Re:Computer art
by anigbrowl on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:10PM
(#776045)
Agreed, I was a bit perplexed by that too. I do like it (because I hobby in After Effects myself) but it didn't strike me as especially realistic. I presume the TNW writer was referring to the pretty degradation of the colored smoke, but I couldn't help noticing the heavy use of blur and particle systems, especially as the material got more complex on screen.
It's a very fine piece of work; maybe the blog author just got a little carried away by his emotional response to it.
Re:Computer art
by kentosi on Friday August 21, 2009 @12:00AM
(#776954)
If you're worked on (or have seen) anything better, care to post a link?
Note: I'm not doubting you - I actually thought the video clip looked beautiful so I want to know what you mean when you imply it could have been done better.
Re:Computer art
by DocSavage on Thursday August 20, 2009 @05:53PM
(#776412)
It's "realistic" in the sense that the animation seems driven by music data input. He wired the graphics to respond to processed music signals and added some additional (random?) inputs.
Re:Computer art
by anigbrowl on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:24PM
(#776481)
I'm actually more impressed byt his one! You are right though, the one in the OP is heavily modulated by spectrographic data from the music. After effects include a crude plugin for this purpose, but the OP animation used a 3rd party one that is constrainable to a particular frequency window.
Apple's Motion is also very good in this area, including responding to MIDI which is a royal pain to achieve with AE - particularly annoying to me since I have several MIDI devices and would love to be able to generate keyframe data by twiddling knobs I already have. Ho hum...anyone know of dynamic midi resources for Javascript (ie not just passing a midi file to the audio driver)?
Re:Computer art
by prewett on Thursday August 20, 2009 @10:02PM
(#776844)
The video isn't playing with Firefox 3.0.10 on 32-bit Ubuntu 9.04 with Flash 9.0r31 and IcedTea (not sure what mechanism is being used to play the video), either.
Re:Computer art
by henning on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:27PM
(#776107)
The article asks for this to be turned into an iTunes visualization plugin. In general I don't think fluid dynamics like that can be done in realtime. Maybe with a GPU.
Re:Computer art
by anigbrowl on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:58PM
(#776231)
Yes, I like that CUDA stuff. However I think you need their Tesla engine for the most impressive eye candy, which runs about $2000 last time I looked. Of course, this time next year etc. etc.
Re:Computer art
by anigbrowl on Thursday August 20, 2009 @06:19PM
(#776465)
Sure, but look at that frame rate. Don't get me wrong, I think we're in a golden age of computer graphics, but that last 5% o performance is still pricey.
Maybe it's time to start benchmarking physics simulations though, just like the utah teapot was/is the 'hello world' of the 3d modelling/raytracing world for so long.
Re:Computer art
by mhansen on Thursday August 20, 2009 @10:56PM
(#776900)
The author has already separated the strings and piano intruments into different tracks, So this wouldn't work as an itunes/milkdrop plugin, where you only have one flattened track.
Re:Computer art
by anigbrowl on Thursday August 20, 2009 @04:48PM
(#776186)
Not in the short term. Smoke and suchlike very computationally intensive to simulate well. I threw together a very rough version of this in After Effects after reading the authors comments on the TNW page (by very rough I mean just loading a bunch of similar plugins and specifying crude parameters) in order to get an idea of how long it might take to render 3 minutes' worth, the result being 'several hours' on a fairly decent quad core machine - and clearly the author has put in a good deal more work on this.
Now you could offload a lot of this work to the GPU with some planning, and employ numerous little tricks and dare-i-say-it hacks, but I'd say the earliest you'll see this running in real time is when the 2015 32-core Mac Pro hits the streets.
It's nice, but there's a million animations just as awesome made every year. Are we going to post all of them here?
It's a very fine piece of work; maybe the blog author just got a little carried away by his emotional response to it.
Note: I'm not doubting you - I actually thought the video clip looked beautiful so I want to know what you mean when you imply it could have been done better.
Compare to this piece: http://vimeo.com/1755557
Very beautiful also, but much more composed and not primarily driven by music data.
Apple's Motion is also very good in this area, including responding to MIDI which is a royal pain to achieve with AE - particularly annoying to me since I have several MIDI devices and would love to be able to generate keyframe data by twiddling knobs I already have. Ho hum...anyone know of dynamic midi resources for Javascript (ie not just passing a midi file to the audio driver)?
Update-- In fact, the video ain't playin' (FF 3.013, Fedora 10 2.6.27.25-170.2.72.fc10.x86_64)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh2q_p6hQEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uoVRs_zLn8
Not so smooth as on the desktop GPU, but even not top-of-line gaming card for few hundred bucks will give you very impressive performance.
And even with just CPU you can do pretty nice things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlFAzXeCB80
Maybe it's time to start benchmarking physics simulations though, just like the utah teapot was/is the 'hello world' of the 3d modelling/raytracing world for so long.
Now you could offload a lot of this work to the GPU with some planning, and employ numerous little tricks and dare-i-say-it hacks, but I'd say the earliest you'll see this running in real time is when the 2015 32-core Mac Pro hits the streets.
edit: I'm being pessimistic. 2012 is more likely.