Recommend a 3D package/plugin for me?

[Lee James]

Hi, I'd like to add a bit of 3D to my videos. Could anyone please recommend a good option for me?

I'd thought about just using the bundled Cinema 4D Lite, as I don't have much money to spend. I've also considered the Element 3D plugin which is fairly cheap? But perhaps I should consider Blender or Blackmagic Fusion? At this point I don't want to delve into learning any package unless I know it can do what I hope to achieve.

And here is what I'm trying to do:

1. I want to blend 3D objects into my live footage, partly using green screen.
2. I won't be doing any "characters" or people - only simple, solid objects like buildings and walls.
3. The objects themselves will be completely static, though the camera will move around (with motion tracking).
4. I don't necessarily need a lot of objects or polygons, but photorealism is what I'm after. I don't want it to look like "CGI".
5. Lighting is important - I want to be able to carefully match the lighting of the objects to the lighting in my scene so they blend seamlessly.
6. Another thing that's important for me is bump mapping and opacity mapping - I don't just want "flat" polygons, I want to add lots of surface detail, rough edges etc. I have no idea which packages offer this.

Does anyone know which package(s) or plugins would be best for me - without having to spend much money?

[Mylenium]

At this point I don't want to delve into learning any package unless I know it can do what I hope to achieve.

Let me be brutally blunt:

photorealism is what I'm after.

"Photorealism" doesn't fall out of the blue in any package. Even advanced commercial renderers like VRay don't produce hyperrealistic imagery at the push of a button. It can take weeks, months, years to understand how a specific shading model works, how it interacts with virtual lighting, how materials need to be tweaked. And even statements like this make no sense:

I don't necessarily need a lot of objects or polygons

One goes together with the other. You can have the most detailed textures in the world, but when you slap them onto low-res geometry they still won't look "real". Conversely, all the transparent texturing, bump map and normal map cheats in the world won't save you in many cases. Just pause any current game that looks awesome in motion - a lot of that completely falls apart when you analyse the trickery in a still frame.

Overal lit seems to me you have a wrong understanding of the whole process on so many levels and your elaborate list is totally contradictory anbd to some extent pretty nonsensical. All the tools you mentioned can offer some kind of "Photorealism", but of course not necessarily out of the box. You have to master them. So in the end it doesn't matter which one you choose if you don't commit to learning it properly. That ultimately is the whole point. Magic buttons don't exist and looking for shortcuts doesn't help you become a good VFX artist.

And of course this can be expanded in any direction because prepping the shoot and palnning the shot layout is just as important for good VFX work. Even if you were an accomplished CG artist already, you could still totally screw it up with wrong greenscreen procedures and so on.

Mylenium

[Rick Gerard · Accepted solution]

If you have no budget and you want to dabble in a very capable 3D app that has limited integration with After Effects check out http://blender.org. It's open source and therefore free. Just an example from one of their films:

I have C4D, Element, Zaxwerks, Freeform Pro, and Borris FX Continuum, but I do most of my 3D modeling in Blender because I'm used to it and it's extremely capable. Expect to spend months learning how to effectively and efficiently use a 3D app.

[Lee James]

It's so helpful to know that I can rule out Element 3D

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Rick+Gerard  wrote

If you have no budget and you want to dabble in a very capable 3D app that has limited integration with After Effects check out http://blender.org. It's open source and therefore free. Just an example from one of their films:

Thank you so much Mr Gerard, that's extremely helpful.

At the moment I am leaning heavily towards using Blender as you recommended. It may have more limited integration with After Effects, but the price is perfect - I had no idea it was completely free, which is amazing.

Cinema 4D does seem excellent, and if I was going to be using 3D heavily and extensively then I may have thought of investing in the full version. But the idea of "starting off with" C4D Lite bugs me, because I want to know that I own the software that can do everything I'll need. I wouldn't like to think I might one day come up against a functionality cap and be forced to upgrade.

So, regarding Blender's integration with After Effects. I use After Effects for all my green screen compositing as it has a lot of powerful compositing tools. So my plan would be to use Blender to track motion to a clip, export JUST the 3D, then bring this into After Effects for compositing. Does that sound feasible, or is there a better workflow?

[Rick Gerard]

I suggest you check out the blender.org site and look at tutorials. Blender has a much higher percentage of great tutorials than After Effects does, especially if you start with blender.org.

It's pretty easy to get the blender camera into AE. It is also pretty easy to get the After Effects camera into Blender, which means you can use AE's camera tracker or Blender's camera tracker and go either direction. Integration isn't as easy as it is to extract a C4D camera into an AE comp, but it's plenty doable.

[Lee James]

Wonderful, thank you sir.

[thatsmauri]

Suicide  wrote

Cinema 4D does seem excellent, and if I was going to be using 3D heavily and extensively then I may have thought of investing in the full version. But the idea of "starting off with" C4D Lite bugs me, because I want to know that I own the software that can do everything I'll need. I wouldn't like to think I might one day come up against a functionality cap and be forced to upgrade.

Maybe the following comparison table might help?
Product Comparison - MAXON | 3D FOR THE REAL WORLD

[Lee James]

Mylenium  wrote

"Photorealism" doesn't fall out of the blue in any package. Even advanced commercial renderers like VRay don't produce hyperrealistic imagery at the push of a button. It can take weeks, months, years to understand how a specific shading model works, how it interacts with virtual lighting, how materials need to be tweaked. And even statements like this make no sense:

Having spent 25 years working in illustration, photo retouching and video special effects, I am well aware of that. I have spent my career perfecting my skills in creating photorealistic 2D graphics so I didn't expect the transition to 3D to be a walk in the park, though I believe a lot of my core skills as an illustrator will come in useful.

Mylenium  wrote

You can have the most detailed textures in the world, but when you slap them onto low-res geometry they still won't look "real". Conversely, all the transparent texturing, bump map and normal map cheats in the world won't save you in many cases.

I would respectfully disagree with that. I already know from experience that I can take a single flat plane and integrate it realistically into a live action image or scene. And all I want to do is add a couple of simple planes to a scene. So surely common sense says I don't need as many polygons as if I were creating an entire scene full of objects with curves.

Mylenium  wrote

Overal lit seems to me you have a wrong understanding of the whole process on so many levels and your elaborate list is totally contradictory anbd to some extent pretty nonsensical.

I find your reply somewhat patronising. We're all creative professionals here but you're treating me like some kind of fool.

Mylenium  wrote

All the tools you mentioned can offer some kind of "Photorealism", but of course not necessarily out of the box. You have to master them. So in the end it doesn't matter which one you choose if you don't commit to learning it properly.

I don't know where you got the idea that I wasn't going to learn the software properly. I intend to spend many years building up my skills before I would be confident enough to use it in a video.

Mylenium  wrote

Magic buttons don't exist and looking for shortcuts doesn't help you become a good VFX artist.

Again, when did I ask for a "magic button"? I have spent my career mastering the various software I use (particularly Photoshop) and have created stunning images for my clients, blending real and artificial imagery. I always invest a great deal of time and care in my work. I have a great deal of patience, and it has taken me 25 years of hard work to get to the level of experience I am now at.

Now I would like to enhance some of my videos with a touch of 3D, but before I delve into any particular software, I would like to know that it SUPPORTS the level of care and attention to detail I intend to invest in using it. Which is why I'm here trying to find the right one.

Mylenium  wrote

prepping the shoot and palnning the shot layout is just as important for good VFX work. Even if you were an accomplished CG artist already, you could still totally screw it up with wrong greenscreen procedures and so on.

I do completely understand that.

[foughtthelaw]

Short answer: start with C4D Lite

Mylenium covered most of it but what you're asking about is delvig deep into 3d image craft. There's many ways to do what you're after and a lot of that knowledge overlaps in multiple programs. Start playing with what you have for free as a means of learning and make an educated decision when you hit the limitations of it.

[thatsmauri]

"Element 3D" is used to bring existing 3D objects, made in Blender, Cinema 4D, Maya, etc and exported as .OBJ, into

After Effects. It's not a 3D modelling app.

As suggested above, start off with AE's bundled Cinema 4D Lite version.

[Lee James]

Thanks to everyone for the replies, I really appreciate the suggestions.

[Mike_Abbott]

I do a lot of 3D CGI myself - and I'd agree with the overall direction in this thread - the two obvious candidates are Cimema and Blender.

All of the well known 3D apps will give you an amazing toolset - and a lifetime of learning. None of them have 'everything' - but all of them have more than you'll probably ever use. I very much doubt you'd run into any serious limitation anytime soon.

Cinema (C4D) is generally regarded as the easiest 3D app to learn, Blender offers unbeatable value ; ). Both are plenty powerful.

One word of caution: C4D lite, as you know, is the AE bundled 'plug-in' version of the app. Rendering and interactivity via Cineware is dog slow - and not representitive of performance of the main versions. By all means start to learn C4D using Lite - but if you're serious, get one of the standard versions. IMHO - forget about Element and the other AE plugins. Yes, they are great if you just want to do some basic 3D text etc - but If you want to do real 3D you need a real 3D program : )