Hi,
I am looking at the Moho demo, testing things to decide whether it is what I need for my new film.
I had made a quick test of a cut-out piece on adobe after effects a while ago, so today I reused the same images and made another in Moho.
I exported them both as quicktime movies with no compression.
I am a little preoccupied as the Moho export, although the animation is much better, has quite a lower image quality.
here are some screenshots.
http://www.feltibus.com/publicpage.html
The difference seems quite substantial, and I hope there is somethng I don't know about which is degrading it and which can be fixed. otherwise it is very sad.
The Moho output seems fuzzy.
many thanks if you have any suggestions..
J
uncompressed quicktime export. quality is low
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
You might want to look at the "extra smooth images" option in the export animation window.
It's also possible that After Effects simply has a more sophisticated method for interpolating images, since it's designed more for animating raster (resolution dependent) graphics, while Moho is designed more for animating vector (resolution independent) graphics.
Another option, might be to use images formats that don't use lossy compression (like JPEG does) before importing them into Moho.
It's also possible that After Effects simply has a more sophisticated method for interpolating images, since it's designed more for animating raster (resolution dependent) graphics, while Moho is designed more for animating vector (resolution independent) graphics.
Another option, might be to use images formats that don't use lossy compression (like JPEG does) before importing them into Moho.
8==8 Bones 8==8
PNG files are the ones recommended. Other factors can affect the outcome, though. How big were the png images? Did you enlarge them at all in Moho? If so, you might think about using larger images, and once they're in Moho, reducing them to the size required. Also, it seems to me that exporting an animation directly as a Quicktime movie may not be the best option for quality. I usually export an animation as a series of images, usually JPEG, but PNG would also work, and then compile the movie together in Quicktime. I find the quality good. This way, also, if there's an interruption in the rendering process you wont' lose what's been rendered already and have to start again. You should be able to get good quality from Moho.
I have just about finished an animation that used PNG files that were created as paintings in Photoshop, and I used large size images that were then reduced to fit once they came into Moho. The resolution was also very high, but that was only because I needed to zoom way in on them. The result was very good.
Jack
I have just about finished an animation that used PNG files that were created as paintings in Photoshop, and I used large size images that were then reduced to fit once they came into Moho. The resolution was also very high, but that was only because I needed to zoom way in on them. The result was very good.
Jack
Thanks Jack!JCook wrote:PNG files are the ones recommended. Other factors can affect the outcome, though. How big were the png images? Did you enlarge them at all in Moho? If so, you might think about using larger images, and once they're in Moho, reducing them to the size required. Also, it seems to me that exporting an animation directly as a Quicktime movie may not be the best option for quality. I usually export an animation as a series of images, usually JPEG, but PNG would also work, and then compile the movie together in Quicktime. I find the quality good. This way, also, if there's an interruption in the rendering process you wont' lose what's been rendered already and have to start again. You should be able to get good quality from Moho.
I have just about finished an animation that used PNG files that were created as paintings in Photoshop, and I used large size images that were then reduced to fit once they came into Moho. The resolution was also very high, but that was only because I needed to zoom way in on them. The result was very good.
Jack
you seem the perfect person for me to talk to, as you can also answer questions i have about resolution and zooming in..
I made a test using pngs at different sizes and resolutions, after reading your post. I think the result was better, but still not perfect. Now everyone can tell me if i'm just being terribly picky.
http://www.feltibus.com/publicpage.html
(I tried at 300 dpi, and then at 600. don't know if there was any difference..)
About the sizes and resolution, my powerbook is too slow to animate large images. I gave it a try the other day, for it is a great worry to me, and it just struggled, and was painfully slow.
Did you import large images at high res, and replace them with low res ones in moho, whilst animating, and then direct moho back to the originals before exporting?
does that work?
How does this comparison of quality seem to you. i find it quite sad and discouraging, but I am picky, and I suppose once it is shwon on a tv, or projected, i'd lose the fine detail i see on my computer screen anyway...
But I always like to start with the best...
I suppose the ease of animating in Moho vs After Effects will make up for the slight image quality loss...
Thanks a lot for your help.
Joseph
Joseph, video output is 72dpi, so unless you are planning to output to film quality or are zooming in on your images a whole lot, you are overkilling at 600 or even 300 dpi. This maybe your problem since Moho has to downres the images. Although it seems counter intuitive, try importing lower resolution images into Moho - they will animate faster and should look better.
Alan
Alan
Get some "Good Advice" at www.decksawash.net
Hi Joseph. Can you check if you are using the antialiasing settings in both programs? It may be that you have it on in Moho but not AE? I ask because the AE image seems almost to have a sharpen filter applied. Does AE have an option to sharpen when it exports? Just a stab in the dark ... oh, and can you post the same piece of the original image that is show in AE and Moho - just to see if AE is sharpening it or something.
[url=http://burtabreu.animationblogspot.com:2gityfdw]My AnimationBlogSpot[/url:2gityfdw]
Thank you all for posting. You're a great help and it's nice to talk technical things with people who know what they're talking about. (from the great animation family that it is..)
I just posted another big image with 4 different states of the same picture.
have a look, it is explained under.
It's sad that Moho seems to not be able to export as great an image as one would like, but in the end, maybe a little sharpening just does the trick.
http://www.feltibus.com/publicpage.html
Many thanks again. see what you think. this has been interesting.
Jseph
I just posted another big image with 4 different states of the same picture.
have a look, it is explained under.
It's sad that Moho seems to not be able to export as great an image as one would like, but in the end, maybe a little sharpening just does the trick.
http://www.feltibus.com/publicpage.html
Many thanks again. see what you think. this has been interesting.
Jseph
Rilke
Sorry to come in at this late date, but I would add to what has been discussed above that sharp does not always mean better when it comes to broadcast images. You don't say whether you are producing for the big screen or for TV, but if it's for the latter, you should know that cgi images that are too sharp tend to flicker on TV due to interlace - that is, each frame is shown twice, odd numbered lines then even. With thin near-horizontal lines, horrible flickering edges can occur on standard TV. In Animo (an expensive ink and paint program I used for several years) a tiny amount of vertical blur was deliberately introduced to compensate for this effect.
The slight softening you see may well be purely an accidental side effect of the way Moho does its output rendering, but it may be a blessing in disguise!
One thing that people tend to overlook is that absolutely any scaling either up or down in size of a bitmap image will remove information that was present in the original image. The software either has to lose pixels or try to interplolate and create new ones - some programs do this better than others, but there are no free lunches and you must pay something in picture quality for any scaling you do.
regards,
Jeff
Sorry to come in at this late date, but I would add to what has been discussed above that sharp does not always mean better when it comes to broadcast images. You don't say whether you are producing for the big screen or for TV, but if it's for the latter, you should know that cgi images that are too sharp tend to flicker on TV due to interlace - that is, each frame is shown twice, odd numbered lines then even. With thin near-horizontal lines, horrible flickering edges can occur on standard TV. In Animo (an expensive ink and paint program I used for several years) a tiny amount of vertical blur was deliberately introduced to compensate for this effect.
The slight softening you see may well be purely an accidental side effect of the way Moho does its output rendering, but it may be a blessing in disguise!
One thing that people tend to overlook is that absolutely any scaling either up or down in size of a bitmap image will remove information that was present in the original image. The software either has to lose pixels or try to interplolate and create new ones - some programs do this better than others, but there are no free lunches and you must pay something in picture quality for any scaling you do.
regards,
Jeff
I can see a slight difference in the Moho images as compared to the AE images, but they look good. I think what Jeff said about broadcast media is true. Also, you're comparing still images. Even with the very slight blurring of the Moho images, i think they would look fine when animated. When an image is moving, that blurriness won't be so noticeable, and in fact, may very well be beneficial to the animation.
Jack
I imported the large images and animated using them, and then rendered with the same images. I tried a few experiments in the beginning to compare the quality of animation and zooming in using 72 dpi images, and 300 dpi images, at the same dimensional size. There was a dramatic difference in quality. The 300 dpi was much better. I think this is because, even though Moho exports the animation at 72 dpi, with the input of an image at 300 there is more information to work with. The 72 dpi image didn't have the same amount of detail. Ordinarily I work with 72 dpi images, but in this case I had to zoom way in and keep the quality, and this is what worked. It did slow things down a bit, but not so much as to cause problems. My computer is a 1.42GHz dual G4, so it handled the job well. Zooming in on an image is a problem, and really I think the only solution I know of is to use high res images for it. You have to consider as your standard what the image will look like when zoomed in. So if the image is good enough zoomed in, it will be good enough in the zoomed out position.Did you import large images at high res, and replace them with low res ones in moho, whilst animating, and then direct moho back to the originals before exporting?
Jack
OK, I did some tests for myself.
Result #1: Moho doesn't care about "resolution".
The image I used was 400 x 400 px big, stored in 72 dpi and again in 300 dpi. Moho interpreted both correctly as 400 x 400 px, showing them at 72 dpi (the Moho film was set to 400 x 400 px as well). What you see is the rendered Quicktime (Animation Codec with best quality) showing a frame where the image layer is enlarged to 200 %.
So please don't talk about resolution anymore, just use actual dimensions in pixels when discussing these issues.[/img]
Result #2: There's a small but detectable difference in image quality between rendering with "Antialiased edges" checked and un-checked.
This image shows the two Quicktime movies. The small "test300_no_a.mov" file is the one with that option un-checked. Would you agree that at least the horizontal lines don't smear as much as in the other movie?
Result #3: The rendered image from moho is not as crisp as the Photoshop original.
The bottom right image is a PNG renderd in Moho, against a background of the original Photoshop file shown in 200 %. Because the image was enlarged in Moho I expected a slight blurriness in the edges, but not such a strong "smear" of black into the white lines. This is an effect which can't be corrected in Photoshop.
Jeff is correct in that for TV a certain overall smoothness of the images is desirable, but for my personal taste it's a bit too much. I prefer my artwork quite crisp. I can imagine that it would help to sharpen the images (with "Unsharp Masking", a setting of about 100 - 1,5 - 15 might be OK) before importing into Moho might help to neutralise that effect, but I haven't tested it yet. As for unchecking Antialiased Edges, this might be OK for cutout animation with imported images only, but not suitable for a combination of images with vector animation.
From these few tests I'd recommend to:
- sharpen your artwork before you import it into Moho
- take care (and test before you go into production) of the darkening/smearing of dark lines
- calculate in pixel dimensions only and forget about resolution (I made it a habit to store all animation artwork in 72 dpi, comes from my Director days)
- don't overscan. If you don't need to enlarge the image in Moho or zoom in, store it as close to the screen dimensions as possible.
The last point may need some explanation, as it is adressed very often.
If your movie has the dimensions 768 x 576 px, a format filling background which doesn't move shouldn't be bigger than 850 x 660 px, thus allowing for some adjusting in Moho. If you, say, plan to zoom in into the background, like into the small window in the house in the distance, calculate from the smallest area which you want to fill the screen with. In this case, the window part of that artwork needs to be 576 px high. If that window has 10 % the height of the whole picture, the scan of the whole picture must be at least 5760 px high. Some scan programs on the market unfortunately wouldn't show you the dimensions of your scan in pixels, which its a real nuisance, but once you open the image in Photoshop you will see what you've got.
Don't overscan it: Images bigger than 125 % of their final screen size are just clogging the processor.
Result #1: Moho doesn't care about "resolution".
The image I used was 400 x 400 px big, stored in 72 dpi and again in 300 dpi. Moho interpreted both correctly as 400 x 400 px, showing them at 72 dpi (the Moho film was set to 400 x 400 px as well). What you see is the rendered Quicktime (Animation Codec with best quality) showing a frame where the image layer is enlarged to 200 %.
So please don't talk about resolution anymore, just use actual dimensions in pixels when discussing these issues.[/img]
Result #2: There's a small but detectable difference in image quality between rendering with "Antialiased edges" checked and un-checked.
This image shows the two Quicktime movies. The small "test300_no_a.mov" file is the one with that option un-checked. Would you agree that at least the horizontal lines don't smear as much as in the other movie?
Result #3: The rendered image from moho is not as crisp as the Photoshop original.
The bottom right image is a PNG renderd in Moho, against a background of the original Photoshop file shown in 200 %. Because the image was enlarged in Moho I expected a slight blurriness in the edges, but not such a strong "smear" of black into the white lines. This is an effect which can't be corrected in Photoshop.
Jeff is correct in that for TV a certain overall smoothness of the images is desirable, but for my personal taste it's a bit too much. I prefer my artwork quite crisp. I can imagine that it would help to sharpen the images (with "Unsharp Masking", a setting of about 100 - 1,5 - 15 might be OK) before importing into Moho might help to neutralise that effect, but I haven't tested it yet. As for unchecking Antialiased Edges, this might be OK for cutout animation with imported images only, but not suitable for a combination of images with vector animation.
From these few tests I'd recommend to:
- sharpen your artwork before you import it into Moho
- take care (and test before you go into production) of the darkening/smearing of dark lines
- calculate in pixel dimensions only and forget about resolution (I made it a habit to store all animation artwork in 72 dpi, comes from my Director days)
- don't overscan. If you don't need to enlarge the image in Moho or zoom in, store it as close to the screen dimensions as possible.
The last point may need some explanation, as it is adressed very often.
If your movie has the dimensions 768 x 576 px, a format filling background which doesn't move shouldn't be bigger than 850 x 660 px, thus allowing for some adjusting in Moho. If you, say, plan to zoom in into the background, like into the small window in the house in the distance, calculate from the smallest area which you want to fill the screen with. In this case, the window part of that artwork needs to be 576 px high. If that window has 10 % the height of the whole picture, the scan of the whole picture must be at least 5760 px high. Some scan programs on the market unfortunately wouldn't show you the dimensions of your scan in pixels, which its a real nuisance, but once you open the image in Photoshop you will see what you've got.
Don't overscan it: Images bigger than 125 % of their final screen size are just clogging the processor.
I have to say there has been a lot of energy spent on this issue. 
I applaud this effort... being somewhat obsessive myself but... well... it is a habbit I have been trying hard to break.
I would put forth the following thoughts...
Do a short "final" test. Out put some "samples" from the final to whatever "medium" it will be seen on... TV... "film"... "online video"... if it looks "good enough"... then you save a ton of effort. ("good enough" is a relative term to be sure).
Film will be hard to check considering the expense... however if the final IS to be film... this should be done sooner than later to see what other problems may arise. Ultimately saving even more money.
My final conclusion is that whatever... quality loss some of you are seeing (I too can see it... but I have to get really really close and squint really really hard) it is not anything that the average viewer is ever going to notice. It is so subtle as to be almost a non issue.
It is the final result that counts... not comparing a Photoshop file to a Moho file output... no one will have that PS file to compare to anyway. How many TV shows or Ken Burns documentaries have you seen where you thought the images were "fuzzy".
Just my 2 cents... just trying to help save some effort in the long run.
Sometimes done is better than perfect... uh... good?... or... sharp?... unsharp? Why do they call it "unsharp"? Doesn't make any sense... unsharp would be a "blur" wouldn't it?
-Vern
I applaud this effort... being somewhat obsessive myself but... well... it is a habbit I have been trying hard to break.
I would put forth the following thoughts...
Do a short "final" test. Out put some "samples" from the final to whatever "medium" it will be seen on... TV... "film"... "online video"... if it looks "good enough"... then you save a ton of effort. ("good enough" is a relative term to be sure).
Film will be hard to check considering the expense... however if the final IS to be film... this should be done sooner than later to see what other problems may arise. Ultimately saving even more money.
My final conclusion is that whatever... quality loss some of you are seeing (I too can see it... but I have to get really really close and squint really really hard) it is not anything that the average viewer is ever going to notice. It is so subtle as to be almost a non issue.
It is the final result that counts... not comparing a Photoshop file to a Moho file output... no one will have that PS file to compare to anyway. How many TV shows or Ken Burns documentaries have you seen where you thought the images were "fuzzy".
Just my 2 cents... just trying to help save some effort in the long run.
Sometimes done is better than perfect... uh... good?... or... sharp?... unsharp? Why do they call it "unsharp"? Doesn't make any sense... unsharp would be a "blur" wouldn't it?
-Vern
Just a thought, but perhaps one way around this would be to create your movie in moho at twice the resolution needed (doubling the dimensions in both directions), then use a third party editor to scale it back down. The reduction in size should result in a sharper image in the final output.
I used to do this all the time for 3D animated projects I worked on that involved cel shading. (My software is fairly low end, so outlines on objects weren't great when coming straight from the app itself.)
I used to do this all the time for 3D animated projects I worked on that involved cel shading. (My software is fairly low end, so outlines on objects weren't great when coming straight from the app itself.)
8==8 Bones 8==8
wow. this has been my first time posting to a forum, and I have started quite a discussion.
thanks very much to you all.
About the resolution issue, I am a little confused. I made some little tests yesterday, zooming in at 72 dpi and 300 and couldn't really see a difference when outputted in quicktime. But I can't remember if I'd noticed a problem when i tried earlier. and this was at web size, so the pictures were quite small and difficult to distinguish any differences...
I did also try the sharpening before taking into Moho, and that did make a difference. still not as good as the original, but much better than without. Thanks for that.
I take my work to festivals, so I try to get as good an output as possible. I assume that the sharpness problems televisions have, do not apply to Beta SP tapes projected in theatres...
But i shall absorb all your comments, and welcome you to continue the debat. i shall get back soon, hopefully with something a little more intelligent. My mind is all a jumble at the moment.
Many Thanks,
Joseph
thanks very much to you all.
About the resolution issue, I am a little confused. I made some little tests yesterday, zooming in at 72 dpi and 300 and couldn't really see a difference when outputted in quicktime. But I can't remember if I'd noticed a problem when i tried earlier. and this was at web size, so the pictures were quite small and difficult to distinguish any differences...
I did also try the sharpening before taking into Moho, and that did make a difference. still not as good as the original, but much better than without. Thanks for that.
I take my work to festivals, so I try to get as good an output as possible. I assume that the sharpness problems televisions have, do not apply to Beta SP tapes projected in theatres...
But i shall absorb all your comments, and welcome you to continue the debat. i shall get back soon, hopefully with something a little more intelligent. My mind is all a jumble at the moment.
Many Thanks,
Joseph
slowtiger, you're right about Moho not telling the difference between hi and lo resolutions. It is the size (physical) of the image that makes the difference. Where it gets confusing is in the measurement you use. I had done tests using an image that was created at 300dpi in Photoshop. I reduced the resolution to 72, but not the physical size, measured in inches. The dimensions measured in inches were 8x6 inches. But when the resolution is reduced, the dimensions in pixels is much smaller. I ended up using the image at 300 dpi, because the dimensions (in pixels) were bigger, and I therefore could zoom in with good quality. It would work the same way with 72 dpi images if the images were big enough in pixel dimensions.
The confusing thing about resolution is that when viewed on a screen, a 300 dpi image is bigger than a 72 dpi image, even though their dimensions in inches are the same. If you print them out on a printer they are the same size, but one looks better then the other. The reason is because a screen will only show 72 dots per inch. So, when a 300 dpi image is viewed on a screen, the pixels require more than 34 times as many inches to view than a 72 dpi image. This is an endless source of confusion for people who don't do computer graphics (and even some that do).
I did some tests where I took the original image at 300 dpi, reduced the resolution to 72 dpi, but increased the pixel dimensions to the same as they were at 300, and tried that in Moho. The results were the same as the ones I did using the 300 dpi image in Moho. The file size of the 300 dpi image and the 72 dpi image enlarged to the pixel dimensions of the 300dpi image was the same also, so there was no overall difference between the two.
Jack
The confusing thing about resolution is that when viewed on a screen, a 300 dpi image is bigger than a 72 dpi image, even though their dimensions in inches are the same. If you print them out on a printer they are the same size, but one looks better then the other. The reason is because a screen will only show 72 dots per inch. So, when a 300 dpi image is viewed on a screen, the pixels require more than 34 times as many inches to view than a 72 dpi image. This is an endless source of confusion for people who don't do computer graphics (and even some that do).
I did some tests where I took the original image at 300 dpi, reduced the resolution to 72 dpi, but increased the pixel dimensions to the same as they were at 300, and tried that in Moho. The results were the same as the ones I did using the 300 dpi image in Moho. The file size of the 300 dpi image and the 72 dpi image enlarged to the pixel dimensions of the 300dpi image was the same also, so there was no overall difference between the two.
Jack