Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.213.53] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4753080 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 02:26:45 +0200 Received: by yhp26 with SMTP id 26so68712yhp.26 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:29:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=mh8IHylvgb/FuTgXIGjkxJrmLvU+5Bcbomi1/b6WBH4=; b=fJzsKCVI6Y9AJly91Tvon1i1wutoFJKcPNOJcx2s3kyLEr6utAzqvVj/cdOcAY17/n sxU8dQFcFGbo4YCgWARvVzPAgBOwVkdwkAi0qLEVAlYXdH1R1j+MXV52scI2InSvpQCZ kXXi3HidwvTLUCLjRvbOvYGF8JUNQpzF3Y/bv/qAdIKDm5HBbGk3VkRI9iQktkFgq0lf jbtraRKbGmwQaGGvdKz2B4hhiUPc6bFrzK9N1YAVQA0joknWTOCtG05S3zCUZ+XhBeJq i8U7huum0HC621G8fwV6z6bYvb4glHKfs0/R6f8jeJX57UBQZI+GMiWYohILf1TSzT+z yU5g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.66.2 with SMTP id n2mr11800697ici.32.1340238580840; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.17.200 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:29:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:29:40 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] Link Trapcode particle size to camera position From: Darby Edelen To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6145f286799004c2f09ca6 --90e6ba6145f286799004c2f09ca6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm confused about the goal. Should they ALL look like distant stars? If so, then is there a reason you're not actually making them all distant? You could use a spherical field for that. Although normally I'd just use Horizon to create a distant starfield If your stars come close to the camera they'll almost certainly look wrong even if they're small. -D On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM, jarret langmeire wrote: > Ok, just ran through those options but no cigar. The problem is that the > camera is moving through the star field resulting in those very unrealistic > BIG particle stars. With regard to the near vanish and fade, that simply > adjusts the opacity as opposed to the size. What's been working really well > for the "classic" warp fly-through is to use a straight gradient and > mapping it across X/Z on the size layer map. That scales up the stars in > the distance and whilst scaling the foreground stars down. However, once > you apply "disperse" and a fractal displace it mixes up the direct > relationship to the gradient. > > I was hoping that using a complex OBJ model to generate a mixed star field > would do the trick but unfortunately that option does not allow me to map > the gradient over a specific axis. > > Jarret > --90e6ba6145f286799004c2f09ca6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm confused about the goal.

Should they ALL look like distant s= tars?=A0 If so, then is there a reason you're not actually making them = all distant?=A0 You could use a spherical field for that. Although normally= I'd just use Horizon to create a distant starfield

If your stars come close to the camera they'll almost certainly loo= k wrong even if they're small.

-D

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM, jarret langmeire <langmeire@gma= il.com> wrote:

Ok, just ran through those options but no ci= gar. The problem is that the camera is moving through the star field result= ing in those very unrealistic BIG particle stars. With regard to the near v= anish and fade, that simply adjusts the opacity as opposed to the size. Wha= t's been working really well for the "classic" warp fly-throu= gh is to use a straight gradient and mapping it across X/Z on the size laye= r map. That scales up the stars in the distance and whilst scaling the fore= ground stars down. However, once you apply "disperse" and a fract= al displace it mixes up the direct relationship to the gradient.

I was hoping that using a complex OBJ model to generate= a mixed star field would do the trick but unfortunately that option does n= ot allow me to map the gradient over a specific axis.=A0

Jarret

--90e6ba6145f286799004c2f09ca6--