Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Camera and composition linked sizes

Jun 21, 2013 8:03 AM

Hi all


Having trouble working with a large composition and camera work. The size is 11264 x 6928 and when I add in my camera it wants to be comp size. But the size I only want the camera to show is 1920 x 1080.


Is there anyway to edit or unlink the camera and composition sizes so that they are separate? I have tried editing the comp size , adding in a camera at that point and then resizing the comp, but the camera resizes with it!!!


At the moment my work around is having the cameras z position closer to the comp and having this large comp nested within a regular 1920 x 1080. This seems all a bit unnessary though.


Any help would be greatly appreciated.



  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2013 8:05 AM   in reply to _lornaw_

    It works as it is supposed to. There is no way to have a camera filmback/ fustrum size different from the comp size. Would be kinda illogical, anyway. Whatever you have in mind will probably require some pre-composing.



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 10:39 AM   in reply to _lornaw_

    Mylenium is correct.


    Your comp needs to be 1920x1080.  This is what sets the frame size of your camera.  You then animate the camera.  No nesting should be required.


    The size of your artboard is huge.  What kind of content?  (Photos, text, vector shapes, video?)  Does it need to be that big?  This will be dependent on how close the camera comes to it if it's a photo.  If you can scale it down at all, before importing it into AE, that would improve performance.


    The example you link to uses only text and vector graphics.  You see how the gradient background doesn't move?  That's a 2D, non-moving layer, so it's only a 1920 x 1080 graphic.  Only the text and shapes are 3D, being affected by the camera moves.


    Here's a video I created, possibly like what you're going for.  The largest image is 1920 x 1080.  However, these are vector shapes, so I can zoom in close without losing any detail.  During editing, I disabled motion blur, depth of field, and worked at half resolution.  Rendering out at full resolution, with motion blur & depth of field, took nearly 10 hours.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 12:19 PM   in reply to joshweiland

    Your workflow is flawed. There is no problem moving the camera around a large 3D scene. There are a bunch of tutorials available for dynamic text animations that show you exactly how to do this. Pre-composing a huge comp is just going to slow things way down. AE does not consider elements outside of the composition boarder when rendering. You also set in and out points for your layers to reduce the memory requirements.


    Sometimes I'll layout a huge artboard in Illustrator, arrange most of my elements on separate layers, then open the huge artboard as a comp. Before I start animating I'll resize the comp using composition settings. You can pick any corner, side, or center of the composition for the new center. This makes it easy to have all of your elements roughly positioned. Set up a 3D camera and start moving things around.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 1:24 PM   in reply to Rick Gerard

    Hi Rick,


    What am I wrong about?  Scaling down before bringing into AE?  I'm not pre-composing/nesting anything.


    I know that content outside the border doesn't render.  But doesn't it affect performance when editing the comp, like when you're moving/panning the camera?  I had a large collage of photos created in Photoshop, and scaling the collage down before bringing it into AE seemed to make things more responsive.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 1:28 PM   in reply to joshweiland

    I was referring to _lornaw_'s workflow. Your workflow is just fine.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2013 2:41 PM   in reply to _lornaw_

    Glad to hear, Rick. Just wanted to be sure!


    _lornaw_: You need to make your image a 3D layer.  This will make it so you can move the camera around the entire image.


    You're mixing up some terminology.  In AE, your comp size = your camera size.  At this point, I would create a brand new comp.

    1. Create a new comp at the resolution & frame rate you want to output to.  The resolution you pick will be the comp size, which will also be the camera size (1080p, according to your 1st post).
    2. Import your image into AE.  Drag it into the comp as a new layer.  Your comp is still 1080p.  Because of this, and since your image is so large, you're only going to see a small portion in the 1080p frame (which is okay for now!).
    3. Add a camera.  Your comp & camera size are still 1080p.
    4. Now tick the 3D Layer switch (looks like a 3D cube) for your image layer.
    5. The Position attributes for your camera and image layers have a 3rd value, which is the Z axis.  You can either pull the camera back to see more of the image, or move the image forward away from the camera.  Also, still at 1080p.


    What kind of image are you using?  Is it raster/photographic or vector-based?  And what file type?  JPEG, PSD, Illustrator?  The dimensions are huge, so you might be able to do some optimizations to it without affecting the quality of your video.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 25, 2013 7:34 AM   in reply to _lornaw_

    I'd say it depends on the type of content you're using.


    For vector graphics, you can use smaller graphics.  By enabling continuous rasterization for the layer, the graphic will remain sharp even when scaling up or moving the camera really close.


    For photo or video content, if you scale it up past it's original size or you move the camera in closer than 1:1 pixel mapping, it's going to look fuzzy.


    My real-world example uses both vector graphics and video content:


    All of the graphics were vectors somewhere around 1080p resolution.  Every layer is 3D, at a different Z-depth.  I pushed the background really far into the distance, and when I did that I got black borders around it.  I then scaled it up to fill the frame.


    The videos of instrument playing were shot at 1080p.  I masked them, scaled them down, and made sure not to move the camera closer than 1:1 pixel mapping.


    I hope this makes sense.

    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points