The biggest problem I see is that the perspective and camera position do not match.
Perspective is controlled by camera position. Focal length just crops the image. In the background shot the camera is just below the counter height about 10 inches and pretty well level. You are also shooting to the left of square to the back wall. The white thing laying against the wall and on the floor doesn't help either. What is that?
In the starting shot the camera is a little higher and it is shooting to the right of square to the back wall. Just having the image fall straight down with the center of rotation at the bottom of the frame is going to look wrong for two reasons. First the floor in the background shot doesn't meet the camera at the bottom of the frame, it meeds way below so you need to adjust the point of rotation so the layer looks like it's lined up with the actual floor. The point of rotation would be below the bottom of the frame and the distance from the camera would have to fairly closely match the distance from where you want the wall to end up in the final shot. You can probably fake it a by simply moving the anchor point to about 1/3 of the comp height below the bottom of the frame and then rotating the wall until it looks like it lines up with the floor.
It might be easier to keep everything 2D and use corner pin to simulate the falling wall. You might be able to kind of line it up with the funny white thing laying against the wall.
If I were starting this project I would plan my shots much better and make sure I matched camera position and angle in all shots. If I were working with stock footage or stock photos I'd try to pick some that match a little better and then do a falling and rotating thing with the garage shot so that it completely disappeared from the frame. Having a flat shot of the garage lying on the floor of the house makes no visual sense to me.
Hey Rick thank you so much for taking the time to help me with this project. My apologies I should have said in the OP that this footage was a very crude test and by all means not the finished project at all. I uploaded a video below which might be a little better. But basically I feel that by just having the screen fall with the workflow that I did, it doesnt look like the video is attached to a wall falling. To try to dispel confusion. We are basically having the background fall because we want to set up a product with a certain type of background but that background falls to reveal a different background kinda like those really weird old spice commercials. Thank you for the advice about camera position it defintely helped with this test. But do you think my workflow above is the right workflow, just keyframing the position/x-orientation? would a green screen be better. I mainly want the video screen to look like it was attached to a wall, but I feel in my tests they have no depth and the falling is too perfect. I havent shot the final footage so this is all preperation.. Any help would be totally appreciated.
This footage should be better, obviously not the final footage and still crude, my apologies, I just want to get the fall and depth correct.
Again thanks for everything.
I'm still not following you exactly. In the second example you have a wall that is close to the camera
but the wall is not flat and not perfectly square to the camera. The shower is farther away than the door and there is a counter on the right and a wall on the right that give the image depth. Trying to make this wall fall in a convincing way is going to be impossible unless you model it in and then it won't look like a flat wall falling.
The shot that is revealed has walls that are farther away from the camera and not at the same angle as the walls in the first shot.
If you were to create a 3D set with the bathroom scene in-between the camera and the bedroom scene there would be no parallel walls. We expect walls to be parallel so even if this were a 3D set the falling wall would look odd.
Now you really confuse me because your images don't match your statement about what you want to happen.
We are basically having the background fall because we want to set up a product with a certain type of background but that background falls to reveal a different background kinda like those really weird old spice commercials. . . .
would a green screen be better.
From this it sounds like you want the back wall to fall down revealing a new back wall rather than a wall between the camera and the back wall to fall down to reveal the scene.
Either way, when you shoot your two shots you want the wall that will fall and the wall that will be left standing to be in the same position relative to the camera in both shots. If you want a wall that is about 5 feet from the camera to fall and reveal a wall that is 10 feet from the camera then you put the camera 5 feet from the camera when you shoot the first wall and put the camera 10 feet from the wall when you shoot the second and you make sure that the angle of both walls is the same. If the first wall is 20º from the camera then the second wall must also be 20º from the camera.
If you want to have objects in the foreground like the guy in the old spice commercials then the easiest way to matte that element (actor) out is the use of green screen. Here again if you had the actor 5 feet from the camera and you wanted to move the wall that was 10 feet from the camera and behind the actor to reveal something that was 20 feet from the camera you would shoot all of these elements at the same distance from the camera that they would be in real life. This is the secret of composting. To make the perspective work and the illusion believable you have to position every element in your scene in the same relative position they would be if you shooting the shot for real.
Thanks for the advice Rick. Sounds like we are gonna have to match in the production. I just wanted to make sure my post workflow was the way to go. Sounds more like a practical effect than a visual one. Thanks for the help!