can you render map depth?

[microwave dog]

like this https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Yaw19c7Joyk/maxresdefault.jpg (black is closer, white is further away)

[Capt Fuzzy]

Yes

[microwave dog]

i tried using fog but it doesnt get applied to the skybox and it doesnt override the color objects have naturally, meaning a white object will look like it is cfurther away than what it actually is for example https://i.gyazo.com/950614765c15a42f5682e741955badb1.png

[microwave dog]

Originally posted by Capt Fuzzy:

Yes

how?

[Capt Fuzzy]

Originally posted by blo:

Originally posted by Capt Fuzzy:

Yes

how?

Adjust the scene camera settings, particularly having to do with depth of field.

[microwave dog]

Originally posted by Capt Fuzzy:

Originally posted by blo:

how?

Adjust the scene camera settings, particularly having to do with depth of field.

I think we might be talking about different things. I know that you can have depth of field, but I specifically want to render the depth of field as a gray scale, like this - https://youtu.be/CKIimNjtp70?t=217

thanks though

[microwave dog]

actually ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you can kinda get it to work by setting map tone scale to 0.001 (might work better with different values but havent tried yet) https://i.gyazo.com/a5371a9f945b788860ded262f403f39f.png

One problem is that the sky is black even though it should be white since it is the furthest away, but you can easily workaround that simply by excluding the very darkest shade of gray when using the footage.

Another problem is how "long" the grey scale is, usually you would have black to white span over 20 meters maybe but here it appears to be kilometers even. I assume this means that if your rendered video is compressed by a lot, the grey scale will be really coarse grained, resulting in each gray value corresponding to a very large distance range. Ideally you want the grey scale to be more fine grained so you have more control over your footage.

[microwave dog]

you can get a much better grey scale by changing the fog https://i.gyazo.com/510dcdc79ef70d8f4658eb01e8762ac6.png

[Shakes]

You can type r_depthoverlay 1 in console to bring up the depth buffer, though it doesn't render $alphatest materials and incorrectly renders $translucent materials.

[microwave dog]

Originally posted by Shakes:

You can type r_depthoverlay 1 in console to bring up the depth buffer, though it doesn't render $alphatest materials and incorrectly renders $translucent materials.

thanks, I tried it and it appears to ignore grass and particles which probably has to do with the $alpha stuff. I don't get these problems to the same extent with the fog method however. Or do you know if there is a workaround for the alpha and translucent stuff with the depth buffer?

[Shakes]

Originally posted by blo:

thanks, I tried it and it appears to ignore grass and particles which probably has to do with the $alpha stuff. I don't get these problems to the same extent with the fog method however. Or do you know if there is a workaround for the alpha and translucent stuff with the depth buffer?

I don't think I could sufficiently answer that. The article I linked has a fix involving messing with public SDK2013 code, though to what capacity you could apply that to replacing already-compiled SFM code I am unsure of.

[microwave dog]

Originally posted by Shakes:

Originally posted by blo:

thanks, I tried it and it appears to ignore grass and particles which probably has to do with the $alpha stuff. I don't get these problems to the same extent with the fog method however. Or do you know if there is a workaround for the alpha and translucent stuff with the depth buffer?

I don't think I could sufficiently answer that. The article I linked has a fix involving messing with public SDK2013 code, though to what capacity you could apply that to replacing already-compiled SFM code I am unsure of.

alright thank you man

[R234]

What do you need this for, if I may ask? Just curious.

[microwave dog]

Originally posted by R234:

What do you need this for, if I may ask? Just curious.

you can use it to apply fog and dof inside your editing software instead of directly in sfm so you have more flexibility. it also lets you add 3d effects in the video and apply the dof on top of that.

[Zappy]

Originally posted by blo:

you can use it to apply fog and dof inside your editing software instead of directly in sfm so you have more flexibility. -

You get less "flexibility", though (depending on what "flexibility" means).


Source Filmmaker's depth of field is "real" depth of field, by moving the view around between different samples of the same frame.

This means that it's the best that it can ever look (both quality- and even realism-wise), and that if something at a long distance is obstructed by something at a short distance, Source Filmmaker's depth of field can (correctly) show some of the far thing if the view moves past the edge of the near thing, which won't happen if you do some kind of blur "depth of field" from just the original point of view in an image/video editor.

Doing depth of field outside of Source Filmmaker will simply look worse than within it.

(If you want to have something in both the fore- and back-ground look sharp, while things in between and beyond that are blurred, sure, Source Filmmaker's depth of field can't do that... but that's also not really "depth of field" at that point, anyway.)


And Source Filmmaker's fog can be selectively applied or not applied to different things, which an image/video editor won't care about if you handle fog in that.

If you want to apply some kind of multi-colour/rainbow fog of sorts, no, Source Filmmaker's fog can't do that, so you'll have to use an image/video editor for that... but without knowing precisely what you want, I'm still left to wonder if that's worth the loss in "precision" of using fog outside of the 3D rendering (outside of Source Filmmaker) itself.

[microwave dog]

Originally posted by Zappy:

Originally posted by blo:

you can use it to apply fog and dof inside your editing software instead of directly in sfm so you have more flexibility. -

You get less "flexibility", though (depending on what "flexibility" means).


Source Filmmaker's depth of field is "real" depth of field, by moving the view around between different samples of the same frame.

This means that it's the best that it can ever look (both quality- and even realism-wise), and that if something at a long distance is obstructed by something at a short distance, Source Filmmaker's depth of field can (correctly) show some of the far thing if the view moves past the edge of the near thing, which won't happen if you do some kind of blur "depth of field" from just the original point of view in an image/video editor.

Doing depth of field outside of Source Filmmaker will simply look worse than within it.

(If you want to have something in both the fore- and back-ground look sharp, while things in between and beyond that are blurred, sure, Source Filmmaker's depth of field can't do that... but that's also not really "depth of field" at that point, anyway.)


And Source Filmmaker's fog can be selectively applied or not applied to different things, which an image/video editor won't care about if you handle fog in that.

If you want to apply some kind of multi-colour/rainbow fog of sorts, no, Source Filmmaker's fog can't do that, so you'll have to use an image/video editor for that... but without knowing precisely what you want, I'm still left to wonder if that's worth the loss in "precision" of using fog outside of the 3D rendering (outside of Source Filmmaker) itself.

thanks, I think it can look really good though - 7:06 https://youtu.be/CKIimNjtp70?t=426
and another plus is that you can blend the fog with the sky