Not complaining, just wanna hear yours opinion.
Hi. Sorry for your rejection. Space environment is not good, there’s just a sphere that barely looks like a planet. No stars, no background work, no nebula, galaxies or something that helps the idea of “space”. On the other hand, the revealing of the logo has nothing to do with the planet, it just fades out (the planet), then some kind of energy appears and the logo finally reveals, but in my opinion it’s all disconnected.
Hope this helps.
Also that planets lighting is bad. Just one light pointig right at one of its sides… no 3 light setup, no rim light, no fill light… learn about lighting setups in photography or 3D and then apply these to your work. This will help a lot.
Second , if would you add more planets and other details as @GoForMotion mentioned, in front or behind this one it would create a better effect of depth. This is especially important for a 3D animation that is about space, and as we know space is wast, huge and seemingly endless, so showcase that and use that as a straight forward way to make your animation look more complex, interesting and way cooler.
And lastly once you reveal the logo, you don’t give it a chance to be seen fully for a few seconds. Now you mask and cover it with all of these fade in/out effects, which is not good. How is a customer supposed to see and recognize/memorize a logo when they can’t even see it clearly and for long enough to even “proccess” it. Have a few seconds in the animation where you showcase the logo as it is, without any effects covering it’s visibility. Just for this mistake I would reject your template right away.
I appreciate it.
Stars are there so as a nebula. The planet itself looks kinda good. I think it’s because of the quality of the video that makes the details not visible, it’s only 19 MB ;[
I should have upload the preview in 4k ;]
Ok. Anyway, I think that the reveal of logo is something that you should make much better or different. Planet, energy and logo look like 3 disconnected elements in my opinion.
Uhm, there’s no stars and the planet doesn’t kinda look good. Have you seen a good looking planet? This ain’t it, see the reality, only then you can truly improve. No video quality improvement will fix empty/boring composition, bad lighting, lack of camera angles, clear idea and direction and lack of details.
This is a good looking planet:
Also look at these animations:
Now look at yours and you’ll clearly see what’s missing all the shines around the planet, the more dramatic lighting really showcasing the reljef and all the bumps of the planet. Then look at the background stars, the colorul space gradients, the "dirty camera lens"effects, the different camera angles, the tiny planets besides the big ones, really giving viewer some sense of scale on how massive is the main big planet…
Implement atleast some of these things and you’ll have a better chance of getting approved, if there already isn’t much better logo animations with the same exact idea (I bet there is…)
3 point lighting in space?
yeah I write nonsense sometimes I mean more like 2 lights, one from the sun and another one from a spacecraft beneath the planet, or maybe there’s even 2 spacecraft, so then there are 3 light sources after all
That is one hell of a spacecraft headlight, illuminating a planet…
Yes, it’s in a distance future when technology and biology blended together to create yet unseen sturctures and machines of imense scale or maybe two stars colided beneath that plannet resulting in an all illuminating explosion, and since the animation is very slow motion, that’s how you can see it
I hope we can all agree that the harsh, parallel lighting we see in the OP’s rejected item is the only realistic approach for a space scene.
It may not be the most artistic one, but there is only one sun in our solar system.
All the “good” looking images have one point lighting as well.
But there are solar systems with two suns But yes I guess it’s the most viable approach, just that it needs to be executed much better. Or it can be combined with the lights coming from the planets big cities too, to make it more interesting.
I guess besides all we can say about real space light, there has to be a balance between “realistic scene” and “looking good” scene, and in my opinion the original project doesn’t look good enough to be approved. I think shadow is too hard, if I was a customer I’d like a planet to look realistic and also really nice about lights, shadows, textures, environment. I think it needs improvements on those visual areas, not to mention that the planet, the energy and the reveal of the logo are 3 separated elements with no connection.
Again, just my opinion.
And another one with different camera angle
I’m not familiar with this version of AE when it comes to rendering
It looks better, but its still just a camera rotating around a random sphere.
There’s no connection between the elements in motion.
I’d try with a different concept if I were you