sciencephile
October 31st, 2020, 06:50
Hello,
I noticed that with this latest update, the water FX changed from a drop rippling to a more side-to-side motion. While with the drop, there was a slight ghosting of images when masking away a non-water area that shouldn't have the effect (for example, a bridge crossing the river). With this change to the water FX method, the image ghosting has dramatically increased.
I am attaching 3 images. One is the setting for the water FX. The other two shows the ghosting. The image is a bridge going over water. In it, I added a FX layer with water and created a mask like Doug's video he put out recently. Then I unmasked areas that should be rippling waters. Due to the original ghosting of the masked area into the ripple (mainly from a zoomed out standpoint), I didn't cut the mask to close. The picture will show the bridge going significantly into the water even though it is masked (due to the horizontal side-to-side motion of the FX). In another example, I marked the areas where the mask was drawn by a yellow highlighter so it would be more apparent where the mask that shouldn't have the effect is.
40620
40621
40622
Thanks,
Danny
I noticed that with this latest update, the water FX changed from a drop rippling to a more side-to-side motion. While with the drop, there was a slight ghosting of images when masking away a non-water area that shouldn't have the effect (for example, a bridge crossing the river). With this change to the water FX method, the image ghosting has dramatically increased.
I am attaching 3 images. One is the setting for the water FX. The other two shows the ghosting. The image is a bridge going over water. In it, I added a FX layer with water and created a mask like Doug's video he put out recently. Then I unmasked areas that should be rippling waters. Due to the original ghosting of the masked area into the ripple (mainly from a zoomed out standpoint), I didn't cut the mask to close. The picture will show the bridge going significantly into the water even though it is masked (due to the horizontal side-to-side motion of the FX). In another example, I marked the areas where the mask was drawn by a yellow highlighter so it would be more apparent where the mask that shouldn't have the effect is.
40620
40621
40622
Thanks,
Danny