Creating Moon Landing Footage with CGI
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- How I used CGI software to recreate a moon landing.
Make sure you check out Scan's great range of Studio devices here -
bit.ly/SCANNVI...
Here's a video about my general workflow approach. - • I've Been Using Blende...
F1 engine model - sketchfab.com/...
Apollo capsule model - sketchfab.com/...
Support this channel and get access to exclusive content on Patreon- / decoded
Facebook - / blenderdecoded
Twitter - / decodedvfx
#Blender #DECODED #B3d
I hope UA-cam's algorithm doesn't confuse this for moon landing disinformation.
when will the result for space challenge be released ????
I don't know how it possibly could given the title. /s
Moon landing was a lie already
Jk
Faked is a positively flagged word.
@@molo256 exactly
The animation looked great but I think the smoke and flame spurted out too fast giving the rocket a feel that it was smaller than it was in real life. Also, the gantries swung back a bit too fast also making the rocket feel smaller. Other than that it looked great. I'm looking forward to seeing the competition entries!
Great work. I am old enough to remember the moon landings actually watching them all on TV. This video brought it all back and is a great reflection on those fantastic events. Well done!!!
I'd love to see this mixed with an analog horror styled kane pixel camera and VHS effects claiming it's the real moon footage where they document the moon landing, the experiences on the moon and the discoveries that the public never found out about. Could be super interesting lore ideas there
If you're going to take on a challenge, might as well aim for The Moon.
🤦♂
I just seen this on reddit I had no idea it was yours.
Nothing but respect, thanks for sharing this
Thanks
You're a genius... Incredible
Now fake it with CGI that was available in 1969. 😉 Nice work, looks great.
Watch a movie called "2001:a space odyssey"..
@@moodisback LMAO!!!!!!! Whatever... kid.
@@NeilRoy ?
CGI Was Invented In 1973, Year After Last Apollo Flight
@@moodisback 2001 used VFX, but absolutely no CGI. Also, CGI in the 70s was extremely limited, and there was no way it could have been used to fake any of the apollo landings.
This is fantastic
This pretty much look like a solid sequence from a Hollywood movie..
Thats even better then what Stanley Kubrick did :D
Epic
Almost as good as the kubrick version, well done!
If you bounced it off a satellite dish in australia no one would know the difference.
Instead of the fire sim you abseloutly nailed it!
Thanks. Originally I spent all night baking out a massive 750 resolution simulation, but blender decided to override that at the last minute before rendering. So I had to quickly re-simulate all the smoke at 200 resolution, which doesn't look nearly as good, but I couldn't spent another day just baking a simulation.
Note to self for the future - make a backup of simulation caches.
Looks stunning 😍😍😍
best thing to do is just take the moon landing and say you did an amazing job its si life like :P
Dude is a really awesome tutorial, I just saw your tutorials in Default Cube and I want to follow you. Looking forward to seeing more tutorials from you.
you fuckin legend
How did they do the planes that hit the twins?
Your renders are always way too clean
You need new glasses.
@@DECODEDVFX You need new skills old man 😎
Blender fluid simulation system needs alot of work!!!
Great work!
I was kind of wondering at the smoke resolution. I’m glad you clarified that one in the video. I don’t think it would have been as noticeable if it had not been the first shot.
I think I would have put a couple of 2-D images of high detailed smoke over top of The video with a “color dodge” blending setting set at 50% opacity. Then had the image warp slightly for a split second before blotting everything out with a bright light layered on top. Of course pointing out that there’s a way to improve the shot, whether it be before the render or after’ kind of goes against the spirit of A timed challenge. I’m sure that you can think of hundreds of different ways you could make it look better. also I use A cell phone so any jury rigged embellishment that I come up with probably would not hold up to what a graphics card like yours can do.
Yeah, that would probably be a good workaround. I always make revision notes as I work, and fixing the smoke was quite far down the list compared to some far more glaring issues. If I had a bit more time, that's probably what I would've done.
nice. makes me nostalgic for Kerbal Space Program.
Making this made me nostalgic for KSP too. I started playing again this week.
@@DECODEDVFX Oooh, nice. That doesn't surprise me. If I were to make a similar-esque project then I'd be playing KSP as well. Perhaps KSP 2 if that is out by the time I make one.
Crazy how far technology has come! Back in the 60s they had to use miniatures and bluescreen. One of the VFX artists managed to escape area 51 years later and went on to make a series called star wars using the same techniques and found a company called ILM.
Thanks for coming clean man . The truth is finally coming out. CGI was actually far more capable back then ,but was kept top secret. Area 51 is a actually a huge render farm. Government had Rtx series equivalent graphics cards back in the 1960s . Who knew blender was developed by NASA though?
Sir do you have detailed tutorial for this
According to UA-cam fact checkers, this video is real.
You do everything the most inefficient way
Explain
@@tjseries3057 The floor of that structure in the platform for example, it doesn't need to be that high density, he can easily get away with doing it with a transparent texture instead, instead he has an unnecessarily high density mesh
Removing all the floors from the scene only knocks about 1.5 seconds off the render time per frame. If I had lots of objects in the scene then I would have optimized more, but it wasn't necessary in this case.
How long did the rendering take overall ? I'm always a bit annoyed with cycles animations because it takes so god damn long compared to UE5 for example.
About 12 hours. Well, it was more in reality because I had to re-render some shots, and blender crashed during a long render.
Volumetrics are slow, there's no way around it.
@@DECODEDVFX Yeah that's quite a long time indeed, looks great though so it was worth the wait ! Thanks man :)
I saw that on your n-panel u have ssgi as an add on, how can it be ??
It's this addon. n0451.gumroad.com/l/PgyXc
So THAT'S how 'they' did it? CGI. Who wouda' thort?
What
36 stars? I didn't know the moon landing was in the 1800s.
I was wondering when someone would notice the flag! :)
This looks fake to me , I don't think it's CGI I think it's real ! I think he really landed on the moon
Yo
I am eagerly waiting for the conspiracy theorists
I hate youtube compression
I personally think people are so used to see these shots in slow-mo that regardless of what you do, it looks fake when you show it in normal speed. Maybe it's just me.
Probably, yeah. Most rocket launch footage from back then is slowed down.
bals landing
tU*****!! *i! *^
That's no moon... it's a space station
Now, go back and re-make the video using the 1969 version of CGI.
is this really a challenge since the original was also fake?
I thought somebody might say this lmao
Proof?
Are you suggesting... that a moon landing can be faked ? 😂
In 2022 yes, but in 1969 nope
@@HugoFilho. Yeahhh... of course not... who ever said that ?
Considering that real moon-shot footage doesn't "fool" flat Earthers, I doubt your well done CGI will fool them either.