[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: compositor.jpg (57 KB, 960x523)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
Will compositing take my crap to the next level or is it just overrated b.s.? Is it better to just buy a better pc so i can render everything in frame or keep this pc that i have and learn compositing with node layers?
>>
>>542760
If modelling, animating, raw rendering is one half of it, the other half would be compositing and post-processing. It's totally worth learning.
>>
>>542761
lets say that hypothetically you could render 10x faster than you currently do if you upgrade to a gtx 1080 and new i7 and just do everything in frame. Would compositing still be worth as much
>>
>>542762
Whats compositing got to do with your specs ? You can't do professional post-processing with your render engine.
>>
>>542764
professional is a vague term as 3d goes from ios to hollywood and everything in between
>>
>>542765
well, it takes this crap and turns it into this.
>>
>>542767
Is it worth spending weeks learning node based shit or is after effects enough if you just need to edit a demo reel full of real 3d stuff in it?
>>
>>542769
Pros use Nuke and all the node stuff for movie compositing
Call of Duty youtube montage kids use AE to make their intros

I use AE but I think both works. Still if you wanna git gud, u gotta go Nuke
>>
>>542770
im learning natron now kek
>>
>>542760
No, if your render is crap, compositing will only help you polish a piece of crap...
the end result is still shit.
>hurr durr we "fix" it in post
But if your render is already great, you can get the last 5% of greatness out of it. (or make it render faster while looking exactly the same)
>>542762
Yes, good compositing could also potentially make the process 10 times faster and 10 times less frustrating, and that is in addition to the speed of new hardware.
Its also a lot of fun.

>>542770
The reason why Pro's are using nuke is because nodes > layers.
Especially if you have lots of layers to composite. A node approach is much easier to control than to manually manage layers.

>>542771
Natron is very similar to Nuke. If you can work with Natron switching to Nuke would be easy.
>>
>>542775
>Yes, good compositing could also potentially make the process 10 times faster and 10 times less frustrating, and that is in addition to the speed of new hardware.
you mean just rendering smoke sims and particle sims and other masturbatory crap?
>>
>>542771
why dont you just use nuke instead of natron, it's free for non commercial and you can still output at 1080p.

>>542776
in FX it is very important to know how to at least slapcomp your stuff well. bad compositing can completely kill FX
>>
Unless you're aiming to be strictly a modeller or something like that, of course you need to learn compositing. AE is fine for basic stuff but Nuke is easy to get in to and you can use it for anything.
Compositing can be heavy on your hardware too though.
Remember that you're not getting professional results without comping though.

>>542767
It's not like they made the dragon in Nuke, man. That's a mix of good 3D renders and good compositing.
>>
>compositing
>hurr durr lets blur some edges and in general blur things
>>
>>542760
Op, I built by computer and it was a challenge to keep it under budget. But you definitely should build a new computer and build it up over time. But definitely learn compositing, I do not know what it is xD but it sounds like it is worth learning
>>
>>542803
What are you trying to say?
>>
>>542803
You got a greenscreen fetish ?
>>
>>542769
Learn both. AE takes days to get the hang of. Nuke is vastly superior but also a lot more complicated.
>>
compositing isn't that hard, check the tut on blender guru he makes easier to understand
>>
Hey guys, what do you think of my compositing work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyHehm8ZmjE
>>
File: redbot.jpg (346 KB, 382x720)
346 KB
346 KB JPG
>>542760
If you're into
>Muh realism
Then hell yeah, it looks better than just a straight render from your program.

But like
>>542775
said,
>But if your render is already great, you can get the last 5% of greatness out of it.

Bad modeling or texturing can kill anything you're trying to make better with compositing.

But I think the most important step for realistic lighting/compositing is actually using a .hdr photo to light your scene, AND use matching back plates. Eyeballing/guesstimating it will only get you so far.
>>
>>542760
The fog in that picture looks fucking awful
>>
>>547195
in motion it looks good
>>
>>547195
How can you even tell with that compression?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.