Author Topic: Alternatives to Virtual Rig and Bleex  (Read 9922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Esben Oxholm

  • KeyShot Beta
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • esbenoxholm.dk/keyshot-video-course
    • Freelance CG Artist
Alternatives to Virtual Rig and Bleex
« on: May 09, 2014, 03:00:48 am »
Hi!

I've had a look at Virtual Rig and Bleex for creating advanced motion blurs on backplates.
http://www.virtualrig-studio.com/
http://getbleex.com/

They both create solid results, but are very expensive I think.
Do you know about any alternative software to create the same effect for a lower price? The tradeoff could be more footwork.

I've tried to figure out a way to do something similar within photoshop, but havn't got any convincing results... yet.

Happy friday!

Offline andy.engelkemier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
Re: Alternatives to Virtual Rig and Bleex
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2014, 11:34:26 am »
One problem I have with nearly all of those, is the motion blur doesn't scale with the perspective. The effect lessens, but it doesn't look like it's the right perspective.
I tried a few things in afterEffects, but couldn't get what I was hoping for. CC Vector blur creates some nice effects that might give a similar feel though. I created a "depth map" of the image I wanted, then used these settings:
type: direction center
amount: [ this is resolution dependent, so you choose something reasonable]
angle offset: 90
ridge smoothness 0
vector map: the one I created
Property: luminance (lightness should work too)
Map softness: 0

If you create a bunch of lines in the correct perspective as paths in photoshop, you could then stroke them all one at a time with smudge tool. You could probably cover more ground with an art brush that's all speckly. Have it get smaller as it goes, and fade as it goes as well. That would take pretty long, but I'm pretty sure that's what the software does for you anyway.

Another shot in the dark would be to actually 3D model the scene, roughly, and project the image onto the model. Then animate the camera zooming in the direction you think it's moving with motion blur on. That would give you very realistic results. But if you aren't fast at modeling things like that, then it's no good. Plus, it wouldn't work very great if there are tons of trees or small vertical details.

Nothing great, but no one else was replying. Maybe some of those ideas will spur thoughts for better results.