Hey, I noticed that fluid just jumps off and leaving no stained and getting absorbed so if we manage that i think that the shot will be nearest to the actual one
It honestly doesn't even seem like you tried, you couldn't even get the colour remotely close to blood so of course we see a tsunami of poo flowing down the hallway. You could have done way better dude.
The one issue with the 3d recreation is that the particles of blood just bounce off the wall. In the film version they leave splatters of "blood" on the walls which makes it even creepier. But as both a fledgling Blender user as well as a massive Shining fan, I really enjoyed this video! Absolutely fantastic job with the end result!
With the way computers have been advancing, we won't be able to tell the difference between computer renders and real life in a couple years. Just look at how AI, which is relatively new, has already changed basically every industry.
That's not even the only problem, in the practical shot, the blood isn't just one amorphous mass, it creates a mist of smaller particles as it moves and collides. In comparison the CGI just looks wrong, like it's a thick molasses type liquid. The recreation in Ready Player One is a lot better, but it still has that thick, molasses-y look to it that a lot of CGI liquid effects have in places.
This is an issue of the simulation. All it takes is a movie to really want to focus on Blood Simulation to fix it, like the advances to Sand Simulation as a result of the spiderman film with Sandman. If the simulation knows how to mist surface particles (Similar to the creation of Sea Foam in ocean simulation) and create surface changes instead of bouncing (Or, even, breaking into smaller particles to splash)? It'll look a LOT better. The problem? Cost and effort. Not only would that be a lot more expensive to render (Due to the increased complexity), it would be more expensive to create the software to do it instead of using off-the-shelf simulation software like both examples of the CGI scene here did.
The CGI version probably looks less realistic because of the blood stains and the mist like effect, the blood leaves behind in the original, being omitted. This just goes to show how much effort goes into creating such scenes which is absolutely praise worthy. the results are just wonderful
Absolutely. It would be 100% possible to add those in, it would just make the simulation a lot more complex as it's adding in two more aspects (Misting, which you'd use a similar approach to Sea Foam simulation for, and dynamic textures to create the smears)
I like to use real human blood. The viscosity is hard to match to the inferred temp of the scene with anything else. I have been stuck asking interns to tidy up gloopy dog blood after an arctic zombie massacre too many times. I had to change my name to skirt a blacklist.
Also if you look at the door of the real one it's naturally smoother with better lighting while the other looks a bit too sharp and has a plastic look that you notice more when staring at it.
Random trivia: At the time, the MPAA didn't allow any blood to be shown in movie trailers that would be shown to all ages. Kubrick wanted the blood elevator to be featured in the trailer. He told them, "that's not blood, that's silly. It's rusty water." They believed him and the scene got passed the censors
I've noticed CG guys like him and Corridor have a disconnect from the visions of filmmakers. It's do it CG because the CG looks good, not does this CG serve the narrative and themes of this story? The acting is what's important in this scene, the insanity of what's happening is important in this scene. What's not important is a sense of action and kineticness like "the blood slams her against the wall."
I have to disagree on the "we don't know if shelly hallucinated" line. The blending of hallucination and reality, losing the ability to determine what is real and imaginary, is a very powerful part of good psychological horror.
Absolutly. Having her physically interacting with the blood would look cool, but I think it would be a little too much. I don't like when movies "cheat" with hallucinations that break the pyschological barrier because you're introducing a paranormal phenomena and then you can't prentend "oh, it was all in the character's head all along".
i commented the exact same thing xD as someone who is heavily invested in film and has made a few small (terribly bad) short films, it gives a strong emotion for the story and that can really not be done with cgi, not in a million years i believe, the real thing just makes it plainly more believable
100% Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should, which I think is one of the biggest problems with CGI - there's nowhere near as many limits or constraints so often lesser filmmakers will throw everything at a scene and it will just be a bit cheesy and over the top.
Sure but I think the point was more about the filmmaker having the option to do things that might genuinely enhance the film (in some other circumstance), where safety would otherwise be a limiting factor. The particular shot, even the genre of psychological horror, was just an example.
@@henreh99 This is one of my biggest problem with CGI. Some film makers make so over the top scenes that makes them not believable. It's a great tool, but in wrong hands it can just ruin everything.
The main problem with your and ILM's recreation is that the CGI recreations are just making globs of fluid, whereas, as you can see in the original, the "real" blood (whatever fluid they were using for fake blood) also created a mist where the blood was aerosolizing. That would have probably added another few days, but it's one of the things that makes these fluid sims stand out as fake.
@@Cookedfrfrfrright, but shane was talking about blenderguru's recreation, which was trying to recreate the original, not the game. he just used ILM's version as a comparison because they are a big studio.
And I was talking about blenderguru talking poorly about ILM's not being perfect. And the case for that is because it isn't supposed to look perfect. @@PeterKudelin
One thing you forgot (which may not be possible with flip fluids) is wet maps on the walls. Your walls stay perfectly white even as they get splattered with blood.
He did actually try that, with the ‘Dynamic Paint’ effect in Blender, but that feature always just kept his Blender application crashing, until he gave up and rendered without it.
As a close-up magician, I often explain to newer magicians or crowds that a good magic performance should be like watching a movie with great CGI, where you don't notice the secret. Funny that you explain CGI by referencing magic!
I'm disappointed that you didn't mention another aspect of why CGI is cheaper. Until very recently, CGI artists were mostly not unionized, and are still underpaid quite frequently.
Yeah it's the actual most important and crucial reason, and it gets magically left out. CGI isn't just incidentally cheaper as if it's some fact of nature.
The fact that real liquid sticks to the walls makes the biggest difference for me. It's like when people's hands don't clip through solid objects. Really helps sell it.
8:56 "because we don't know if this is real or if she hallucinated it." I feel like this is actually important for the film in question. Having Shelly get swept away by a CG tsunami of blood might be more impressive on a technical level, it would of actually detracted from the story that was being presented. All FX whether practical or digital should be there to support the story being told, not just for the sake of looking good IMO.
Absolutely. This take could even be used as a clear "what's wrong with CGI". Being able to do pretty much everything without limitations has led directors to be less creative in their shots and ruining the suspense created by these technical limitations/cinematographic standards. Nowadays, it's difficult to be impressed by a scene because CGI can theoretically shoot it in every way possible and always choose the most "perfect" one. In a kind of paradox, it's "too perfect" and the mind relates more with the imperfections and limitations he's used to see in the real world and in classic cinema shots. And also yes ; the entire story/film is playing on this ambiguïty on whether or not they are seeing these things happening or if it's just hallucinations. So it absolutely make sense to not give it away in this scene as well... Such a bad take from OP. EDIT : But I've just read him take the L on it, so no hard feelings.
I think an often overlooked con of CG is often touted as a pro (including in this video): it lets filmmakers do whatever they want. On the surface, this seems like a good thing, but limitations are one of the most important aspects of the artistic process. They give shape and grounding to the work. The shining feels real. You can picture being there. And it’s not just because practical sets/effects are real, it’s because of what happens. It’s like the infamous crystal skulls jungle chase. That scene would still be unbelievable if the CG was indistinguishable from reality.
George Lucas is the perfect example of this. He was restrained by the potential of the technology in the 1970’s, so they had to adapt and use a lot of move magic to make star wars look amazing. He did lots of interviews complaining that he wasn’t able to fully realize his vision. Then he get CGI and can do what ever the hell he wants and we get the special editions and the prequels. 😐 Many of the greatest films ever made were enriched by the limitations of cameras, special effects or studio censorship. With censorship, many directors and writers had to be much more sophisticated and subtle in order to put their viewpoints into films (Scorsese calls this “smuggling”). Anyway, I hate CGI and digital cameras, it makes filmmakers lazy.🤷🏼♂️
You dislike overuse of CG because it doesn't provide filmmakers with eough restrictions that grounds their creations in reality I dislike overuse of CG because some Filmmakers don't understand that there's real work behind the creation of CG scenes, leading to them overwoeking the CG department which in turn leads to the CG department not doing polished scenes (Don't wanna disagree with your argument here, just wanted to bring up another poin in a boring meme format)
The fact that I know nothing about cgi and have never watched anything like this and just watched all the way through till the end completely engrossed…. Wow
I've always felt that the ambiguity whether what Shelley's character sees is real or not, was awesome and it always felt intended. Like the lady in the room, is she actually there or not? Is she old or young? Are the three girls real or just in the kid's head? Not knowing makes it all so much more eerie.
Yeah, that's what Kubrik was going for in that adaptation. The book and the other movie adaptations go into how the magic works and what really happened, but I personally think that it takes away from the horror element. Also that's why King doesn't like Kubrik's movie.
Exactly - I had to stop the video there and write something similar - it irked me, Not knowing adds to the suspense and eeriness! As I wrote elsewhere I feel all FX whether practical or digital should be there to support the story being told, not just for the sake of looking good IMO.
I've made an error at 10:39. Apparently the practical blood effect is actually a 1:3 scale miniature not 1:1, and it was 12 takes not one! Maybe it's the Mandela effect, but Leon Vitali (Kubrick's assistant) remembers it as a real one-take shot (and said so in Yahoo interview). But I've since found two other sources (ua-cam.com/video/SD0V_hd-Kwk/v-deo.html & www.shiningsets.nl/) which state otherwise. So I'll be cross referencing my sources next time! Also, apparently my suggestion at 8:58 caused quite a stir! It was *supposed* to be tongue in cheek but I trimmed so much script that it just sounds like the worst take of all time 😂Sorry about that. And answering a few other common questions: 1. I tried to make the blood stain the walls but dynamic paint in Blender kept crashing. Even low-res fluid. Defeated, I gave up and hoped nobody would notice. 2. The reason the original looks more red is actually quite fascinating. Unlike CG, real world fluid can get so small it turns to mist which *appears* more colorful because there's less absorption in smaller particles compared to big ones. CG fluid can't make particles that small (without even longer bake times or faking it) so it looks darker but is actually the same color! 3. The furniture moving was just manual keyframing. Nothing fancy.
Point 5 did seem like a joke to me, but I'm sure there are a bunch of people on the fence. Great clarification :) The viscosity of the blood and light quality pass through is super interesting.
Look, I'm not calling Vitali a liar, it's been 40 years and almost everyone involved is either dead or fumbling into old age. But I know the effect was NOT shot in one take (it took almost half a year from what I remember, because cleanup took so long), it was a miniature (or a "maxiture", as some call them, think of it as 1/2 scale), and it was absolutely NOT shot in the hotel itself.... because there was no "real hotel". Only some of the outside shots were filmed on location at a hotel (and not even at the Hotel Stephen King stayed at himself, which was the Stanley in Colorado, the exterior shots in the movie were at the Timberline Lodge in Oregon), everything else was on a set in England. The same set that burned down thanks to faulty wiring from (I believe) the Empire Strikes Back set next door, ha. I believe you can see some of the unused takes in the behind the scenes floating around. You can definitely see them mopping it up off the studio floor.
@@cthulhujackwell you know what they say about the burden of proof 😊 Every source says it was a full scale practical. If they're wrong please prove it.
Nice recreation! One thing that could be improved, is the sprayed particles should be lighter in color. As the liquid is sprayed and grouped back together, air bubbles are introduced which lighten the fluid color
Wow I knew something was off but I didn't notice until you mentioned it. Wherever the blood touches objects and walls it just slides off, leaving no residue. The subconscious knows something is wrong, but consciously we don't know what. The uncanny valley isn't just for faces! @@zentoa
Yeah real world fluid particles become airborne mist when they get small enough. Very difficult to do convincingly in CG, hence a lot of large water sims just looking "mushy". The staining though I blame on Blender 😂 no matter what I tried dynamic paint crashed. Even low-res versions of the fluid failed. Shame coz I really wanted that.
For me, while the actual CGI quality has absolutely gone up, the one thing that always gives it away is the acting. Especially if it's something that the actor is supposed to be looking at or reacting to. I remember that behind the scenes with Treebeard in LotR and I just imagine how it would be if it was completely done in CGI
Car crash still looks way better and believable in practical effect. Even games have better computer generated car destruction than movies these days, ua-cam.com/video/Lqx2KKWI8aM/v-deo.htmlsi=QxhtcKcklzMVY61G How hollywood gets car crash CGI so wrong with multi million dollar budget is baffling to me.
One major thing I see missing in the simulated shot is the blood actually coloring the walls, in the practical shot wherever the blood hits the environment turns red, in the sim it just kind off stops and slides down the wall. Maybe some dynamic paint would improve it
This is a wildly impressive video to me. Not only is the finished render wonderful but you managed to give so much insight to someone who knows little to nothing about cg vfx work in such a concise manner in such a short vid. Bravo.
The fact that you’re a one man band and create this shot at such a high level in a little over a week without even having the crazy fast computers that professional VFX studios use is extremely impressive. If that price tag of $14K-$20K is accurate I hope that you’re making a very good living doing this.
he has craazy fast computers. A couple of years ago he showed off his settings and it was something like three or four 2080ti's, at the time, for really fast rendering using CUDA in cycles. It's probably been upgraded since then. Still, I swear this guy is my long lost brother, since he looks exactly like my brother.
@@luke_rs he mentioned in this video he was running 4 rtx3090's and even with that he ran out of gpu ram and had to finish the sim with CPU. I think the 14k estimate is very low considering how much of a pain in the ass realistic fluid sims can be. I wouldn't touch it for less, and I'm a one man shop with low overhead.
sorry to burst anyones bubble, but i'm pretty sure he is just as qualified as any other VFX artist, when they have a nasa computer in hands. VFX artistry is truly something to behold, these people are sorcerers
@@portobeIIa He's definitely on the same skill level, he just doesn't have the same tools. Being a one man band has no bearing on one's qualifications, but it is inspiring to know that being a one man band and getting the same professional results as a Hollywood studio is not only possible, but doable.
that price tag would be spread across the pipeline. people getting paid in matchmove, modeling, lookdev, fx, lighting, comp, production, and the studio cut.
My favorite practical effect will always be the hospital explosion in The Dark Knight movie. The explosives not going off properly but worked so Heath Ledger smacked the remote, got a fright when they worked and quickly ran into the bus makes the whole scene feel real cause it was!
As a kid I was obsessed with Cinema 4D but I was always limited by my computing resources and eventually I gave up on any 3D production. Now that I can afford whatever I need I've been wanting to get into Blender production but I keep telling myself I wouldn't be able to make the things I want to. The way you described everything and provided timeframes for certain parts showed me that I still understand everything I need to and I'm really only limited by how much time I'm willing to put in. It makes me so hyped to know that the ideas I've had lately are actually doable with time, I'm glad I found this video/channel! I will definitely check out your beginner series soon. Thanks 🙏
I suppose the key point is to get the fastest computers you can afford. That could mean the difference between waiting days and... waiting days for the endless renders to complete.
Mixture of CGI and practical is always the best option. You get natural reactions from actors, some reference for CGI, and possible problems with practical effects can be corrected by CGI. I always glorify "The Boys" for a nice balance of the two
Except The Boys is waaaay worse in their practical than their CGI. I honestly cannot give you one single fight scene I thought looked good or cared about, they're way behind the different movies they're poking fun at. That's why it's mostly supes just killing normal people who stand no chance and can be exploded with realistic looking CGI gore, because none of the hero on hero fights are even passable.
Just found your channel via algorithms I guess, and it's interesting of course, but my main comment is "Thank you for keeping things concise and (as much as possible) brief, without all the extra padding that many UA-camrs insert." Subscribed.
yeah recreating the whole set to this level is not ideal at all a vfx studio would just shoot this with a real camera then add the CG blood later on, you would only have to create rough blockouts of the objects when done this way
Hi Andrew, I really like the format of this video. You're giving us a tutorial, a benchmark (a competent artist should be able to model it in 2 days, texture in in 2 days), and feedback from artists/studio. Very informative. The way you've incorporated the ad for Poliigon is smooth as well. Thank you!
I’m here from the beginner doughnut tutorial and this whole process of animating realism using Blender is just astonishing to me. Maybe because I’m a beginner, but this took so much work, a lot of time, effort, and skill. And then another surprising thing I find is that most of the comments are only pointing out how it could be better. This is amazing work in my opinion, and it doesn’t seem that that’s a common enough opinion on this!
The problem is that if I don’t believe it then it’s just not good enough. And while I disagree with his take on RPO’s cgi in contrast to the original practical effects (RPO’s was believable and excellent), I saw his render and my first thought was ‘this is really gelatinous’ which removes the veil of believability
@@thanatosdriver1938The original practical effect, the blood was too thin, it was 1:3 scale, and it doesn't actually look realistic. Apparently people only have problems with that when it is CGI -_-' it is a ridiculous double standard.
@@SioxerNikita I’m not going to say that I was very happy with the original effects, but I believe it enough and that is good enough, I would rather people chose RPO’s model however
@@SioxerNikita I’ll take your word for it, but for what I saw in the video, RPO’s model was very believable, the original was perfectly fine but the presented recreation felt gelatinous. I believed the studio versions and I think that’s the goal to look for
to be honest, i started watching video only to see result, but in "why is cgi so common" part you mentioned true facts about watching cgi vs real captured projects. thanks for making this video.
Okay, I genuinely thought I have a good idea of what is CG and what is not, but Jesus Christ I have to admit, John Wick's CG team is super goated. Never during the film was I ever telling myself, "Yep, that is CG". The action was so cool and dynamic and "realistic", that I never really thought about how much CG were they using. You are now telling me that Paris Drift chas was pure CG? I genuinely thought it was a mix!
Ahhh, you make it sound so easy to replicate the scene. I am glad I am "only" retouching and creating photorealistic pictures. And the same rules apply there. Working with Photoshop since 1992 I can say I am pretty proud of myself that after years I figured out by myself that graining and blurring a picture makes it often more realistic than even the correct lighting. Imperfect artefacts I call them. Sadly I don't have the ressources or the time to go into 3D modelling though it twitches me everytime I see your work. But a day has only but 24 hours. Keep up the good work!
Always a pleasure to hear Andrew talk about CG in the film industry , you learn something and get entrained at the same time very slick. Thank you Blender Guru
Everything was just so awesome except I differ on the observation that Shelley's perception feels confusing. I believe it feels exactly what it should feel like. We see things from her point of view and are immersed in that shot. And it could not have been better any other way because the ambiguity whether it's real or not. I think it's pretty clear that the hotel is playing mind tricks on everyone so it becomes all about how maddening can these visions get.
I definitely agree with you the whole point of the movie is the characters in the movie and the audience should feel at unease about how real the things we see in the house are and whether its just hallucinations or really are ghosts and other horrors. Its meant to be ambiguous.
Yeah that part irritated me honestly. It helps build the tone of suspense and uneasiness. All FX whether practical or digital should be there to support the story being told, not just for the sake of looking good IMO.
Also love all the people complaining about someone's take on the shining 😂 pretty sure people are allowed to come away with their own conclusions. Just like people can dislike something you like. You don't have to surround yourself with ONLY opinions that match yours.
@@SoggyMicrowaveNugget I am not sure you appreciate the irony in what you have written - we were literally having an opinion, just one you don't like. Clearly several people shared similar opinions and discussions were had, that's what people do - we are a social species after all. Overall I found the video interesting and informative, I had an opinion on the more subjective part of the video... I wasn't aware that wasn't allowed.
Great result! Big issue that you seemed to have missed 10:40 : simulation could have used some extra geometry to the right, a wall not visible, perpendicular to the elevators walls. In the original shot, just after the flow begins, we can see a lot of blood boucing on a wall not visible on the right. You got no wall there, eyes follow the first movements of blood, waiting for them to come back, but they never do. Other than that it's a really impressive work.
I think the tiny droplets forming a light red mist around the splashing areas is missing from the both CGI shots. The lack of the mist highlights the CGI fluid motion and also makes the fluid look darker and sharper. This is one of the more clearly visible reasons why the CGI version feels somehow off.
here's a tip, when simulating liquids, they stick to objects and drip or stain or soak into the object, colorizing it, or darkening the surface, as well, droplets that are disturbed enough can split way smaller
When I saw Top Gun Maverick in the theater, I had no idea they were flying in real jets, I assumed it was all CG and sets. I thought the movie was pretty good. After I learned it was all real, I watched it again at home and it instantly became my favorite movie of the year.
Really liked the video- i always had interest in blender but i dont have the knowledge and tools for that so this was very enriching! You just earned a subscribe:) Btw on a side note, i cant agree more with you about cgi having less thrill. Even if the cgi of the blood recreates the practical version fully by 100 percent, the thought of having actual blood flowing out(even taller than an average human! Imagine blood falling on top of you like an avalanche) onto a hotel corridor and splashing onto the fabric furnitures hits different. Gotta love realistic shots for that
@@loganmedia4401 No, it is literally the vision of the entire movie. Things that require no CG like the butler in the bathroom or the twins or the weird bear costume also come with the question, is this real or not? A CG butler wouldn't have changed that, but it would've made it worse.
Few notes about Flip Fluids: you usually don't need to wait 10 min to know its all wrong: enable "auto-load" at bottom of FF panel, it will load frames as they are simulated, a few frames in should know if you need to stop and change anything. The same way use "save states" for every X frames, don't need need to start from scratch every time, just choose the saved state right before the frame you wanna tweak settings/obstacles.
One thing to note about the scene in The Shining, is that it is a miniature. Meaning, the reset time and cost were not close to what it would be with a full size set. And it also dictated that Shelley could not be in it, nor a well payed stunt double. And, I think the distancing of having them separated do help conveying how unreal the vision is for the character. And while I am a proponent for CGI for safety. I also think that rarely do the virtual camerawork convey the the realism that real cameras conveyed back in the day when CGI was not an option. Even in cases like in the Extraction 2 helicopter on train. It might be real. But they shot it like they would with a virtual camera. The homogenizing of the color grade also contribute to it looking like safe CGI. Looking at another example of train and helicopter action, like. Jackie Chan's Police Story 3: Supercop. We have very different style of camerawork. Camerawork that conveys how they barely got things to work. Some mistakes and telltale fakery are there. Same thing with the Shining recreation in Ready Player One. The camera swings about in a way that I would never buy if they wanted me to think it was real. It looks like a CG camera, so I think it is one. If they made it with cameras that would simulate real cameras, it would keep my immersion so much more. Even if they reduced the character animation to essentially a rag doll puppet, or even better, a Phil Tippet miniature. This is my main problem (at least, one of the main ones) with modern anything possible action scenes. When I see a camera fly about the scene perfectly, I assume the whole shot is CG. When everything looks perfect. Nothing looks perfect. Or it may be my age showing. Them youngling whippersnappers with them tickitocks and zooms probably don't mind at all.
Whether the creation of movies or video games, I find it very frustrating when the _professionals_ --- I mean those who ultimately call the shots --- don't seem to care about details like this. Because you know they understand the issues.
I had always assumed it was a miniature too (a "bigature" to be sure, but still not full-scale). But a 2018 Yahoo interview with Leon Vitali made me realise it was done full scale. Amazing stuff.
Do professional photographers/cinematographers who work with real cameras get annoyed with CG artists who use the term “depth of field” in completely the opposite sense?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Can you explain what you mean? Because in video games, there has been a frustrating trend for quite some time to call an arbitrary _reduction_ in the depth of field "Depth of Field". It's frustrating because in first-person games, the camera represents the human eye(s), and thus the depth of field should be infinite so that the player can clearly discern any point in the scene at will at any time.
Imo when you mix both practical and cg elements it gets so unbelievably real even more than either of them alone. For example, The Mandalorian, mixes an LED screen for the background and CG for the rest of the effects making such mesmerizing shots, even Mando's armor shines reflecting the surroundings without having to do too much editing. I love the world of effects, I watch some movies literally for the purpose of having amazing cg/effects sometimes. Great video tho; I loved it man.
You can totally spot the difference between CGI and practical effects sometimes! But honestly, when done right, they can both be super convincing. It’s like a magic trick-some just hit differently!
I usually don't watch Blender tutorials, because I do VFX for my channel in Maya but I truly enjoyed watching your thoughts on why CGI perform better than practical effects and totally agree with your point of view! :) Thank you for interesting video :)
It's the mist, when you have a lot of water rushing around like that it creates a nice fine mist everywhere. It seems that this is always missing in CGI remakes, on top of that the droplets are chunky.
The practical effects cost is a little off because Kubrick was a camera expert. He would make his own cameras, and do all the camera work himself. Which eliminates almost the entire 25,000 dollar cost.
Really well done video with really nicely concluded. CGI is like a magic, although it's also an art form just like practical effects, it's a lot easier to fool people than convinced people that they have been fooled.
A film like Constantine comes to my mind on how they would work with an array of resources, to provide a great entertaining movie that looks incredible: they blend CGI, practical effects, green screen compositing and even miniature work when they were filming.
Whether Shelley sees the blood or not is the whole point… it’s the whole point of the film basically. You really think Kubrik would have had a problem washing Shelley away with blood if he’d wanted too? ;)
7:30 - I believe they didn't just get one part of the shot, because the camera got jammed. The team told Tarkovsky, that they can splice it together from what they already have, but he said without that one shot the film WOULDN'T be complete. In the docu (which you can find on ytb btw) they mention this to show how determined director he was and the only director in CCCP that did and got exactly what he wanted. Which wasn't normal.
Fun fact: there were only one or two outside shots of the hotel in the shining, the rest was all rebuilt and filmed in London, even the whole front of the hotel was rebuilt as a set.
That’s what made the original Star Wars so freaking amazing and so popular, all of the effect were practical. If I remember what I read correctly, they spent and wasted over $500k on the Death Star external shots where various parts of the Death Star get blown up while the camera crew drove by on a pickup on the sidewalk until the shot was absolutely perfect.
What you didn't talk about is ever improving cgi, and us viewers unconsciously learning how it's done better. This makes it for me that movies which used actual stunts or miniature props to blow up age better than the cgi ones.
That was a very interesting video. Thank you for taking the time to render all of that despite knowing that the practical effect would still look better.
It wasn't all CG, the capturing of the inside of the car and the shots of John from outside was real Keanu sitting in a real muscle car. The shots of the stuntmen around the car were real stunt men around real cars. Both the top down and outside view of the car doing donuts around the other cars was a real car really doing donuts around other real cars. CG studios love to do this thing where they include the best scenes from a movie they worked on, and if it has _any_ CG on it they include it in their reels. They use CG to show where they _layered_ over practical footage without explicitly stating that what you're being shown is the framwwork/visual representation of a real object for layering purposes, not actually their renders. You can see behind the scene footage from Lionsgate itself that shows what's real and what's on greenscreen. It makes their CG look better because you assume what is captured reality is just a CG creation. They're not going to tell you 95% of the car work in all the JW movies were real, and stunts like the hangar scene in JW or the car jump in JW2 was _actually_ Keanu Reeves driving. They won't include the CGI dogshit on John Wick's lawn in the first movie which was the most expensive individual CG in the whole movie. But they'll make every action scene where they just added muzzle flare or layered two practical shots on each other look 100% digitally rendered, even when audiences know that a 100% digitally rendered scene always looks bad.
@@billbill6094 Late reply on my part, but that makes a lot of sense. Definitely an easy way to con investors and producers into inflating the VFX budget, though I have a feeling not a lot of that is going to paying their artists given all the stories I've heard about underpaid work in the industry. Also, I glossed over this at first, but CGI DOGSHIT?! TF WERE THEY THINKING?!!
I like practical effect for same reasons I love stop-motion. It's just so cool to think someone used real materials and crafted something so detailed. It's really hard work❤
Very nice! Good to see some more in-depth videos again. I think the only thing missing from the render was the micro spray from the furniture as it was hit by the blood but I imagine that would have increased the render times quite a lot, oh also they could have built miniatures for the shots as an option to save costs.
I am pro practical effects in almost every scenario and hope the industry re-ups on its importance. CG is actually not cheaper in most circumstances, it just costs more time and that's what Hollywood cares more about. That said, I can appreciate CG for hiding the seams and making the truly impossible, possible. I appreciate your tutorials, and the work many do. Thank you for this video!
I got to say I was waiting for you to say the practical effects are worse, I’m very happy you admitted practical is king. Thank you for this video. Very eye opening.
Download premium textures, models and HDRIs at Poliigon: www.poliigon.com
Hey, I noticed that fluid just jumps off and leaving no stained and getting absorbed so if we manage that i think that the shot will be nearest to the actual one
was about to say the exact same thing ! for some reason the ready player one shot doesn't leave stains too.
It honestly doesn't even seem like you tried, you couldn't even get the colour remotely close to blood so of course we see a tsunami of poo flowing down the hallway. You could have done way better dude.
i wouldnt have beleieved that john wick car scene was cgi until you showed it. wtf?
@@deeplaysgaming4754 same
The one issue with the 3d recreation is that the particles of blood just bounce off the wall. In the film version they leave splatters of "blood" on the walls which makes it even creepier. But as both a fledgling Blender user as well as a massive Shining fan, I really enjoyed this video! Absolutely fantastic job with the end result!
i was looking for this comment!
🙂@@JonnehSpaz
With the way computers have been advancing, we won't be able to tell the difference between computer renders and real life in a couple years. Just look at how AI, which is relatively new, has already changed basically every industry.
That's not even the only problem, in the practical shot, the blood isn't just one amorphous mass, it creates a mist of smaller particles as it moves and collides. In comparison the CGI just looks wrong, like it's a thick molasses type liquid.
The recreation in Ready Player One is a lot better, but it still has that thick, molasses-y look to it that a lot of CGI liquid effects have in places.
This is an issue of the simulation. All it takes is a movie to really want to focus on Blood Simulation to fix it, like the advances to Sand Simulation as a result of the spiderman film with Sandman. If the simulation knows how to mist surface particles (Similar to the creation of Sea Foam in ocean simulation) and create surface changes instead of bouncing (Or, even, breaking into smaller particles to splash)? It'll look a LOT better. The problem? Cost and effort. Not only would that be a lot more expensive to render (Due to the increased complexity), it would be more expensive to create the software to do it instead of using off-the-shelf simulation software like both examples of the CGI scene here did.
The CGI version probably looks less realistic because of the blood stains and the mist like effect, the blood leaves behind in the original, being omitted. This just goes to show how much effort goes into creating such scenes which is absolutely praise worthy.
the results are just wonderful
Absolutely. It would be 100% possible to add those in, it would just make the simulation a lot more complex as it's adding in two more aspects (Misting, which you'd use a similar approach to Sea Foam simulation for, and dynamic textures to create the smears)
yes because he's not using the state of the art liquid simulation tools like avatar, then it would've been a different outcome.
i also think that the color is a bit too dark, but overall it looks very well!
I like to use real human blood. The viscosity is hard to match to the inferred temp of the scene with anything else. I have been stuck asking interns to tidy up gloopy dog blood after an arctic zombie massacre too many times. I had to change my name to skirt a blacklist.
Also if you look at the door of the real one it's naturally smoother with better lighting while the other looks a bit too sharp and has a plastic look that you notice more when staring at it.
“We don’t know if this is real or she hallucinated it”
My man, that’s the whole point of the movie.
yeah :)
legit it took me out when he said it would be better if she was swept away by the blood T . T
I literally screamed that when he said those magic words
"Which is why I think this shot could be improved..."
I got a good chuckle out that bit.
"JUST LIKE READY PLAYER ONE"
I am dead.
Random trivia:
At the time, the MPAA didn't allow any blood to be shown in movie trailers that would be shown to all ages.
Kubrick wanted the blood elevator to be featured in the trailer. He told them, "that's not blood, that's silly. It's rusty water."
They believed him and the scene got passed the censors
Censors
@@SioxerNikita
Oops. Thank you 👍.
It's been fixed😁
You're supposed to wonder if she's hallucinating. That's part of the movie. If she interacted with it then the movie would actually be less scary.
I've noticed CG guys like him and Corridor have a disconnect from the visions of filmmakers. It's do it CG because the CG looks good, not does this CG serve the narrative and themes of this story? The acting is what's important in this scene, the insanity of what's happening is important in this scene. What's not important is a sense of action and kineticness like "the blood slams her against the wall."
@@billbill6094 Also happens in some of the 'artist fixes other artist's stuff' videos
@billbill6094 i think the point wasn't to make a better shot, it was to show what you could do with CGI
I have to disagree on the "we don't know if shelly hallucinated" line. The blending of hallucination and reality, losing the ability to determine what is real and imaginary, is a very powerful part of good psychological horror.
Absolutly. Having her physically interacting with the blood would look cool, but I think it would be a little too much. I don't like when movies "cheat" with hallucinations that break the pyschological barrier because you're introducing a paranormal phenomena and then you can't prentend "oh, it was all in the character's head all along".
i commented the exact same thing xD as someone who is heavily invested in film and has made a few small (terribly bad) short films, it gives a strong emotion for the story and that can really not be done with cgi, not in a million years i believe, the real thing just makes it plainly more believable
100% Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should, which I think is one of the biggest problems with CGI - there's nowhere near as many limits or constraints so often lesser filmmakers will throw everything at a scene and it will just be a bit cheesy and over the top.
Sure but I think the point was more about the filmmaker having the option to do things that might genuinely enhance the film (in some other circumstance), where safety would otherwise be a limiting factor. The particular shot, even the genre of psychological horror, was just an example.
@@henreh99 This is one of my biggest problem with CGI. Some film makers make so over the top scenes that makes them not believable. It's a great tool, but in wrong hands it can just ruin everything.
The main problem with your and ILM's recreation is that the CGI recreations are just making globs of fluid, whereas, as you can see in the original, the "real" blood (whatever fluid they were using for fake blood) also created a mist where the blood was aerosolizing. That would have probably added another few days, but it's one of the things that makes these fluid sims stand out as fake.
It's meant to be fake since it's supposed to take place in a video game.
@@Cookedfrfrfrright, but shane was talking about blenderguru's recreation, which was trying to recreate the original, not the game. he just used ILM's version as a comparison because they are a big studio.
Yep. Could be done with separate geometry node setups and a lot more time. But I had to draw the line somewhere and deliver it :P
It's also not painting the walls, just falling off of them
And I was talking about blenderguru talking poorly about ILM's not being perfect. And the case for that is because it isn't supposed to look perfect. @@PeterKudelin
One thing you forgot (which may not be possible with flip fluids) is wet maps on the walls. Your walls stay perfectly white even as they get splattered with blood.
to me the biggest give away as well. everything seems to be water repellent.
He did actually try that, with the ‘Dynamic Paint’ effect in Blender, but that feature always just kept his Blender application crashing, until he gave up and rendered without it.
exactly
LOL nice
@@FoxelbetonStrange. I've done it many times, also using the flipfluids add-on.
As a close-up magician, I often explain to newer magicians or crowds that a good magic performance should be like watching a movie with great CGI, where you don't notice the secret. Funny that you explain CGI by referencing magic!
I'm disappointed that you didn't mention another aspect of why CGI is cheaper. Until very recently, CGI artists were mostly not unionized, and are still underpaid quite frequently.
The guy’s quite right/conservative leaning so don’t expect him to ever highlight it
Yeah it's the actual most important and crucial reason, and it gets magically left out. CGI isn't just incidentally cheaper as if it's some fact of nature.
@@Coffeekinns really? did not know that, have he said it or something like that?
@@Coffeekinns obsessed
No one important cares. CGI looks like shit almost all the time.
The fact that real liquid sticks to the walls makes the biggest difference for me.
It's like when people's hands don't clip through solid objects. Really helps sell it.
I love how this is both a tutorial and an essay on the film industry. You get to learn how to make it and the meaning behind it. Love it!
this!
and the next best thing is that we got to see same thing as in the thumbnail
8:56 "because we don't know if this is real or if she hallucinated it." I feel like this is actually important for the film in question. Having Shelly get swept away by a CG tsunami of blood might be more impressive on a technical level, it would of actually detracted from the story that was being presented. All FX whether practical or digital should be there to support the story being told, not just for the sake of looking good IMO.
Exactly
Considering that there is no blood splatter sticking to the walls or ceiling, I'd say hallucination... 😆
Absolutely. This take could even be used as a clear "what's wrong with CGI". Being able to do pretty much everything without limitations has led directors to be less creative in their shots and ruining the suspense created by these technical limitations/cinematographic standards. Nowadays, it's difficult to be impressed by a scene because CGI can theoretically shoot it in every way possible and always choose the most "perfect" one. In a kind of paradox, it's "too perfect" and the mind relates more with the imperfections and limitations he's used to see in the real world and in classic cinema shots.
And also yes ; the entire story/film is playing on this ambiguïty on whether or not they are seeing these things happening or if it's just hallucinations. So it absolutely make sense to not give it away in this scene as well... Such a bad take from OP.
EDIT : But I've just read him take the L on it, so no hard feelings.
Agree!
@@pscm9447 "You were so pre-occupied with with whether or not you could, you never stopped to think if you should!"
I think an often overlooked con of CG is often touted as a pro (including in this video): it lets filmmakers do whatever they want. On the surface, this seems like a good thing, but limitations are one of the most important aspects of the artistic process. They give shape and grounding to the work. The shining feels real. You can picture being there. And it’s not just because practical sets/effects are real, it’s because of what happens. It’s like the infamous crystal skulls jungle chase. That scene would still be unbelievable if the CG was indistinguishable from reality.
Totally agree. It’s the difference between things feeling grounded and believable or just being a video game cutscene
Bingo! You just nailed a big part of the problem right on the head!
I can see your reasoning, but me personally that seems like a skill issue.
George Lucas is the perfect example of this. He was restrained by the potential of the technology in the 1970’s, so they had to adapt and use a lot of move magic to make star wars look amazing. He did lots of interviews complaining that he wasn’t able to fully realize his vision. Then he get CGI and can do what ever the hell he wants and we get the special editions and the prequels. 😐 Many of the greatest films ever made were enriched by the limitations of cameras, special effects or studio censorship. With censorship, many directors and writers had to be much more sophisticated and subtle in order to put their viewpoints into films (Scorsese calls this “smuggling”). Anyway, I hate CGI and digital cameras, it makes filmmakers lazy.🤷🏼♂️
You dislike overuse of CG because it doesn't provide filmmakers with eough restrictions that grounds their creations in reality
I dislike overuse of CG because some Filmmakers don't understand that there's real work behind the creation of CG scenes, leading to them overwoeking the CG department which in turn leads to the CG department not doing polished scenes
(Don't wanna disagree with your argument here, just wanted to bring up another poin in a boring meme format)
The fact that I know nothing about cgi and have never watched anything like this and just watched all the way through till the end completely engrossed…. Wow
I've always felt that the ambiguity whether what Shelley's character sees is real or not, was awesome and it always felt intended. Like the lady in the room, is she actually there or not? Is she old or young? Are the three girls real or just in the kid's head? Not knowing makes it all so much more eerie.
Yeah, that's what Kubrik was going for in that adaptation. The book and the other movie adaptations go into how the magic works and what really happened, but I personally think that it takes away from the horror element. Also that's why King doesn't like Kubrik's movie.
kubrick's films usually leave little explained, so i feel that's intentional
our minds work with what we've got right? I'm indifferent to what Kubrick intended since I also had the same impression as you
@@zachhoywhat?
Exactly - I had to stop the video there and write something similar - it irked me, Not knowing adds to the suspense and eeriness! As I wrote elsewhere I feel all FX whether practical or digital should be there to support the story being told, not just for the sake of looking good IMO.
One glaring thing I saw overlooked was the staining on the walls.
The CGI kinda makes the water looks bouncy...as apposed to sticky.
I've made an error at 10:39. Apparently the practical blood effect is actually a 1:3 scale miniature not 1:1, and it was 12 takes not one! Maybe it's the Mandela effect, but Leon Vitali (Kubrick's assistant) remembers it as a real one-take shot (and said so in Yahoo interview). But I've since found two other sources (ua-cam.com/video/SD0V_hd-Kwk/v-deo.html & www.shiningsets.nl/) which state otherwise. So I'll be cross referencing my sources next time!
Also, apparently my suggestion at 8:58 caused quite a stir! It was *supposed* to be tongue in cheek but I trimmed so much script that it just sounds like the worst take of all time 😂Sorry about that.
And answering a few other common questions:
1. I tried to make the blood stain the walls but dynamic paint in Blender kept crashing. Even low-res fluid. Defeated, I gave up and hoped nobody would notice.
2. The reason the original looks more red is actually quite fascinating. Unlike CG, real world fluid can get so small it turns to mist which *appears* more colorful because there's less absorption in smaller particles compared to big ones. CG fluid can't make particles that small (without even longer bake times or faking it) so it looks darker but is actually the same color!
3. The furniture moving was just manual keyframing. Nothing fancy.
Point 5 did seem like a joke to me, but I'm sure there are a bunch of people on the fence. Great clarification :) The viscosity of the blood and light quality pass through is super interesting.
you have a lot of white noise from your mic. I recomand that you buy a cloud lifter so you boost the audio levels whitout adding more noise.
Look, I'm not calling Vitali a liar, it's been 40 years and almost everyone involved is either dead or fumbling into old age. But I know the effect was NOT shot in one take (it took almost half a year from what I remember, because cleanup took so long), it was a miniature (or a "maxiture", as some call them, think of it as 1/2 scale), and it was absolutely NOT shot in the hotel itself.... because there was no "real hotel". Only some of the outside shots were filmed on location at a hotel (and not even at the Hotel Stephen King stayed at himself, which was the Stanley in Colorado, the exterior shots in the movie were at the Timberline Lodge in Oregon), everything else was on a set in England. The same set that burned down thanks to faulty wiring from (I believe) the Empire Strikes Back set next door, ha. I believe you can see some of the unused takes in the behind the scenes floating around. You can definitely see them mopping it up off the studio floor.
Rare Blender Guru L ???
@@cthulhujackwell you know what they say about the burden of proof 😊 Every source says it was a full scale practical. If they're wrong please prove it.
He forgot the stains on the walls
The biggest problem is that blood in your CGI doesn’t stain walls and furnitures
Nice recreation! One thing that could be improved, is the sprayed particles should be lighter in color. As the liquid is sprayed and grouped back together, air bubbles are introduced which lighten the fluid color
plus staining
Wow I knew something was off but I didn't notice until you mentioned it. Wherever the blood touches objects and walls it just slides off, leaving no residue. The subconscious knows something is wrong, but consciously we don't know what. The uncanny valley isn't just for faces! @@zentoa
@@zentoa Funny how I only noticed that once I read your comment.
Blood is exactly like what he made in cgi. He tried to make a realistic render, not copy the actual practical stunt.
Yeah real world fluid particles become airborne mist when they get small enough. Very difficult to do convincingly in CG, hence a lot of large water sims just looking "mushy".
The staining though I blame on Blender 😂 no matter what I tried dynamic paint crashed. Even low-res versions of the fluid failed. Shame coz I really wanted that.
For me, while the actual CGI quality has absolutely gone up, the one thing that always gives it away is the acting. Especially if it's something that the actor is supposed to be looking at or reacting to. I remember that behind the scenes with Treebeard in LotR and I just imagine how it would be if it was completely done in CGI
Car crash still looks way better and believable in practical effect. Even games have better computer generated car destruction than movies these days, ua-cam.com/video/Lqx2KKWI8aM/v-deo.htmlsi=QxhtcKcklzMVY61G
How hollywood gets car crash CGI so wrong with multi million dollar budget is baffling to me.
One major thing I see missing in the simulated shot is the blood actually coloring the walls, in the practical shot wherever the blood hits the environment turns red, in the sim it just kind off stops and slides down the wall. Maybe some dynamic paint would improve it
he said he tried and it wouldn’t cooperate
Easy to say but not easy to do lol
@@pedronchoxgrc19dead island 2 does it with paint feature and voxels 💯
Insert Phil Tippett quote
@@IamTheWordofGod That doesnt mean is easy
they say CGI costs less than practical, but all modern films have budgets so bloated i cant help but think they dont care about costs at all
Most of it is paying for the same expenses hit actors.
Honestly they’d be better off getting good but lesser known actors with real practical shots.
in the cgi version the blood does not leave marks on the wall 😊
This is a wildly impressive video to me. Not only is the finished render wonderful but you managed to give so much insight to someone who knows little to nothing about cg vfx work in such a concise manner in such a short vid. Bravo.
The fact that you’re a one man band and create this shot at such a high level in a little over a week without even having the crazy fast computers that professional VFX studios use is extremely impressive. If that price tag of $14K-$20K is accurate I hope that you’re making a very good living doing this.
he has craazy fast computers. A couple of years ago he showed off his settings and it was something like three or four 2080ti's, at the time, for really fast rendering using CUDA in cycles. It's probably been upgraded since then. Still, I swear this guy is my long lost brother, since he looks exactly like my brother.
@@luke_rs he mentioned in this video he was running 4 rtx3090's and even with that he ran out of gpu ram and had to finish the sim with CPU.
I think the 14k estimate is very low considering how much of a pain in the ass realistic fluid sims can be. I wouldn't touch it for less, and I'm a one man shop with low overhead.
sorry to burst anyones bubble, but i'm pretty sure he is just as qualified as any other VFX artist, when they have a nasa computer in hands. VFX artistry is truly something to behold, these people are sorcerers
@@portobeIIa He's definitely on the same skill level, he just doesn't have the same tools. Being a one man band has no bearing on one's qualifications, but it is inspiring to know that being a one man band and getting the same professional results as a Hollywood studio is not only possible, but doable.
that price tag would be spread across the pipeline. people getting paid in matchmove, modeling, lookdev, fx, lighting, comp, production, and the studio cut.
It's an absolute pleasure to see you again Andrew
any idea where he went?
@@tasha6934 maybe he's been working on his podcast or just spending more time with his family as he said a year or more ago
Real blender heads know he is a cornball phony homo scammer who just happens to have made the best and most iconic introduction tutorial
You Turned A Normal Video Into A Treasure For Cinephile. Kudos
My favorite practical effect will always be the hospital explosion in The Dark Knight movie. The explosives not going off properly but worked so Heath Ledger smacked the remote, got a fright when they worked and quickly ran into the bus makes the whole scene feel real cause it was!
As a kid I was obsessed with Cinema 4D but I was always limited by my computing resources and eventually I gave up on any 3D production. Now that I can afford whatever I need I've been wanting to get into Blender production but I keep telling myself I wouldn't be able to make the things I want to. The way you described everything and provided timeframes for certain parts showed me that I still understand everything I need to and I'm really only limited by how much time I'm willing to put in. It makes me so hyped to know that the ideas I've had lately are actually doable with time, I'm glad I found this video/channel! I will definitely check out your beginner series soon. Thanks 🙏
I suppose the key point is to get the fastest computers you can afford. That could mean the difference between waiting days and... waiting days for the endless renders to complete.
Mixture of CGI and practical is always the best option. You get natural reactions from actors, some reference for CGI, and possible problems with practical effects can be corrected by CGI. I always glorify "The Boys" for a nice balance of the two
Except The Boys is waaaay worse in their practical than their CGI. I honestly cannot give you one single fight scene I thought looked good or cared about, they're way behind the different movies they're poking fun at. That's why it's mostly supes just killing normal people who stand no chance and can be exploded with realistic looking CGI gore, because none of the hero on hero fights are even passable.
@@billbill6094 the CGI in the boys only looked bad before season 3 came out because they still had a limited budget then
9:01 Really you thought it would be an "improvement" to put Shelley in the frame when the blood floods in? That's hilarious
Remove human acting, add in machine spectacle, the Mouse demands it. All cinema is Marvel cinema now and forever.
Just found your channel via algorithms I guess, and it's interesting of course, but my main comment is "Thank you for keeping things concise and (as much as possible) brief, without all the extra padding that many UA-camrs insert." Subscribed.
"The better one is obviously practical"
But you see, I think the best is the blend of both.
yeah recreating the whole set to this level is not ideal at all
a vfx studio would just shoot this with a real camera then add the CG blood later on, you would only have to create rough blockouts of the objects when done this way
In the original scene, there was mist coming from the blood splashing. Adding that element to your CGI could make it closer to the source material.
Hi Andrew, I really like the format of this video. You're giving us a tutorial, a benchmark (a competent artist should be able to model it in 2 days, texture in in 2 days), and feedback from artists/studio. Very informative. The way you've incorporated the ad for Poliigon is smooth as well. Thank you!
I’m here from the beginner doughnut tutorial and this whole process of animating realism using Blender is just astonishing to me. Maybe because I’m a beginner, but this took so much work, a lot of time, effort, and skill. And then another surprising thing I find is that most of the comments are only pointing out how it could be better. This is amazing work in my opinion, and it doesn’t seem that that’s a common enough opinion on this!
The problem is that if I don’t believe it then it’s just not good enough. And while I disagree with his take on RPO’s cgi in contrast to the original practical effects (RPO’s was believable and excellent), I saw his render and my first thought was ‘this is really gelatinous’ which removes the veil of believability
@@thanatosdriver1938The original practical effect, the blood was too thin, it was 1:3 scale, and it doesn't actually look realistic.
Apparently people only have problems with that when it is CGI -_-' it is a ridiculous double standard.
@@SioxerNikita I’m not going to say that I was very happy with the original effects, but I believe it enough and that is good enough, I would rather people chose RPO’s model however
@@thanatosdriver1938 If you had seen a modern day professional CGI first, you likely would have "believed" it
@@SioxerNikita I’ll take your word for it, but for what I saw in the video, RPO’s model was very believable, the original was perfectly fine but the presented recreation felt gelatinous. I believed the studio versions and I think that’s the goal to look for
to be honest, i started watching video only to see result, but in "why is cgi so common" part you mentioned true facts about watching cgi vs real captured projects. thanks for making this video.
Okay, I genuinely thought I have a good idea of what is CG and what is not, but Jesus Christ I have to admit, John Wick's CG team is super goated. Never during the film was I ever telling myself, "Yep, that is CG". The action was so cool and dynamic and "realistic", that I never really thought about how much CG were they using.
You are now telling me that Paris Drift chas was pure CG? I genuinely thought it was a mix!
Ahhh, you make it sound so easy to replicate the scene. I am glad I am "only" retouching and creating photorealistic pictures. And the same rules apply there. Working with Photoshop since 1992 I can say I am pretty proud of myself that after years I figured out by myself that graining and blurring a picture makes it often more realistic than even the correct lighting. Imperfect artefacts I call them. Sadly I don't have the ressources or the time to go into 3D modelling though it twitches me everytime I see your work. But a day has only but 24 hours. Keep up the good work!
but why no stains on the walls ?
Yeah
he tried to do that but it kept crashing
Always a pleasure to hear Andrew talk about CG in the film industry , you learn something and get entrained at the same time very slick. Thank you Blender Guru
incredibly interesting. I've never seen anything like this before and find it very exciting and well explained. craziness
7:06 "It would be about 50k." Me: *Verbalase flashbacks*
Everything was just so awesome except I differ on the observation that Shelley's perception feels confusing. I believe it feels exactly what it should feel like. We see things from her point of view and are immersed in that shot. And it could not have been better any other way because the ambiguity whether it's real or not. I think it's pretty clear that the hotel is playing mind tricks on everyone so it becomes all about how maddening can these visions get.
I definitely agree with you the whole point of the movie is the characters in the movie and the audience should feel at unease about how real the things we see in the house are and whether its just hallucinations or really are ghosts and other horrors. Its meant to be ambiguous.
Yeah that part irritated me honestly. It helps build the tone of suspense and uneasiness. All FX whether practical or digital should be there to support the story being told, not just for the sake of looking good IMO.
Also love all the people complaining about someone's take on the shining 😂 pretty sure people are allowed to come away with their own conclusions. Just like people can dislike something you like. You don't have to surround yourself with ONLY opinions that match yours.
@@SoggyMicrowaveNugget I am not sure you appreciate the irony in what you have written - we were literally having an opinion, just one you don't like. Clearly several people shared similar opinions and discussions were had, that's what people do - we are a social species after all.
Overall I found the video interesting and informative, I had an opinion on the more subjective part of the video... I wasn't aware that wasn't allowed.
@@SoggyMicrowaveNuggetWTF? Entitlement to opinion doesn't mean that no one can express their own against yours.
Great result! Big issue that you seemed to have missed 10:40 : simulation could have used some extra geometry to the right, a wall not visible, perpendicular to the elevators walls. In the original shot, just after the flow begins, we can see a lot of blood boucing on a wall not visible on the right. You got no wall there, eyes follow the first movements of blood, waiting for them to come back, but they never do. Other than that it's a really impressive work.
The idea of Shelley getting swept away by the blood is the stupidest thing I've ever heard
A blend of CGI and practical effects would be ideal.
If the limitations of practical effects weren't important to the realism of a scene, 3D artists wouldn't be trying so hard to replicate them.
I love watching these videos to fall asleep to. I've never used blender but I've never felt more relaxed lol
I think the tiny droplets forming a light red mist around the splashing areas is missing from the both CGI shots. The lack of the mist highlights the CGI fluid motion and also makes the fluid look darker and sharper. This is one of the more clearly visible reasons why the CGI version feels somehow off.
here's a tip, when simulating liquids, they stick to objects and drip or stain or soak into the object, colorizing it, or darkening the surface, as well, droplets that are disturbed enough can split way smaller
When I saw Top Gun Maverick in the theater, I had no idea they were flying in real jets, I assumed it was all CG and sets. I thought the movie was pretty good.
After I learned it was all real, I watched it again at home and it instantly became my favorite movie of the year.
Really liked the video- i always had interest in blender but i dont have the knowledge and tools for that so this was very enriching! You just earned a subscribe:)
Btw on a side note, i cant agree more with you about cgi having less thrill. Even if the cgi of the blood recreates the practical version fully by 100 percent, the thought of having actual blood flowing out(even taller than an average human! Imagine blood falling on top of you like an avalanche) onto a hotel corridor and splashing onto the fabric furnitures hits different. Gotta love realistic shots for that
"We never see Shelly and the blood in the same shot so we don't know if this is real, or if she hallucinated it."
That's. The. Point.
No, it's just a limitation of production at the time.
@@loganmedia4401 But it makes it way better. You can't expect a good movie when everything in it is handed to you.
@@loganmedia4401 No, it is literally the vision of the entire movie. Things that require no CG like the butler in the bathroom or the twins or the weird bear costume also come with the question, is this real or not? A CG butler wouldn't have changed that, but it would've made it worse.
Few notes about Flip Fluids: you usually don't need to wait 10 min to know its all wrong: enable "auto-load" at bottom of FF panel, it will load frames as they are simulated, a few frames in should know if you need to stop and change anything. The same way use "save states" for every X frames, don't need need to start from scratch every time, just choose the saved state right before the frame you wanna tweak settings/obstacles.
One thing to note about the scene in The Shining, is that it is a miniature. Meaning, the reset time and cost were not close to what it would be with a full size set. And it also dictated that Shelley could not be in it, nor a well payed stunt double. And, I think the distancing of having them separated do help conveying how unreal the vision is for the character.
And while I am a proponent for CGI for safety. I also think that rarely do the virtual camerawork convey the the realism that real cameras conveyed back in the day when CGI was not an option. Even in cases like in the Extraction 2 helicopter on train. It might be real. But they shot it like they would with a virtual camera. The homogenizing of the color grade also contribute to it looking like safe CGI. Looking at another example of train and helicopter action, like. Jackie Chan's Police Story 3: Supercop. We have very different style of camerawork. Camerawork that conveys how they barely got things to work. Some mistakes and telltale fakery are there. Same thing with the Shining recreation in Ready Player One. The camera swings about in a way that I would never buy if they wanted me to think it was real. It looks like a CG camera, so I think it is one. If they made it with cameras that would simulate real cameras, it would keep my immersion so much more. Even if they reduced the character animation to essentially a rag doll puppet, or even better, a Phil Tippet miniature.
This is my main problem (at least, one of the main ones) with modern anything possible action scenes. When I see a camera fly about the scene perfectly, I assume the whole shot is CG. When everything looks perfect. Nothing looks perfect.
Or it may be my age showing. Them youngling whippersnappers with them tickitocks and zooms probably don't mind at all.
Not miniatures.
Whether the creation of movies or video games, I find it very frustrating when the _professionals_ --- I mean those who ultimately call the shots --- don't seem to care about details like this. Because you know they understand the issues.
I had always assumed it was a miniature too (a "bigature" to be sure, but still not full-scale). But a 2018 Yahoo interview with Leon Vitali made me realise it was done full scale. Amazing stuff.
Do professional photographers/cinematographers who work with real cameras get annoyed with CG artists who use the term “depth of field” in completely the opposite sense?
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Can you explain what you mean? Because in video games, there has been a frustrating trend for quite some time to call an arbitrary _reduction_ in the depth of field "Depth of Field".
It's frustrating because in first-person games, the camera represents the human eye(s), and thus the depth of field should be infinite so that the player can clearly discern any point in the scene at will at any time.
9:18 this shot in 1917 blew my mind with the plane crashing into frame.
i'm sure one practical aspect that makes the CGI more useful at least is no one has to clean up that bloody mess afterwards!
Imo when you mix both practical and cg elements it gets so unbelievably real even more than either of them alone.
For example, The Mandalorian, mixes an LED screen for the background and CG for the rest of the effects making such mesmerizing shots, even Mando's armor shines reflecting the surroundings without having to do too much editing.
I love the world of effects, I watch some movies literally for the purpose of having amazing cg/effects sometimes.
Great video tho; I loved it man.
That take on us not knowing if the blood is real or not being bad is going to live in my head rent free for days
Here's your unwanted reminder of that take.
Finally a high budget video from Andrew Price. Great quality as usual.
the last time i watched this over a year ago i understood almost nothing about this. Being able to understand most of things helps out a lot
You can totally spot the difference between CGI and practical effects sometimes! But honestly, when done right, they can both be super convincing. It’s like a magic trick-some just hit differently!
This video was a great change of pace from what you normally upload.
Very well done and you kept it interesting.
Thank you. I'm hoping to make more like this 👍
8:45 That's the Point
I usually don't watch Blender tutorials, because I do VFX for my channel in Maya but I truly enjoyed watching your thoughts on why CGI perform better than practical effects and totally agree with your point of view! :) Thank you for interesting video :)
It's the mist, when you have a lot of water rushing around like that it creates a nice fine mist everywhere. It seems that this is always missing in CGI remakes, on top of that the droplets are chunky.
The practical effects cost is a little off because Kubrick was a camera expert. He would make his own cameras, and do all the camera work himself. Which eliminates almost the entire 25,000 dollar cost.
Honestly, one of your best videos to date, that says a lot. Very insightful on many levels.
This one is probably my favourite video of yours. Really would like more movie recreations like this.
same, more recreations!
Like ruining the intent of a movie
I'll always enjoy people idiotocally missing the point of movies.
@@sumspring4112 ?
Great video! More of these! Kind of like Corridor, but one person and Blender-specific. Scene comparisons etc. Great to see you again!
I saw the thumbnail and my brain didnt fully register and I was like "WHAT DO YOU MEAN REAL?"
9:00 nah, The Shining is great because you don't know what's real and what's not
the guru has returned from his meditation
Really well done video with really nicely concluded. CGI is like a magic, although it's also an art form just like practical effects, it's a lot easier to fool people than convinced people that they have been fooled.
"The Shining would've been improved by a digital Shelley double" is definitely a take
“My four 3090s ran out of GPU memory” that’s a crazy line.
A film like Constantine comes to my mind on how they would work with an array of resources, to provide a great entertaining movie that looks incredible: they blend CGI, practical effects, green screen compositing and even miniature work when they were filming.
Have you even seen the movie?
That scene and most of the movie is supposed to be ambiguous.
Whether Shelley sees the blood or not is the whole point… it’s the whole point of the film basically. You really think Kubrik would have had a problem washing Shelley away with blood if he’d wanted too? ;)
7:30 - I believe they didn't just get one part of the shot, because the camera got jammed. The team told Tarkovsky, that they can splice it together from what they already have, but he said without that one shot the film WOULDN'T be complete. In the docu (which you can find on ytb btw) they mention this to show how determined director he was and the only director in CCCP that did and got exactly what he wanted. Which wasn't normal.
Fun fact: there were only one or two outside shots of the hotel in the shining, the rest was all rebuilt and filmed in London, even the whole front of the hotel was rebuilt as a set.
Oh my god the video is so in-depth. You feel like the Bob Ross of Blender.
"we don't know if this was real" is the point!
That’s what made the original Star Wars so freaking amazing and so popular, all of the effect were practical. If I remember what I read correctly, they spent and wasted over $500k on the Death Star external shots where various parts of the Death Star get blown up while the camera crew drove by on a pickup on the sidewalk until the shot was absolutely perfect.
What you didn't talk about is ever improving cgi, and us viewers unconsciously learning how it's done better. This makes it for me that movies which used actual stunts or miniature props to blow up age better than the cgi ones.
That was a very interesting video. Thank you for taking the time to render all of that despite knowing that the practical effect would still look better.
Wow, I didn't even know that one drifting scene from John Wick 4 was CG. They really nailed that one!
It wasn't all CG, the capturing of the inside of the car and the shots of John from outside was real Keanu sitting in a real muscle car. The shots of the stuntmen around the car were real stunt men around real cars. Both the top down and outside view of the car doing donuts around the other cars was a real car really doing donuts around other real cars.
CG studios love to do this thing where they include the best scenes from a movie they worked on, and if it has _any_ CG on it they include it in their reels. They use CG to show where they _layered_ over practical footage without explicitly stating that what you're being shown is the framwwork/visual representation of a real object for layering purposes, not actually their renders. You can see behind the scene footage from Lionsgate itself that shows what's real and what's on greenscreen.
It makes their CG look better because you assume what is captured reality is just a CG creation. They're not going to tell you 95% of the car work in all the JW movies were real, and stunts like the hangar scene in JW or the car jump in JW2 was _actually_ Keanu Reeves driving. They won't include the CGI dogshit on John Wick's lawn in the first movie which was the most expensive individual CG in the whole movie. But they'll make every action scene where they just added muzzle flare or layered two practical shots on each other look 100% digitally rendered, even when audiences know that a 100% digitally rendered scene always looks bad.
@@billbill6094 Late reply on my part, but that makes a lot of sense. Definitely an easy way to con investors and producers into inflating the VFX budget, though I have a feeling not a lot of that is going to paying their artists given all the stories I've heard about underpaid work in the industry.
Also, I glossed over this at first, but CGI DOGSHIT?! TF WERE THEY THINKING?!!
I think the only problem with the realism here is the blood simulation . Apart from that, it was fun to watch and you did a great job!
6:39 still, the liquid beads too much. This is such a common issue with cgi fluid.. it beads. Thinner liquids, even blood, wouldn’t do that.
here after agatha all along. the practicality of the show was amazing and added so much, especially rio’s exit. that was scary but badazz
I like practical effect for same reasons I love stop-motion. It's just so cool to think someone used real materials and crafted something so detailed. It's really hard work❤
Very nice! Good to see some more in-depth videos again. I think the only thing missing from the render was the micro spray from the furniture as it was hit by the blood but I imagine that would have increased the render times quite a lot, oh also they could have built miniatures for the shots as an option to save costs.
Love how you put this together! Super insightful stuff :)
I am pro practical effects in almost every scenario and hope the industry re-ups on its importance. CG is actually not cheaper in most circumstances, it just costs more time and that's what Hollywood cares more about. That said, I can appreciate CG for hiding the seams and making the truly impossible, possible. I appreciate your tutorials, and the work many do. Thank you for this video!
I got to say I was waiting for you to say the practical effects are worse, I’m very happy you admitted practical is king. Thank you for this video. Very eye opening.
The blood stains on the wall in the practical shot are what make it. In the CG one, the walls are left perfectly clean.