making video of model?

Is setting up a series of pages the best way to make a video of a model?I notice however, that with full shadow, it simply jumps from one page to the next rather than the continuous motion I have seen elsewhere.

I assume that's due to the memory/CPU chip limitations vs the size of the model so do I need to make more pages with less movement between each? SU's page transitions in "real time" are limited by cpu, graphics card, complexity of model, etc. If you want smooth transitions, export an avi -- you have complete control over the number of frames per section and the transition time between pages. And the end result will play on almost any computer without pause or stuttering*

* if you intend to stream from a CD-ROM, suggest default cinepak codec and keep your avi to 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 max.

Now that I think of it again, you'd have to export the model to your animation software to do that, rather than just images from SketchUp. Basically, you could do your animation in Bryce 5 or Vue, or any number of other raytracing/animation/modeling programs. There is no reason why you're limited to using SketchUp for this, which, frankly, IMHO, isn't as well suited to the task.

Gary

Glenn,

No need for screen capture or third party applications -- use the animation export feature. SU will do the tweening for you. You don't have to resort to Video editing software unless you want to add sound or edit/combine multiple avi files.

Thanks guys. I have zip experience on making a video other than what SU can do between pages but I do actually have Snagit 6 which I only use for still screen captures but does has a video capture mode I will have to try. Just one more learning curve to add to the pile. Lol

Ok I did the video in SU with pages and animation and learned a lot -thanks Paul.After reading the excellent help files and fearing mega files, I made it way too low a res and too few frames so it's this fuzzy thing apparently rotating in space, but I know how to do it at least and I do have the pages done so the re-take is simple.

I found it's best to do it overnight as it does tie up the CPU with the tweening.

Very cool feature, thanks SU

One interesting thing happened tho. My AVI's default to my DivX player and it ran the file upside down!! And my 21" CRT monitor is way too heavy to turn over.

WMP ran it fine tho.

Anyone else have their AVI's play upside down in DivX player?Also how does one slow the play down.

I made them at 800x600 and 15 per second.

Do I re -make them at 10 or 5? Or does making them run at 30 slow it down?

Glenn,

WIthout resorting to video editing software, you can't speed up or slow down. In addition to setting your frame rate (15 fps is enough so you won't see jerkiness -- after all most cartoon animation was "frame doubled" -- meaning only 12 fps in movie terms), you need to set your page transitions to longer intervals (number of seconds) so you will get more frames between view points. A little trial and error and you will get a feel for it.

Paul's correct. The good thing is, these days, you can get video editors that are very powerful, easy to use and are relatively inexpensive. Videowave is a good one I would recommend.

Gary

Okay,

First I'm going to assume that we are living and working in the US or Canada (NTSC), and are using PC compatible hardware and software. That is not to say that PAL formatted video and MAC computers and software are not top-notch, enviable creations, etc. etc. I just don't know enough about them to comment.

When I export video from SU, first I do a trial run. I set up all my pages with the desired transition time, I turn off shadows, set display to hidden line and play slideshow. This helps reduce dropped frames so that you can get a better idea what the finished product is going to look like. If need be, turn off transparency, too. I then adjust page locations and transition times until I'm happy. When you are happy, reset all of your display settings and export AVI.

I usually double the resolution of my output, export at the desired frame rate, and do not select anti-aliasing. This last option is just my own timesaving preference; go with your heart. Oh, and I either use Cinepak or Huffy Lossless Codec. I then import my video into VirtualDub (freeware - gotta love it) and apply the "2:1 reduction (high quality)" video filter. If I'm going to make a DVD, I usually apply Cinepak and export the AVI for use in my authoring program. If I'm preparing video for desktop or online viewing, I'll go ahead and add sound in VD. Lots of other video filters to play with (motion blur, etc.).

For more info, please search for threads where I have posted about my favorite freeware program, VirtualDub and my favorite source for video knowledge and software, www.dvdrhelp.com. In some past threads, I think I even found some MAC utilities. If anyone is interested, please search for "wehby" or "virtualdub" in all forums. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to spend more time on a more complete procedure. I might even fulfill my promise to address NTSC.

-wehby

I hope this doesn't sound too smug or anything. Video can be so complex: codecs, 3:2 pulldown, NTSC vs. PAL, scanlines vs. pixels, progressive scan vs. interlaced scan, frames vs. fields and VCD, SVCD, CVD and DVD. I have a hard time keeping it straight in my head. I just know I researched it once and posted some of what I researched. I hope it helps someone.

Sounds like you are right into it and there is a bunch of good advice there. I am looking forward to having time to play with this part of SU.

1.Tho I know it's a compression function, I don't understand the Codec options and why one is more appropriate than another.

2. also don't understand about the filtering in VirtualDub and what it does.

3. Are you using Cinepak twice?

Thanks for the link to virtualdub.

V-dub has a great help file that is a videos education in itself.To answer my question on filters- cut and pasted from "filter reference":

2:1 reduction Shrink video to half-size using a non-overlapping 2x2 kernel.

2:1 reduction (high quality) Shrink video to half-size using an overlapping 3x3 kernel.

blur Apply a radius-1 Gaussian blur to video.

blur more Apply a radius-2 Gaussian blur to video.

box blur Apply fast approximated blurs to video.

brightness/contrast Perform fast linear luminance adjustments.

deinterlace Split, unsplit, discard, and duplicate fields.

emboss Apply psuedo-3D edge detection matrices.

field bob Resamples alternating frames to remove jittering when splitting fields to frames.

field swap Swaps even and odd fields to fix mistakes.

fill Fills a rectangle in the video with a solid color.

flip horizontally Flips video frame horizontally.

flip vertically Flips video frame vertically.

general convolution Apply an arbitrary 3x3 filtering matrix.

grayscale Convert a color video to grayscale.

HSV adjust Adjust hue, saturation, and value.

invert Create or undo negatives.

levels Apply non-linear ramp adjustments.

logo Plop your very own bug into the frame.

motion blur Blur video in time to create motion trails.

null transform Does nothing, but can be used to crop.

resize Convert video to a different size.

rotate Rotate video by right angles.

rotate2 Rotate video by arbitrary angles.

sharpen Make video crisper.

smoother Adaptively blur a video while trying to preserve edges.

temporal smoother Adaptively noise-reduce video across frames.

threshold Convert video to black and while by comparing against a threshold.

TV Blur or resample video in luma/chroma space.

2:1 reduction

Glenn,

You're on the right track.

Please see attached for comparison between the same frame of an animation exported from SU. Each one has a discription under it. As you can see, the anti-aliased, reduced image has the best quality. Just as long as you are willing to spend the extra time exporting for the larger size and A-A. I'm usually in a rush and can't afford the A-A.

My next post will deal with codecs.

-wehby

Codecs are COmpression-DECompression algorithms. Here's the was I like to think about it:

First let's consider image files, not video files. The BMP has no compression. You can open, edit, and resave a BMP as many times as you want and the image quality is never reduced.

JPGs have a built in compression. Unlike ZIPPING a file, the built in JPG comression is "lossy." Everytime you open, edit , and save a JPG image the image quality is being reduced -- even if you set quality at the highest setting.

Think of AVI files like BMPs and MPG files like JPGs. AVIs do not have a built-in compression, but MPGs do. You can, however, apply a codec when writing an AVI that will compress the file. There are many available codecs and not all were created equal. Here are the downsides to codecs:

1. Each machine that you play the video on, must have the same codec. COmpression-DECompression. Your buddy has to have the same CrackerJack box decoder wheel to be able to decypher your message, so to speak. For that reason, Cinepak is widely used b/c almost everyone has it.

2. Not all codecs are "lossless." Some are better than others at keeping original image quality. VirtualDub does not automatically re-encode an AVI with the same codec that the original used. So you have to specify the codec each time you save. Unfortunately that means you are losing image quality each time. The challenge is to find a codec that you can work with (prior to distributing your video) that is as "lossless" as possible. Huffy is a good one for that. Warning: this means large file sizes.

You could always choose the Full (Uncompressed) option when writing your video file, but the AVI format is so HUGE, that I would not recommend it.

Looking back I don't know how well I answered all of your questions. There is an ongoing debate on which codec provides the best image for the smallest file size. If you search www.dvdrhelp.com, you will find a number of forum threads and articles on that subject.

DivX is a good one, but not everyone has it and it has a lot of complicated settings depending on the particular qualities of your video (fast-motion, slow motion, first pass, nth pass).

I hope this helps,

wehby

Maybe a tad off-topic, but I am planning to get Swift 3D 4, soon. It's an application for creating 3D animations for Flash, which can then, in turn, be used on the web. It will import 3D models in 3DS and DXF, so I can import my SketchUp models and either output raytraced scenes from Swift 3D (in standard JPEG format) or I can produce walk-throughs and fly-arounds of my SketchUp models, which can then be uploaded to a website as Flash movies. The advantages are ease of use, small file size and high quality, plus you can include full interactivity, as well as animated 2D text and graphics. Not only that, it's only $189. http://www.erain.com/products/Swift3D/ [dead link]

Gary

I've used Swift 3D, Gary. I used it for this. http://www.artpad.biz/flash/marine.htm [suspicious link] t's fine if you want a simple cartoon-like animation like this, the filesize is indeed small. But if you are thinking of doing detailed architectural animations with it - perhaps with shading (which may involve hundreds of vector gradient fills ) - then forget it. Vector or not, the final size will be much larger than a standard avi or mpeg raster.

Alan

Alan, which version were you using? Swift 3D is waaaaaay beyond simple 2D animations like yours was. Also, I don't see how you can say "Vector or not, the final size will be much larger than a standard avi or mpeg raster" when the final output is in Flash. The whole point in using Flash is to produce animations that are smaller in file size and that load more quickly. That's Flash's strength. Check out the examples on the Swift 3D site.

Gary

To reiterate, click on the Swift 3D Product Tour button on the right (the big red 4), then click on the button labled, "Unrivalled Output." Watch and listen. ;) http://www.erain.com/ [dead link]

Gary

Nice that the clients would not have to have the identical codec in order to play our videos. They only need flash. Everyone has flash I would think?

Keep us up to date on this one Gary.

Glenn,I've been using Swift 3D and Flash for the last 10 years. Swift 3D is designed for product demonstration and Web graphics, not for architectural walkthroughs. You can set up custom animation paths, but it isn't easy. it's really designed for simple rotations or swooping in or out of the frame - like those programs you can get for generating 3D text effects.

Gary seems to think that because something is vector or Flash that is automaticaly smaller in size than raster. This is not the case at all. Here is the model of the boxster subjected to a simple 360° rotation. It is output from Swift in raster format. The vector format animation looks identical, but is 3 times the size.

You also have to remember that a vector file is not dependent upon the image size, but on the complexity of the image - and this is a single piece of entourage. Imagine what would happen if you were to render an entire builing with furniture or vegetation.

The raster version would increase slightly in size because there was less white background - the vector version would go through the roof.

You could, of course, output a Swift file in raster format to end up with a Flash animation, but it is perfectly possible to do that now if you have Flash. You can output an image sequence from SU and batch import them into Flash as individual frames.

SU is capable of exporting numbered files in sequence. If you try to import the first of them into Flash, it will state that this appears to be part of a sequence of images and would you like to import all of them? Answer yes, and you've got yourself a Flsh movie.

Alan

boxster2.swf

As that animation appears to be playing fullscreen, it looks a little pixelated. To be fair, the vector one doesn't. Here it is - but like I said, it's much bigger in size.

boxster.swf

Alan, like I said, which version of Swift 3D were you using for these? If you look at the output from Swift 3D 4, you can plainly see it's of much better quality than this. If you're using anything older than version 4, you're not going to get the results I'm talking about.

Gary

It is V4 Gary. that was just a quick in and out with no smoothing or transparency in order to show how it handles an SU export, but the principle remains the same - vector and Flash are more efficient than raster in some areas, but not all; it depends on the subject matter.

Swift 3D would be excellent for showcasing your furniture designs etc, where you've got a single object and fairly simple animation, but it is difficult if not impossible to set up compicated animation paths navigating through an architectural model.

It can produce even more efficient files when you model the object in the program itself, but that's not what Glenn was asking. The plain fact is that if you export a 3ds model from SU to Swift 3D it needs a lot of tweaking, - as shown by the boxster - will have limited animation path capabilities, and could well produce an enormous size file if you are exporting a complicated architectural model. That isn't what it was designed for.

If the vector format was always more efficient than bitmap then it would make sense to vectorise movies instead of having them in mpeg or DivX (avi) format. But they don't...'cos it's not.

Alan

Well, then, I stand partially corrected. ;)

Yes, as you point out, it would be ideal for my furniture designs, and that's one reason why I wish to use Swift 3D. As for architectural subjects, you're probably correct that the more complex motion paths required (as well as the additional time they require) for a proper walkthrough may be prohibitive. I would think, though, that a simple rotation view of a building would do-able in Swift 3D and, for my purposes, that might suffice. Also, if one wanted to use Swift 3D and show interiors of a an architectural model, you could arrange for separate, smaller, simpler views of each room within a model, rather than opting for a an all-in-one walkthrough.

Gary

Yes, that's correct. Don't get me wrong, the program is not without its merits - otherwise I wouldn't use it. Here is an example of a chair, optimised for Swift rather than a rough SU import. The filesize is much less.

Of course, they cheat a bit in that trailer that you seem so struck on - the Unparalleled Output one; you might think that it is very impressive having all that stuff whizzing around, but if you look at it again I defy you to find one single object that is actually 3D - they are all straight 2D vectors being scaled and moved - something that Flash does very efficiently. :-)

Alan

chair.swf

So I've noticed, Alan. I was just thinking about that, in fact. They've been very careful not to include a single raster animation in their presentation - only vector based 3D. But, for some of the uses I want to make of it, I think it'll be fine and I intend to go ahead and buy it. I mean, at $189, why not? As I was alluding to, I could have a separate animation (a simple rotational viewing) for each room of one of my houses, much the same as the ones found on realtors' websites, where you get a 360 degree view of each room. In some ways, this is even superior to the standard walkthrough, as it allows the viewer to linger in each room and take in all the details, whereas, in a standard walkthrough, you only get to see what the creator of the animation wants you to see, and only briefly, in passing.

Gary