Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: [AE] Layer Space Transform to link Cameras
From: Chris Zwar <chris@chriszwar.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5349639@media-motion.tv>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:01:36 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A11FFB63-E5AA-426B-8E89-A726CB2B217F@chriszwar.com>
References: <list-5349639@media-motion.tv>
To: "After Effects Mail List" <AE-List@media-motion.tv>

On 18/01/2014, at 8:02 AM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's actually a pretty interesting way to do a piece like that. Can =
I ask why you moved the set parented to a null vs. animating a camera?

I love insights into the "why" questions=85

FWIW I did an animation this way about a year ago.  A scene had been =
created in Maya where the camera was static, and a 3D model was =
animated.  As the model animated, its outlines were traced - these =
moving points were exported as nulls from Maya and I imported them into =
AE and used particular to trace the outlines (using lights as emitters=85.=
 lots and lots of lights=85)

Because the model was animating in relation to a static camera, the =
camera in AE also had to remain static or else the moving lights didn't =
outline the 3D object anymore (they looked like very cool smears. pretty =
but useless).  So all of the scenery and background that was comped in =
was animated in relationship to a static camera.

Not something you encounter every day, but that's one niche reason why a =
scene might be built that way=85

-Chris=