Sunday, 28 September 2014

Owl: Comparing Vignettes and Parallaxing

There's a degree of artificiality in my animation which I think audiences will find either: quite interesting or absolutely terrible. Since using photographs I've always had the idea that you would be 'looking through' something to view the action, which has its roots in seedy Victorian Peep shows and moving picture machines. This has pretty much driven the entire visual concept of the animation. I guess it's going to be the thing which defines it the most. I'm not sure it's a reference many will get but consider my animation an updated Victorian erotic peep show, without the vintage erotica! 

A vintage Peep Show box, essentially what I've been making in Maya.
With that in mind, here's two videos for comparison on a particularly tricky scene.  The way I've set up each shot is that the photograph acts a background on a 2D place within a 3D space with XYZ coordinates. 3D objects sit in front of the image. When you move the camera, depending on how far the image is from the object you get a certain degree of parallaxing. The problem comes from the fact that because the photo is completely flat the parrallaxing stops at the photo, rather continuing infinitely like it should in real life. When the camera moves a lot it looks a little bit hokey. The first video is the camera  moving a considerable amount, and the second demonstrates the camera moving much more subtlely. The second one works better, but only marginally. It certain instances it's going to be easier and more effective to keep the camera almost completely stationary.


tutorphil said...

yes, the vignetting suggests voyeurism and stolen, furtive glances at these uncanny manifestations :) There's something especially horrible about the 'aliveness' of that second video.

Alan Postings said...

Looking good Tom. I like number 2, the slower movement is far creepier and less like a rocking ship.