Anyway, your results are still very cool :o)

[stephenv2]

Yeah, I actually use lots of various techniques but the goal is only use real photographs and make sure the imagery is as close to a 100% visual match to the photos as possible.

Texture maps on 3D objects for Saturn and moons are problematic because of the limited quality, incompleteness and unknown nature of most of the surfaces being mapped. This creates distortion, lighting problems and general feeling of being "off".

[stephenv2]

So by creatively using 2D photographs in a 3D environment (with some tricks, not mip-mapping but various layer tricks exploiting the full catalog of perspective and optical illusions), I can create enough sense of depth and motion to make it work.

[xXtortionXx]

are you almost done???

[stephenv2]

I just started the IMAX version of the film after finally raising enough money to start. I worked on a couple of HD versions of the film which did not work the way I wanted to.

[xXtortionXx]

why are you doing this?????

[stephenv2]

you might check the site or my blog (new site coming in a week or two)

[seobro]

Beautiful, it is truly awesome.

[A123Jessee]

dude! i cant w8 till your done with this! this movie looks awesome! i love Saturn! :P I support you 100%!

[Kyole]

Im really quiet lost.

Why dont you just use a cgi model dirty cheap.

And just use projection mapping with the still you want to use?

Thus enabling to get the geometry and freedom to explore how you want.

And still retain the actual images and detail.

[stephenv2]

Projection mapping (which I am using for other sections of the film) looks pretty crappy IMO on non-square objects especially Saturn stuff. CGI models look fake - I don't care for them. But most importantly, people know it's not the real photographs. One of the main points of the film is that most people have never seen these photographs much less at their proper scale. If it's CGI, it might as well be Tatooine.

[NoobHaxx]

Its All To Technical To Me, But Mate Gd Luck :D

[186Oneida]

This is a stupid idea. And the "technology" that shits bogus your not doing anything no one hasn't done before.

[stephenv2]

This is a useless comment. And the "criticism" is one that has been disproved here and with my other clips several times before.

[ophello]

@186Oneida

You're a fucking dumb inbred.

[DjDivineDragon]

The 2.75d work looks great, I'm surprised a large company hasn't bought you out yet. have you tried shopping around to film companies?

[stephenv2]

Thanks. Doing so currently.

[anarchyskull15]

i would soo go see this in the imax thats 2 miles from my house... haha.. im thinking of signing up as a digital extra.. soo.. how many more do u need?

[stephenv2]

as many as possible...

[RyRig01]

stephen...you might get this into theaters...but you wont make 6 millions dollars back. People don't go to imax to see 2.75 dimensional videos...they go to see 3D or just regular movies on a very large screen. Good luck but you won't see much success. If it took you that long to make something that is hardly impressive...finding a new idea might be to your best interest.

[stephenv2]

6 Million? Did you watch. The budget is around $250k (I cut it in half by using OpenEXR) and I'm working on some other creative methods to cut it further.

And you are very confused about 2.75D. There will be 2D version of Outside In and perhaps a 3D. 2.75D (and 2.5D) refers to the process of creating motion from stills, not the film itself.

[YUPchannel]

great demo so where can i find is ken burn app?,.. Livewire- :p

[stephenv2]

ken burn tutorial?

[YUPchannel]

TO stephenv2: so it not a 2.5 app?!?,.. Livewire- :p

[stephenv2]

There is no 2.5D app - you need an image editor (Photoshop, Gimp etc.) and a timeline animation tool with z-depth (After Effects, Final Cut, Vegas etc.). I use Photoshop and After Effects.

[multimediaman256]

Just out of curiosity, do you plan to add depth to the rings somehow? where the flythrough goes right through the rings really gets killed when one frame the ring is only visible from the bottom, then the next frame, it's only visible from the top.

I can think of a few ways to avoid that, but they would violate your majorly un-edited photo rule.

[stephenv2]

I know what you are talking about it and no, I'm not going to do those. The rings are very thin and unless you are really, really close, depth only exist in 3D sci-fi stuff. However, I do plan on some new "stuff" based on some new close photos of the rings...

[pabloclp87]

Good Luck with your proyect, I wish you the best from argentina.

BTW the first attempts were indeed ugly, LOL

[Moopster12]

Are you the only person working on this video??

[stephenv2]

Right now yes. A few friends have helped a bit for a short while. I hope to have one additional person helping with the film at some point.

[gmanska]

i can do that in aftereffects... just layer rings and sattern seperatly and fly arround as much as you want with a camera...  you could even make your own shadows with lighting.. i would love to give it a try

[stephenv2]

I too thought it would be doable this way until you realize no individual photographs of Saturn without the ring or the whole rings by themselves exist plus the layers need to be around 10,000 X 10,000 pixels wide for use at IMAX rez. Of course, you could paint those images but my rule was to only use the unaltered photographs and keep their visual integrity.

[gmanska]

you use several different photos and compile them to make all the layers... i would love to give it a try...

[stephenv2]

"several different photos" is the key - it's a lot more photos than you might think at first.

[gmanska]

i am an aftereffects addict, i would love to try it out

[f00kumofo123]

You could just wrap 3D models with images, change field of view and get the same effect with less hassle.

[stephenv2]

It looks very fake when you do that. Saturn's surface is not flat - it's made of highly complex layered system of clouds rotating at incredible speeds. The rings are even more complex. I've not seen any 3D models in my extensive research (and people have emailed their best efforts) that look real.

Plus, the purpose of the film is real photographs. Even if 3D models could look exactly real, the real thing is available. I will chose real over fake everytime.

[f00kumofo123]

Technically there does not exist a single expert on what fly by Saturn looks like. Anything will do. 3D can be very "real" too, it just takes devotion and determination similar to yours to perfect it.

[stephenv2]

It does not require an expert to see that something looks fake. Plus, I'm also making this film for those that have seen and especially those who took the photographs - it would be an insult to them in particular to use fake looking images. There is some very nice Saturn 3D art out there but this film is about (i.e. the story of the film) the photographs. It's like making a film about the music of Jimi Hendrix but using the midi files of his music instead of his actual songs.

[f00kumofo123]

"fake looking"? If you map real photographs on 3D models that would be quite similar to what you are doing with Saturn rings. Actually, after watching your trailer I'm inclined to think that was exactly what you did. Hi res Saturn background + 3D models of rings and moons (simple flat surfaces but nevertheless).

[stephenv2]

There is absolutely no texture mapping, 3D models of any kind - you are seeing photographs only. that's why it is so much work. the method is 2d photographs in 3d space i.e. 2.5d or in my case 2.75d.

[f00kumofo123]

Don't get me wrong. I think you've done a lot of work and it looks good. I hope you will get money and support that you seek. Just be humble.

[stephenv2]

It's not about pride it's about the fact the this video is called why not 3d and yet you state I should be using 3d and that I probably am using 3D. If you look up 2.5D on the web, you will see it's 2d objects (photographs processed in Photoshop) in 3d space (After Effects).

[hinesriley]

I think you are doing a terrific and education video, indeeo. But, with depth, there is rotation...as any "fly-by" will show the true "curvature" of any object. I see no compensation for this. It looks like a moving "cut-out". But terrific work- all the same.

Have a look at my Moon on my "Eagle liftoff" video. It is mapped and bummped with images from Clementine. Keep up the work!

[stephenv2]

I have a new added effect that I've developed that will add some subtle curvature for close shots.

[paxout]

Thank you.

[gcl2g5555]

i understand. Anyway its awesome none the less. i cant wait to see the finished product! keep it going!

[Logan5v]

Outstanding...awsome.

[gcl2g5555]

sweet, well i just thought that it will give it much more visuel feel if u add some kind of particles or something so that when u pass through the rings, u see rocks and debris and gasses flying passed the camera.

[stephenv2]

I'm only using the actual photographs, so I'm limited to reality :)

But there are a few closer photos of the rings that I will be using in the actual film for some of what you describe.

[toddfreeride]

Very well done! I've been watching your work, I really love that new shot of flying over the rings while facing titan, absolutely stunning.

[stephenv2]

Thanks very much. I've got much more stuff like that planned for the film.

[gcl2g5555]

yea i know what ur saying. Well, i think its awesome so far, i like how the camera passes by the moon, it really gives grand scale to saturn. anyway, are u going to be doing anything when the camera passes through the rings?

[stephenv2]

yes - all those shots are planned.

[allennunez]

i want to see te complete video

[PaulTarlevs]

Hey Stephen I just want to tell you ask you something...are you planning to show this to media perhaps news??? It will get you great discover and you might get alot of donations...I really like this idea...but you have probably done a little but not enough for a 2 hour IMAX film :)...try your best!!!

[stephenv2]

I'm actually going to DC next week to appear on at TV show called "Around Space". IMAX films are typically 40-45 minutes...

[gcl2g5555]

This is excellent man, really awesome! Im actually a 3d artist, and i understand what u mean when u say that photographs give a different feal versus 3d. But have u tried projecting 2d photographes onto 3d geometry?

[stephenv2]

Thanks. I will be using some limited, unusual forms of camera projection and the 2.5D/275D is related to this method. The goal is to keep the photographs unaltered, so I have a whole recipe of stuff that is used. The problem with full-blown projection is loss/warping of surface features, ring stuff etc.

For the non-saturn sections of the film, there will be a little more projection into 3d geometry.

[Haberslam]

how are you planning on keeping the photography "unaltered?"

In order to do that fly by through the rings... you need to stretch and make up for the space that isn't shown... right? That artifacts the hell out of the original pic.... especially when you're also zooming in on it. How are you dealing with that?

[stephenv2]

That's a good, very perceptive question. It's actually EXTREMELY difficult to keep the photography "unaltered" especially the rings. That's what took so long coming up with a way to do it. It's actually a whole recipe of techniques and lots of manual labor. If I told you exactly how I would have to kill you :)

I still have a couple of minor issues I need to improve (the backside i.e. dark side of the rings are giving me some render artifacts) but all the big issues are solved.

[Timothyv491]

I have a feeling you're gonna be very, very famous. The next Stanley Kubrick. DO NOT GIVE UP!

[knockproductions]

Is anybody keen for helping me with a new animation for the inside of the body of a new climbing movie i am making. I know very few people that nows how to animate you can watch the trailer by searching "Instante Trailer" on you tube search engine. !! tnx

anyways good luck with saturn !! ill be waiting. !

[Netuser1]

nice video, Dino, Cologne, Germany

[wowiejunior]

we'll be waiting!~!!!!!!!!

[wastedguitar0]

Great explanation. Still looking foward to your project.

[carribeanjammer]

great job stephen this is a great idea

[monkwhy]

yeah man.. thats awesome.. was wondering why not 3D (being a 3D guy) but yeah that makes total sense. man.. all the support to get this done.. hey. wish i could help out with cash, but ill just have to show support by having it as a fav.. also.. ill add your web site to my Monkwhy dot com links..

Have Fun

- MonkWhY -

[stephenv2]

thanks all - spreading the word is the best help anyway to get in front of the right people and prove to potential distributors that people are interested in this project.

[ChallX]

Very Nice

[filmsinfocus]

This is great! I love it!

[Jesusdragon737]

i can't imagine how much work this must be to put together

[MatthewBolles]

Wow, I love that effect, it's really cool.

[stephenv2]

3D means object are totally 3-dimensional, length, width, depth. 2D is length and width only. 2.5D and what I'm calling 2.75D is taking two-dimensional objects and using various techniques to create the sense and illusion of depth. Even in 2D, lighting, color, shadow helps add the illusion of depth. With 2.5D, you are floating 2D objects in 3D space.

[xAlienProductionsx]

Cool. One question though... how is it 2.75D and not 3D? I mean, isnt 3D anything with depth? I didnt know there was anything in between 2D and 3D...

[antny252]

your smart

[psychomelody]

Love the demo! After this explanation I have a better idea of how you did this :)

[stephenv2]

thanks - i had been only showing this demo offline but a lot of the "secrets" to this is the months and months of photoshop/AE work to make it work at IMAX rez.

[Azard3]

C00L you used stuff from the BBC =D

[TheImpersonators]

So do you zoom in on the picture and then photoshop it? How exactly do you do it? I'm very interested in this kind of video.

[stephenv2]

for 2.5D, it's photoshop first, then create zoom. 2.75D is a lot more work. message me for a URL link to a tutorial to get started.

[TheImpersonators]

These are real pictures of saturn, right?

[stephenv2]

of course - you can download them yourself off the Cassini pages of NASA/JPL site