5 Replies Latest reply on Nov 1, 2010 6:18 AM by akribie

    Scatterize makes sudden leap when it competes

    HarryPutnam Level 1

      CS4

       

      This may be the same kind of problem mentioned in the `Snapping problem' thread.  I'm not sure.

       

      Using the `CC Scatterize' effect I'm able to create some nice introduction type effects.  I mostly use it from full scattered to non-scattered.  That is, the reverse of what I guess is its default.  But clearly its intended to be used that way too if desired.

       

      The problem occures when the scatterized bits of a scene come fully together.  Its not a nice slow and consistent look.  It appears to suddenly be fully congealed, not in keeping with the previous process of coming slowly together.

      A bit hard to describe but you can see a brief rendered out NTSC DV-avi of what I'm talking about here:

      http://www.jtan.com/~reader/t1/

       

      There is an ugly abruptness to it, no matter what keyframe interpolation or style you use.

       

      You can smooth it out using Oppacity diligently but that is not always what is needed in the skit.

        • 1. Re: Scatterize makes sudden leap when it competes
          Mylenium Most Valuable Participant

          And what if you simply used otehr effects like Shatter, Particle playground, Card Dance, CC PixelPolly, CC Ball Action, Trapcode Form and all that? I mean, there's plenty of alternatives here... I don't think there is a solution to your specific problem within the plug-in itself. mathematically the behavior is probably correct, it just looks ugly, so I wouldn't even call it a bug...

           

          Mylenium

          • 2. Re: Scatterize makes sudden leap when it competes
            HarryPutnam Level 1

            Mylenium wrote:

             

            And what if you simply used otehr effects like Shatter, Particle playground, Card Dance, CC PixelPolly, CC Ball Action, Trapcode Form and all that? I mean, there's plenty of alternatives here... I don't think there is a solution to your specific problem within the plug-in itself. mathematically the behavior is probably correct, it just looks ugly, so I wouldn't even call it a bug...

             

            Mylenium

            Having looked at those prior to selecting CC_scatterize.. I thought CC_scatterize  was quite a bit better and waaay eaier to get setup with minimum fussing.

             

            Thanks for the suggestions, but I would rather concentrate on smoothing out CC_Scatterize, which to me is several serious grades better of an effect than those others you mention.   With possible exception of trapcode... which far as I see is not even part of AE is it?

             

            Saying those others are alternatives to CCscatterize is like saying the Grand Canyon is an alternative to a nice smoothly rolling grassy glen, if only you make a few adjustments.... hehe.

             

            Take shatter:  First, its horribly complicated to get it set for your image,  Then the effect is really different than CC_Scatterize.... A different feeling altogether.

             

            Or Particle playground.... when applied, the first thing that happens is the image completely disappears... from there you have a long road ahead to even begin to see how any of it works.

             

            Or Card Dance.  I couldn't even start to see how that is supposed to work.  There seems no way to quickly get an idea of what it is supposed to do.

             

            PixelPolly is probably a close second in terms of seeing how to use it pretty quickly... but is still an order of magniture or 2 harder to get set in a pleasing way.  Takes a lot more fussing

             

            Or  Ball Action... Even before breaking up... it makes the Image look  like dog poo.  That is, even in Neutral state it really changes the look of the basic image in an unpleasant way.  That nearly bars any way to ease into it smoothly.

             

            -----     -----     -----       ---=---      -----     -----     -----

             

            Can you suggest which of those mentioned might give a really close approximation of CC_Scatterixe?... it might save me hours of fussing with some of those and then only to find the effect really can't do that.

             

            Or maybe someone may have a suggestion for helping the look of CC_scatterize rather than jumping off into something even worse or harder to understand/setup.

             

            Easing into CC_Scatterize using the regular opacity settings can help with some ways of using it, but in others like coming back to gether, its not really a choice.

            • 3. Re: Scatterize makes sudden leap when it competes
              akribie Level 2

              Using CC Scatterize in the reverse sense, try adding a keyframe about half way through the period and setting it to about 90% scatter.  This slows down the terminal phase of reconstructing the image and looks much more natural than the raw effect.

              • 4. Re: Scatterize makes sudden leap when it competes
                HarryPutnam Level 1

                akribie wrote:

                 

                Using CC Scatterize in the reverse sense, try adding a keyframe about half way through the period and setting it to about 90% scatter.  This slows down the terminal phase of reconstructing the image and looks much more natural than the raw effect.

                Nice

                 

                That reduces the the suddenness factor by something like %50.  Thanks!

                 

                Only it appears to me that 90% is too high by half.  Seems to speed up the upstream side to the point of looking bad or at least odd.  Using something like 65% seems to have the same good effect on that sudden change.

                 

                Also I notice that speeding up the entire thing dampens the abruptness a bit too.

                • 5. Re: Scatterize makes sudden leap when it competes
                  akribie Level 2

                  90% was only a hint, not a fixed amount.

                   

                  Looks to me that, in general, starting from well above zero% and, if necessary, fading it in, plus possibly shaping the remainder using more than one keyframe of appropriate type, should get an acceptable result.  But each case is likely to be different depending on layer contents and effect required.