GOD: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket. BENDER : Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money. GOD : Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. The quote gains in majesty from its context
Brains crash all the time, seizures. Some people have them due to light. Its people that crash not the world, it kinda makes me think where the rendering is happening, in the world or in our minds.
Hair, water, and glass in my opinion, are the hardest things to simulate. I agree with you. I find this stuff fascinating when you dig into the details on why simulating something would be hard. It’s almost reverse engineering reality.
@@SirWrender I know. I feel like hair was the thing that everyone always talked about in the special features of animated films. Then after brave came out people just stopped talking about it. I wonder if the issues are still issues now or if it’s an old problem. I heard it described sort of like an atomic bomb. Each hair strand bumps into each other building up momentum until the simulation just freaks out for no apparent reason. I feel like monsters Inc. was another ground breaker in that department.
@@SirWrender ha! Just realized who this was. If you’re looking for ideas than a video exploring the question of whether it’s physics or relatedbility that make hand-to-hand combat for almost human shaped CG creatures believable. For example something that is shaped like a bear would not be able to generate much power using tae kwon do kicks. Would it look more believable to have realistic technique or realistic weight distribution?
I remember watching behind-the-scenes videos of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within back then, talking about how maybe like half of the rendering time of the movie was just for Aki's hair. It also explains why all the other characters have short hair, hair tied back or even no hair…
Man I missed Wren's deep-dives into very specific topics. I enjoy most of the content on this channel, but those hit particularly hard for me since he usually does either a science-y topic, or something crazy and obsessive about a sci-fi franchise... in either case, I love the effort you (Wren + the whole team involved) put into these vids.
Wren is honestly a great educator. Has a passionate energy, knowledgeable background, and ability to simplify complicated ideas. He really could have his own education channel and I bet it'd be huge!
@@jonathanarocho893 Markiplier is a fan of this channel and the Corridor Team, and got in contact them a little over a month ago where they (including Markiplier) reacted to his RUclips series "Markiplier in Space." He had another video with them "VFX PRO Must Guide Noob Through CGi Hell" where he has become their intern and I guess he just shows up now here and there 😂
Wren : finds an amazing shot Wren a few minutes later: realizes the shot was simpler than imagined Also Wren : fuck it, I wanna try the hard way and see it's worth it And that's why we love this channel
Just watched avatar the way of water and it’s definitely simulated. The light patterns changes accurately when a creature is disturbing the water surface. It’s crazy how good it looks.
@@salimsawandi9829 not true. everything is rendered, especially the water. There are two shots I think (an eye close up and one indoor scene (?)) that are not rendered. all outdoor scenes are practically completely CGI
When you consider if someone were to actually run that 11 year render, by the time it finishes you would probably be able to run an equivalent render in an hour with the advances in both hardware and render algorithms, probably also with some sort of AI enhancement thrown in.
Yeah I've thought that about stupidly long renders before. If it takes 18 months of tech progress to double your rendering speed you're better off waiting 18 months if a render takes more than 3 years. I guess if you ever found yourself in a situation like that you'd start rendering the first third of the animation and when the new system arrives use that to render the the remainder.
A similar concept is the Wait Calculation for Interstellar travel. Do you depart now with current technologies, or wait until you get even faster spaceships?
You can't wait for technology. It's why "The Works" was never completed - it would have been the first full 3D rendered movie, but the continual resetting because of technological advances meant it was never completed.
I think the main case where simulated caustics for an underwater shot would be more notably different than the gobo option, is when the thing catching the caustics is very close to the surface of the water. The parts of the dinosaur that are right up against the water would catch very different caustics than the parts further away, not just in brightness but in sharpness as well. If you move the dinosaur further underwater, the difference between the close parts and the far parts becomes less significant, and the result looks a lot more like the gobo.
You have officially won in life when you go into a field of work that you love. No matter your age it’s never too late to pick up a new hobby and potentially go into the field!
As far as I'm concerned I saw the trailer of Avatar the way of water multiple times and each time I caught some new details but talking about Caustics, yes they were both a mixture of original shots under water and perfect cgi because one can clearly see the rays of light in the trailer but that doesn't happen in real life and the Caustics get dull as depth increases also the clarity of water is the biggest factor in play here, cleaner the water more crisp are the Caustics
The randomness on the simulated caustics is why they feel better to my eye, the gobo is very cyclical. If it was an isolated beauty shot, the simulated will make a HUGE difference, but in the Dino scene it’s probably not worth it. Really cool topic!
@@catsnorkel I know precious little about VFX, but would it be possible to create a gobo that's the the length of time you need for your caustic effects? Like you have a 2 minute scene where you need that effect, so you make a 2 minute gobo, so there's no obvious loop in it? Would that be any easier or is that pretty much working out to the same effort to fake it from the start?
6:50, you can get that, physically correct caustics in Blender as well, and Blender has had that feature for over 6 months now and it's using a much more complex and advanced algorithm than photon mapping, it's called "manifold next event estimation" and it's based on a research paper released by weta digital, so there's a good chance they've used that method to calculate real caustics in avatar 2 by using their own renderer called Manuka. Great video nonetheless.
Though mnee calculates the caustics within the shadow of the object only, whereas photon mapping produces more realistic caustics inside and outside of the shadow
This is something all of the content creators should adopt in their videos " Enthusiasm " Cause when you are actually having fun doing what you're doing the viewer feels the energy and it prevents him from moving an inch. I personally enjoyed every second of this video.
@@madoss_1838 Damn only one year older XD and to think that once 20 was a big number. Anyway what I wanted to say was that it is a normal thing on the youtube platform to be enthusiastic about something 😂 Tho yes not much, I have to agree. But if you are interested in game development or stuff like that then lmk and I can hook u up with some of the best channels 😁
As a professional rendering engine developer, can I just say guys, this is a REALLY good video. Well done. Also, it's cute that you think 100 hours is slow to render. r.e. Avatar, WETA can certainly render caustics of the nature you showed "for real". Their renderer Manuka has a very flexible raytracing architecture that they can tune per shot. They have also released a phenomenal number of advanced papers recently for rendering complex light-transport scenarios, so I would guess that yes, those shots proabably were fully physically-plausible caustic renders (probably also with some creative license thrown on top for good measure).
@@Idiomatick ML isn't used as much as you might think in production rendering. IMO it's a hugely over-hyped technology. It's too difficult to control, and when it doesn't work, it's useless. So most of the time we specifically choose not to use it, especially for things like caustic rendering that demand reasonable frame-to-frame coherency, something ML is often terrible at.
This is honestly one of the most interesting things I've seen in a while, caustics are so mesmerizing! Would totally watch if you went more in depth on other types of effects!
I'm researching caustics and its 3d rendering at university and I must say: this was a great video. It was very informative without being overcomplicated. Also, the message about how computer graphics is all fake is super important because it's easy for us artists to forget that cgi is entirely simulation, that, for instance, no rays or photoms are really being traced or that no particle or wave is really interacting with matter and transfering energy to it etc. I say its easy to forget because I myself did it, focusing too much on physical accuracy when in the end rendering algorithms are just mathematical models that try to replicate real phenomena (and generally from the limited pov of a camera). It doesn't matter how good they are, they will never reach reality. At most they will seem visually close enough. When we remember that, we are free. Free not just to take some shortcuts as shown in the video, but free to explore cgi as what it is, a simulation, and embrace both the limitations of innacuracy and its hidden powers as part of the artwork, as a way of subverting the laws of physics and, because of that, creating better and more powerful scenes (yet physically innacurated) and telling better and more touching stories with them.
I'm reminded of a Usenet discussion from the 90s when "A Bug's Life" and "Antz" were out around the same time, and a lot of people were talking about which film looked more "realistic". A renderer engineer from Pixar ended the discussion with a three word sentence: "The ants talk."
seriously...watching him turn on EVERYTHING (GI, Photon Emission, AO, DoF, etc.) and running the entire scene at super high sample rates and telling the world that refractive caustics take forever to render was a bit cringe. 100hr 720p render....you'd be fired from any lighting/rendering department for that kind of move.
Yeah, I've been watching the field my whole life (dabbled with it in college but didn't specialize in it), and it's amazing to see how much stuff has gone from needing to be faked, to being able to accurately simulate. Or in games, thinking about all the effects that can now be rendered in real-time. And of course, you still have to decide if accurate simulation is even something you *want* or *need* in your project. As Wren showed with the dinosaur, fake caustics are probably all you need for such a sequence, and can save you a lot of time, effort, and money. I'm sure the new Avatar movie uses a mix of fake and simulated caustics, depending on the scene.
I second what a few others also said: The differences between gobo-caustics and simulated ones are probably way more noticeable once anything interacts with the cause of the caustics. In the case of water the surface. Like an underwater shot of someone breaching the surface from below. The caustics on the part of the body still underwater would change as the surface would get distorted. And also there will be bubbles the light has to go through. Same for let's say a boat passing over your underwater scene. It would not just be a shadow as another gobo layer on top of the "fake" caustics. The wake of the boat would change the caustics. Although in contrast to the first example it would probably be reasonably easy to record the caustics patterns of a model boat in a pool to simply get a better "fake" layer. Oh and my guess on why the simulated magnifying glass looked slightly different is, that you modelled a perfect lens. But real lenses, especially cheaper ones, often have slight imperfections in their surfaces. And the refractive index varies as well. There is a reason you pay several 100$ for good lenses that size.
"my guess on why the simulated magnifying glass looked slightly different is, that you modelled a perfect lens." I think the same goes for the other examples he made. They all look a little too neat and too sharp.
I was working on that in uni decades ago. The reason caustics are hard is there's no obvious way to trace a path from the camera to the light through 3rd surfaces. Normally you trace from camera to surface and then you trace in the direction of each light to see if the patch of surface is illuminated. But if light is to come through reflection or refraction it could be coming through any path. You'd have to render the entire scene from the PoV each surface patch just to calculate 2nd level lighting. Or you could trace photons forward from the light, have them deposit on surfaces randomly like textures, and then trace the scene from the camera and hope you got enough photons. That's the slow technique that I worked on way back. You could do better with fancy sampling and compression of photons, or some differential approximation of path tracing, which I'm guessing form part of the new renderer.
Wren: "surely they're not called caustics because they burn things, right?" Also Wren: proceeds to burn things with caustics (In fairness, I also didn't make the connection until he said the exact words "catch things on fire".)
Thank you for this video. I am working on learning how to make water in Unreal Engine 5 right now. I have only been in the learning to render and model space for about 2 months and I think I missed my calling. I have been a software and web applications engineer for 26 years and it doesn't bring me near the pleasure I am getting from the open world game I am building and all of the rendereing, modeling, and animation that I am having to learn to build it. Thank you for all of the great content you have and will produce. Keep up the great work and keep inspiring everyone that watches your videos. If I ever had the chance I would love to come work with you guys and learn some of the craft and tricks of the trade from you and the rest of the Corridor Crew.
The hard-edged falloff with the gobo-based effect could probably be improved by using an area light instead of a directional light. Key thing to keep in mind is that in a real water scenario you have refracted light angling in on the object from a broad area of water surface, so the light "wraps" the object's form more. Incidentally, in games we sometimes get this effect by building the caustics into the surface material itself, rather than projecting it from a particular light. That approach also makes it easy to smooth out the falloff along the edges, since you're just putting a little bias into the directional falloff.
yes, I was about to comment that!! area lights have a much more realistic feel to them when trying to light scenes with some nature in it. also varying the samples just on the lights, depending of which one/how many they have used on the scene, might help with the noise and the render times!
Wren's explaining videos are awesome!! Really really enjoyed this, and I love how the explanations really make us feel that we have a fundamental understanding without being too complicated. My only nitpick is that you sort of glossed over how the renderer was developed to make caustics achievable in normal amounts of time. Like you spent the whole first half explaining why caustics are impossible, but then it turns out that octane just has a caustics setting and it all works? How did they develop that and overcome what was previously impossible? But aside from that, great video!!
Not only that but it's stated that there's no compromises and that you get the same result from switching to the caustic renderer, but the result is not exactly the same. PMC looks way blurrier compared to Photon Tracer. Maybe you could blur them a bit and achieve basically the same result but they don't look the same out of the box.
I think the gobo shot can be improved just by altering the actual video used for the light. So if you want to change the light falloff, you could try and change the light gradients and shapes, and adjust the intensity and contrast of the light source.
As a 2D artist, I learn so much from seeing attempts to simulate light in 3D and FX software. It really breaks down the science and the effect on surfaces so that I can recreate it in my own medium.
It's all about having soft eyes. Watching these videos I see the same spirit in making Jurassic Park dinosaurs or light scatter from water surfaces or video game hallways
Wren, I hope you see this. I love these exporations into vfx shots, I see a similar enthusiasm as Adam Savage. It cool to still have some content that has someone(corridor as well) who cares so much about sharing and exploring with an audience. Thank you
I never had a particular interest in CG but Wren is such an amazing teacher that no matter what he talks about, I’m totally glued to the screen hanging on his words. Great vid as always
I wish I could go to Corridor and learn how to do VFX in person. All of these videos feel so educational that I bet just being in proximity would help you learn.
As a glasses-wearer, I've always been curious about the various types of blur. For example, without my glasses, the world is blurry, but it's not like a smooth gaussian blur, or a smeared motion blur... it's kind of like a distance blur, where edges will blur out to a certain "distance", but then there's almost a hard edge, a place where the blur cuts off. In any case, it'd be fascinating to see if renderers can simulate the blur of poor eyesight somehow.
Mine would be pretty easy to simulate, my one eye literally just has blur filter on it lol. There is no point in which the vision in it get's any clearer, just things get easier to see as they get closer because they're bigger. Glasses only provide the slightest increase in clarity.
I had the same question before! Look up "bokeh", it's the out of focus effect you're thinking of that happens with our eye's pupil. Our eyes don't focus light properly so it blurs everything in that manner.
Wren's ability to take complex concepts and boil them down to their basics so they're easily understood is amazing. No wonder he's the designated narrator most of the time.
They've taken so much time to develop new technology for the Avatar sequels, I would not be surprised at all if they've found a more effective way of doing it "for real".
I've always simulated water wave caustics simply by using a Voronoi noise shader in World space under a Colorizer filter in the Luminance channel. The gradient of the colorizer is then mapped to an inverse-square falloff (I use a Python node to generate the gradient knots from a formula) to give it the sharp contrast between the bright thin regions and dim falloff characteristic of these kinds of caustics. It looks very close to real, and adds zero to the render time.
I would love more of a deep dive into early graphics engines, and how they were made/developed. Between Tron and Jurassic Park is about 11 years, but the way the technology evolved is huge!
Wren and all the crew, thank you for inspiring me and teaching me so much about film and visual effects. Because of your passion and amazing teaching skills, at the start of this year i enrolled in a Diploma of screen and media in video games/vfx. I surprise myself all the time when i already know the answer to questions the teachers ask or have a good idea because I've seen it on corridor crew! Wren, never let go of that enthusiasm and drive. Know that you are all amazing teachers and have inspired me so much. Love your work! PS: i can send through my first fly through render for you guys to check out too if you are interested to see
Drafter/3D Modeler here; the first program I used for creating renderings of interior spaces did a beautiful job, but because of these caustics, it would take at least an hour and a half to render one image. I couldn't imagine sitting and rendering thousands of frames for a whole movie!!!
I love when a difficult task in 3D software like caustics gets fixed and it completely changes the workflow. Last thing was probably viewport denoise for Blender (i dont know if other render engines had that yet). I can't wait for viewport caustics to be a thing! Then the next bottleneck in the workflow will be addressed :)
@@TheTattorack I'm talking about denoising. Also Blender doesn't just use Optix, it also uses OpenImageDenoiser, and it's own denoiser... None of that has to do with my point that rendering engines have had denoisers since like 2010-ish...
@@macksnotcool I literally just used OptiX to render a scene in blender not 10 minutes ago. Have you ever even clicked on the little drop-down menu? Yes, we're all quite aware you're talking about denoising. What you don't seem to understand is the difference between the regular denoising that was around 2010 (and which blender had too) and AI powered denoising.
Please make more videos like this. A few years ago I experimented with replacing the environment texture in Blender with a 360 video to make it seem like my 1950s cg car was really moving through LA with proper reflections, but I could never find a video that was HD or filmed correctly for what I was doing. I would like to see a video about a modern approach to this.
I think the modern approach is just to use multiple HDR cameras to capture the video. You could also use an approximation of the lighting, as well as some fixed camera angles and clever compositing to make a similar effect.
Wren. You're such a cool dude that these randomly super nerdy esoteric niche cgi videos are really entertaining and educating to watch. Keep up the good work.
As a former photographer/video producer/physics teacher/astronomer, I am perpetually looking at light artifacts/phenomena. My favorite discovery was when I was eating breakfast and my cat started going crazy. It took while because I kept shifting my head, but the cat was chasing the caustics created by an 8 lamp chandelier refracting through my glasses. Every time I moved my head the slightest, the cat saw eight light bugs (Caustics) flying around the room. It was very funny. (probably not to the cat.)
7:53 "I know its hot, but i just wanted to... feel it" I see that Wren is getting a little bit influenced by Mark-"Not a masochist"-iplier, because that sounds a little too close to "I just wanted to see if my body can take it"
Ok, here is one for you: Using just the render engine and no compositing tricks like using After Effects and such, creating a completely accurate physical atmosphere such as the one around earth. Imagine doing a documentary in which you are approaching earth from the moon, and you need to not only simulate how the atmosphere of the earth changes in appearance as the spacecraft you are in gets closer and closer until it is orbiting at the altitude of the ISS, and during this process, you witness several sunsets and sunrises, and then once in orbit, watch a few more as well. Using just the app and the render engine of your choice, try simulating the physics of absorption and scattering through multiple layers of the atmosphere such as the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, ozone, etc and the behaviour of light through each in order to create the Rayleigh scattering, albedo calculations and other accurate behaviours of light involved. While Blender does have a few (paid in most cases) add-ons to help accomplish this, I would love to see you approach it in the same manner that you examined caustics in this video. If that sounds like a fun challenge, I would love to see your approach to it. Enjoy. :)
I love seeing videos like this and hearing Wrens explanations. I'm sure it's a hell of a lot of work but the way he scripts these out just makes it feel so accessible! Great job!
@@zachhoy That’s because they aren’t IN PRODUCTION VFX artists, ie actually working in a real vfx house that makes the movies and tv shows we are all thinking of. Use of all this in an actual show is way different than doing it for fun or for a RUclips video.
Hello Wren, VFX supervisor here, I think that the best difference with Gobo and actual simulation is that regarding the proximity to the surface, water interaction (splashes or surface tension) cannot be achieved with the Gobo method, so if you talk about realisim as in how it looks, they are almost the same, but realism as in it can be closer to the surface and the water interacts with the object moving underneat I would go with the sim, that would be correct time invested.
I’d love to see you do a video about turning day into night; like when a shot had been filmed in broad daylight, then in post they’ve had to change it to night time. Some of the old Bond films make me laugh with just a very obvious blue filter (you can even see the sunlight in the shots!) I wondered how you guys would go about achieving the effect with today’s software and advances!
tbh the blue filter is still being used. Even when it's not, it's stupid obvious when they show a light source like a campfire that barely gives off any light.
The difference between the simulated caustics and the gobo you're talking about (at the dinosaur comparison), that's probably easily to fix with a Curves Adjustment Layer on the Gobo (bring up the shadows for example)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that would only need some minutes of tweaks and it gets so difficult to tell what what is, that you will ask again if you should simulate it. Sometimes tricks are so close to the real one, that you only want to use this tricks, because mostly they save a lot of time.
This might be a stupid question but: is it possible and/or plausible to construct a "dynamic gobo" based on the relation between the object, the light source, and the surface in between? Taking a water surface as an example, can you pass a plane under the lowest valley in the water curves, take that as a "noise map", add some sharpness, etc, and make it a "dynamic gobo"? (idk what I'm talking about and the terms might be all wrong here, I'm just being curious)
I absolutely loved this video Wren!! It gives me huge "Bill Nye in 2022" vibes with the effects, editing, and witty script, but it also kinda feels like the VFX version of PBS Spacetime in that it's very informative but also approachable to novices. I loved how you really got into the nitty-gritty details of how rendering works and what the computer is doing under the hood. Would love to see more content like this!
if the gobo one is a bit slower and isnt compared to the real one i dont think anyone would notice, because most of the time comparison is what makes it easy to see
Holy crap - the 100-hour shot of the glass shapes looked incredible. I had a moment of completely believing it was real because of.. you know, the way that it is.
I've been in enough discussions, with many of my colleagues, about the Avatar effects and by now I risk to say that they are making everything "real". They have an insane fluids dynamics engine, so they for sure have a renderer capable of "real caustics"... that mixed with a billion of CPUs to render it.
@@leucome Well, "a billion" is just me making the comment look more dramatic, as far as I know, the real number is: 4000 Hewlett-Packard BL2x220c servers packed with 35,000 processor cores and 104 terabytes of RAM :)
@@chairvergil4552 Though it is called a render farm. It is basically just a bunch of beaffy computer in a barn. So it is somewhat less complicated than a server/data center or a supercomputer.
Absolutely love when Wren breaks visuals down, and to be frank I didn't have much desire to see Avatar... but Wren made me want to see it JUST for the caustics.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I always loved seeing the ins and outs of VFX, it's a perfect example of "if you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
I'm taking this quote
One of my favourite quotes from Futurama 😁
"I was god once."
"Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died."
I just rewatched this episode and thought the same thing haha!
GOD: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
BENDER : Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
GOD : Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
The quote gains in majesty from its context
"Real life runs constantly in real time without ever crashing."
Well, I would certainly hope so.
Great video Wren.
"As the frame rate shifts so do we." Einstein, sorta.
Er.. how would we know? maybe when you forget where you were going that's a crash :D
Maybe it crashed multiple times, got rebooted and restored to the last auto save, you can never know!
Brains crash all the time, seizures. Some people have them due to light. Its people that crash not the world, it kinda makes me think where the rendering is happening, in the world or in our minds.
People who create worlds of their own merit have more right to speak on reality than I ever will.
Imagine that the reason for "Avatar: The Way of Water" to have taken so many years to be released was due to the caustics finally finished rendering.
Possible.
honestly makes a lot of sense LOL
That would be hilarious if they made that beautiful film like a year after the first one but the rendering just took forever
A huge portion of making films like this is waiting for rendering regardless..
good thing there wasnt a power outage at 99 percent XD
omg I cant believe mark is actually doing normal stuff for the channel this is so cool. this just made corridor crew 10x better.
The history of long hair in animated movies. Simulating hair has been such an interesting subject. I think it would make a pretty good video.
Hair, water, and glass in my opinion, are the hardest things to simulate. I agree with you. I find this stuff fascinating when you dig into the details on why simulating something would be hard. It’s almost reverse engineering reality.
Ooooooo I like this idea!
@@SirWrender I know. I feel like hair was the thing that everyone always talked about in the special features of animated films. Then after brave came out people just stopped talking about it. I wonder if the issues are still issues now or if it’s an old problem. I heard it described sort of like an atomic bomb. Each hair strand bumps into each other building up momentum until the simulation just freaks out for no apparent reason.
I feel like monsters Inc. was another ground breaker in that department.
@@SirWrender ha! Just realized who this was. If you’re looking for ideas than a video exploring the question of whether it’s physics or relatedbility that make hand-to-hand combat for almost human shaped CG creatures believable.
For example something that is shaped like a bear would not be able to generate much power using tae kwon do kicks. Would it look more believable to have realistic technique or realistic weight distribution?
I remember watching behind-the-scenes videos of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within back then, talking about how maybe like half of the rendering time of the movie was just for Aki's hair.
It also explains why all the other characters have short hair, hair tied back or even no hair…
Man I missed Wren's deep-dives into very specific topics.
I enjoy most of the content on this channel, but those hit particularly hard for me since he usually does either a science-y topic, or something crazy and obsessive about a sci-fi franchise... in either case, I love the effort you (Wren + the whole team involved) put into these vids.
His deep DIVES ?? XD
@@anirudhnavin4568 that wasn't an intentional pun but goddammit I hate you for pointing that out lmao
Ironically enough, the dude in your pfp has a very complicated relationship with water lol
@@rickydo6572 Tumbling... burning with white hot fire...
@@The_Razielim All in a day's work
Wren is honestly a great educator. Has a passionate energy, knowledgeable background, and ability to simplify complicated ideas. He really could have his own education channel and I bet it'd be huge!
He 100% has Bill Nye energy and i love it.
@@VMYeahVN omg you're right now that you mentioned it! haha
yep!
These Wren videos are some of the highest quality videos out there. His understanding and ability to explain these concepts is so unreal. Great stuff!
Wow I can't believe wren was able to speak under water so clearly!!! Fantastic job!
He's a pro
That's a secret power only VFX artists have.
He was also able to breathe
@@LuisSierra42 truly a master of his craft.
The cameraman is the true god here
it's a shame to come back to a video i used to enjoy, now knowing this company is so comfortable with art theft and is even complicit in it.
Same here
I’m glad he looks like he is enjoying it 😆
I'm so confused. Why is he there? It's funny lol but I don't understand
@@jonathanarocho893 He lives there now. They don't let him leave.
@@jonathanarocho893 Markiplier is a fan of this channel and the Corridor Team, and got in contact them a little over a month ago where they (including Markiplier) reacted to his RUclips series "Markiplier in Space." He had another video with them "VFX PRO Must Guide Noob Through CGi Hell" where he has become their intern and I guess he just shows up now here and there 😂
Wren : finds an amazing shot
Wren a few minutes later: realizes the shot was simpler than imagined
Also Wren : fuck it, I wanna try the hard way and see it's worth it
And that's why we love this channel
"we"?
I don't :/
@@spiderjerusalem8505 "We" are the ones who love their content. Why would he count you as US anyways? lol
@@BilliesMalfroid, he didn't specify the group of people he meant be "we", I had to ask.
Pretty depressing thought, being a part of "you" 😔
@@spiderjerusalem8505 Aww, sad troll is sad. Why waste your time watching videos you don't like? Go be sad elsewhere.
@@spiderjerusalem8505 You need help
Just watched avatar the way of water and it’s definitely simulated. The light patterns changes accurately when a creature is disturbing the water surface. It’s crazy how good it looks.
How do you know they didn't just take a camera to Pandora and film it for real?
There’s a video about it. They actually took the actors and put them in a Vfx suit, then dropped them into a tank of water.
i think they used real water and edited to fit with the characters movements
@@salimsawandi9829 not true. everything is rendered, especially the water. There are two shots I think (an eye close up and one indoor scene (?)) that are not rendered. all outdoor scenes are practically completely CGI
@@maBasmi proofs? you have the production files?
I love Wren's solo vids. Learnt a lot once again. Keep it up.
happy Wrendnesday to us
When you consider if someone were to actually run that 11 year render, by the time it finishes you would probably be able to run an equivalent render in an hour with the advances in both hardware and render algorithms, probably also with some sort of AI enhancement thrown in.
Yeah I've thought that about stupidly long renders before. If it takes 18 months of tech progress to double your rendering speed you're better off waiting 18 months if a render takes more than 3 years. I guess if you ever found yourself in a situation like that you'd start rendering the first third of the animation and when the new system arrives use that to render the the remainder.
@@bloodypommelstudios7144 or just use render farms.
Quite likely that the entire process will just be AI (neural networks) eventually.
A similar concept is the Wait Calculation for Interstellar travel.
Do you depart now with current technologies, or wait until you get even faster spaceships?
You can't wait for technology. It's why "The Works" was never completed - it would have been the first full 3D rendered movie, but the continual resetting because of technological advances meant it was never completed.
That montage of all the glass renders was honestly one of the most beautiful things I've seen
adult swim vibes
I think the main case where simulated caustics for an underwater shot would be more notably different than the gobo option, is when the thing catching the caustics is very close to the surface of the water. The parts of the dinosaur that are right up against the water would catch very different caustics than the parts further away, not just in brightness but in sharpness as well. If you move the dinosaur further underwater, the difference between the close parts and the far parts becomes less significant, and the result looks a lot more like the gobo.
Wren: "It will take 11 years to render it!"
AI: Two more papers down the line. Take it or leave it.
WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!
You know, I'm something of a fellow scholar myself
Two minute papers but all of the videos are longer than two minutes
My papers almost flew away
isn't it carzy we all got the reference 🤣
Mark casually being an intern always cracks me up.
Loved the video, very interesting topic.
4:15- that guy is SO stoked to talk about his work. That’s a rare gift, to have your work be something that excites you that much.
Wish I had that, or if I already do, could find that thing NOW. I'm in desperate need of direction in my life...
If you or I were to have a creative job like his, I'm sure we'd be as excited as he is. I know I feel really great when I'm creating art.
Wish we could see it in their products too.
You have officially won in life when you go into a field of work that you love. No matter your age it’s never too late to pick up a new hobby and potentially go into the field!
Jules is awesome, and very passionate about these kinds of thing.
As far as I'm concerned I saw the trailer of Avatar the way of water multiple times and each time I caught some new details but talking about Caustics, yes they were both a mixture of original shots under water and perfect cgi because one can clearly see the rays of light in the trailer but that doesn't happen in real life and the Caustics get dull as depth increases also the clarity of water is the biggest factor in play here, cleaner the water more crisp are the Caustics
The randomness on the simulated caustics is why they feel better to my eye, the gobo is very cyclical. If it was an isolated beauty shot, the simulated will make a HUGE difference, but in the Dino scene it’s probably not worth it.
Really cool topic!
it is also not too hard to create gobos that are procedural and do not loop like this.
@@catsnorkel exactly
you could make better gobo caustics if you adjust the settings or use different water footage.
@@catsnorkel I know precious little about VFX, but would it be possible to create a gobo that's the the length of time you need for your caustic effects? Like you have a 2 minute scene where you need that effect, so you make a 2 minute gobo, so there's no obvious loop in it? Would that be any easier or is that pretty much working out to the same effort to fake it from the start?
@@propyro85 yes that's technically possible, but by that point it would probably be a lot easier and more efficient to do it procedurally
Take it this way... The movie Avater 2 is truly coming after 13 years, so maybe they shot it that time and... Waited 11 years for the render!
lmfao makes sense
Your fbi agent doesn't like that you've revealed confidential info mate!
Whooaaa
Whoo, can be true.
Woah woah woah how did you know?
6:50, you can get that, physically correct caustics in Blender as well, and Blender has had that feature for over 6 months now and it's using a much more complex and advanced algorithm than photon mapping, it's called "manifold next event estimation" and it's based on a research paper released by weta digital, so there's a good chance they've used that method to calculate real caustics in avatar 2 by using their own renderer called Manuka. Great video nonetheless.
Though mnee calculates the caustics within the shadow of the object only, whereas photon mapping produces more realistic caustics inside and outside of the shadow
@@intgr I guess luckily for Avatar, everything under the ocean surface is in shadow.
I have a manuka tree in my yard.
You can use LuxCore on Blender to get more complete caustics. The material system is only partially compatible with Cycles materials though.
@@RandomNirvanaSXE ok
This is something all of the content creators should adopt in their videos " Enthusiasm " Cause when you are actually having fun doing what you're doing the viewer feels the energy and it prevents him from moving an inch.
I personally enjoyed every second of this video.
How old are you?
@@MrTrollstash 😅😅 why is that?
@@madoss_1838 Curiosity
@@MrTrollstash I am 21 mate 😁
@@madoss_1838 Damn only one year older XD
and to think that once 20 was a big number.
Anyway what I wanted to say was that it is a normal thing on the youtube platform to be enthusiastic about something 😂
Tho yes not much, I have to agree. But if you are interested in game development or stuff like that then lmk and I can hook u up with some of the best channels 😁
4:27 OMG! ITS MARK!! So happy to see him on corridor crew!
i knew i wasnt the only who saw him
As a professional rendering engine developer, can I just say guys, this is a REALLY good video. Well done. Also, it's cute that you think 100 hours is slow to render. r.e. Avatar, WETA can certainly render caustics of the nature you showed "for real". Their renderer Manuka has a very flexible raytracing architecture that they can tune per shot. They have also released a phenomenal number of advanced papers recently for rendering complex light-transport scenarios, so I would guess that yes, those shots proabably were fully physically-plausible caustic renders (probably also with some creative license thrown on top for good measure).
I imagine they had to improve their rendering game for all of the underwater scenes in Avatar 2.
So this is why it took them a decade to get Avatar 2 release...
@@kentslocum And they aren't doing it even on a high end single workstation. No single system today can compare with a state of the art Render Farm.
They would have also had access to ML tweaked versions to cut render times like probably the one Wren talked about.
@@Idiomatick ML isn't used as much as you might think in production rendering. IMO it's a hugely over-hyped technology. It's too difficult to control, and when it doesn't work, it's useless. So most of the time we specifically choose not to use it, especially for things like caustic rendering that demand reasonable frame-to-frame coherency, something ML is often terrible at.
This is honestly one of the most interesting things I've seen in a while, caustics are so mesmerizing! Would totally watch if you went more in depth on other types of effects!
I'm researching caustics and its 3d rendering at university and I must say: this was a great video. It was very informative without being overcomplicated.
Also, the message about how computer graphics is all fake is super important because it's easy for us artists to forget that cgi is entirely simulation, that, for instance, no rays or photoms are really being traced or that no particle or wave is really interacting with matter and transfering energy to it etc. I say its easy to forget because I myself did it, focusing too much on physical accuracy when in the end rendering algorithms are just mathematical models that try to replicate real phenomena (and generally from the limited pov of a camera). It doesn't matter how good they are, they will never reach reality. At most they will seem visually close enough. When we remember that, we are free. Free not just to take some shortcuts as shown in the video, but free to explore cgi as what it is, a simulation, and embrace both the limitations of innacuracy and its hidden powers as part of the artwork, as a way of subverting the laws of physics and, because of that, creating better and more powerful scenes (yet physically innacurated) and telling better and more touching stories with them.
I'm reminded of a Usenet discussion from the 90s when "A Bug's Life" and "Antz" were out around the same time, and a lot of people were talking about which film looked more "realistic". A renderer engineer from Pixar ended the discussion with a three word sentence: "The ants talk."
Fake particle physicist
Wren: I'm gonna render this scene at 16000 samples.
Also Wren: Why is it taking so long ?
BRUH XD
ikr :D
seriously...watching him turn on EVERYTHING (GI, Photon Emission, AO, DoF, etc.) and running the entire scene at super high sample rates and telling the world that refractive caustics take forever to render was a bit cringe. 100hr 720p render....you'd be fired from any lighting/rendering department for that kind of move.
Bruh moment
@@TINYArmy 100 hours is just a bit more than 4 days afk, it isn't so much
As someone who has a Bachelors of VFX, it’s nice to see how much the TECH has improved over the years! These CAUSTIC effects look incredible!
Yes, the IMPROVEMENT is really REMARKABLE. It is crazy to SEE what is POSSIBLE
Is it literally called that? Would that be a Bachelors of Arts, Fine Arts (due to the artsy part) or Science (due to the computer-y part)?
Theres a specific bachelor for vfx?
Yeah, I've been watching the field my whole life (dabbled with it in college but didn't specialize in it), and it's amazing to see how much stuff has gone from needing to be faked, to being able to accurately simulate. Or in games, thinking about all the effects that can now be rendered in real-time.
And of course, you still have to decide if accurate simulation is even something you *want* or *need* in your project. As Wren showed with the dinosaur, fake caustics are probably all you need for such a sequence, and can save you a lot of time, effort, and money. I'm sure the new Avatar movie uses a mix of fake and simulated caustics, depending on the scene.
@@kdvr766 No. It's a bachelor of Arts, in the end.
Wren is always so fun to watch. i was barely able to follow as couldnt really understand and yet he still makes it so enjoyable and easy to watch :)
I second what a few others also said: The differences between gobo-caustics and simulated ones are probably way more noticeable once anything interacts with the cause of the caustics.
In the case of water the surface. Like an underwater shot of someone breaching the surface from below. The caustics on the part of the body still underwater would change as the surface would get distorted. And also there will be bubbles the light has to go through.
Same for let's say a boat passing over your underwater scene. It would not just be a shadow as another gobo layer on top of the "fake" caustics. The wake of the boat would change the caustics.
Although in contrast to the first example it would probably be reasonably easy to record the caustics patterns of a model boat in a pool to simply get a better "fake" layer.
Oh and my guess on why the simulated magnifying glass looked slightly different is, that you modelled a perfect lens. But real lenses, especially cheaper ones, often have slight imperfections in their surfaces. And the refractive index varies as well. There is a reason you pay several 100$ for good lenses that size.
"my guess on why the simulated magnifying glass looked slightly different is, that you modelled a perfect lens."
I think the same goes for the other examples he made. They all look a little too neat and too sharp.
Love to see intern Markiplier doing the hard work
I was beginning to believe no one saw him.
@@being47 i was gonna say the same thing, lmao
Glad you said something cause I wasn't sure if I was just being dumb or if that was actually Markiplier
@@justinmcgough3958 For real, I was so confused because it came out of nowhere.
i was like holy shit is that markipoo
love that wren actually went into the ocean for the shot - true dedication
Or did he? LoL
I was working on that in uni decades ago. The reason caustics are hard is there's no obvious way to trace a path from the camera to the light through 3rd surfaces. Normally you trace from camera to surface and then you trace in the direction of each light to see if the patch of surface is illuminated. But if light is to come through reflection or refraction it could be coming through any path. You'd have to render the entire scene from the PoV each surface patch just to calculate 2nd level lighting. Or you could trace photons forward from the light, have them deposit on surfaces randomly like textures, and then trace the scene from the camera and hope you got enough photons. That's the slow technique that I worked on way back. You could do better with fancy sampling and compression of photons, or some differential approximation of path tracing, which I'm guessing form part of the new renderer.
Wren is my favorite. He’s always so stoked and excited about his craft.
Wren emerging from the deep is a callback to Sync when the main character wakes up in the ocean.
I thought it was how we evolved from the sea
Man I loved Sync best show Corridor ever made
Sync is such a good movie
Oh God, how long ago was that show?
So glad that Prehistoric Planet is getting more attention, especially in the CGI department.
10:36 Wow! The results are amazing and they look so real. The morphing purple sphere is deeply pleasing to the eye.
Wren: "surely they're not called caustics because they burn things, right?"
Also Wren: proceeds to burn things with caustics
(In fairness, I also didn't make the connection until he said the exact words "catch things on fire".)
Wow me neither! Thanks for pointing that out
That's a really interesting point!
most under appreciated comment ever!
The term "caustic(s)" literally comes from the classical Greek word for "burn."
0:41 that dedication from Wren we all love to see
4:17 - Good to see that intern being put to work!
Thank you for this video. I am working on learning how to make water in Unreal Engine 5 right now. I have only been in the learning to render and model space for about 2 months and I think I missed my calling. I have been a software and web applications engineer for 26 years and it doesn't bring me near the pleasure I am getting from the open world game I am building and all of the rendereing, modeling, and animation that I am having to learn to build it. Thank you for all of the great content you have and will produce. Keep up the great work and keep inspiring everyone that watches your videos. If I ever had the chance I would love to come work with you guys and learn some of the craft and tricks of the trade from you and the rest of the Corridor Crew.
one of the best videos on your channel recently! Love it! :)
Rad to see that you're a Corridor fan! I love your music, man :D
Ayeeeee VR's here
the OTT man
Well, i didn't ever expect to see Virtual Riot in a RUclips comments section 😅
The hard-edged falloff with the gobo-based effect could probably be improved by using an area light instead of a directional light. Key thing to keep in mind is that in a real water scenario you have refracted light angling in on the object from a broad area of water surface, so the light "wraps" the object's form more.
Incidentally, in games we sometimes get this effect by building the caustics into the surface material itself, rather than projecting it from a particular light. That approach also makes it easy to smooth out the falloff along the edges, since you're just putting a little bias into the directional falloff.
yes, I was about to comment that!! area lights have a much more realistic feel to them when trying to light scenes with some nature in it. also varying the samples just on the lights, depending of which one/how many they have used on the scene, might help with the noise and the render times!
Additionally, just adding some fall-off to the light will also help with the edge fading.
Wren's explaining videos are awesome!! Really really enjoyed this, and I love how the explanations really make us feel that we have a fundamental understanding without being too complicated. My only nitpick is that you sort of glossed over how the renderer was developed to make caustics achievable in normal amounts of time. Like you spent the whole first half explaining why caustics are impossible, but then it turns out that octane just has a caustics setting and it all works? How did they develop that and overcome what was previously impossible? But aside from that, great video!!
Not only that but it's stated that there's no compromises and that you get the same result from switching to the caustic renderer, but the result is not exactly the same. PMC looks way blurrier compared to Photon Tracer. Maybe you could blur them a bit and achieve basically the same result but they don't look the same out of the box.
Well… truth be told I don’t fully understand the new photon tracer and how it’s different from photon mapping.
@@SirWrender Expanding on it in a future video would be cool, but that would maybe be quite the short video. Also, hi Wren
I think the gobo shot can be improved just by altering the actual video used for the light. So if you want to change the light falloff, you could try and change the light gradients and shapes, and adjust the intensity and contrast of the light source.
As a 2D artist, I learn so much from seeing attempts to simulate light in 3D and FX software. It really breaks down the science and the effect on surfaces so that I can recreate it in my own medium.
It's all about having soft eyes. Watching these videos I see the same spirit in making Jurassic Park dinosaurs or light scatter from water surfaces or video game hallways
Wren, I hope you see this. I love these exporations into vfx shots, I see a similar enthusiasm as Adam Savage. It cool to still have some content that has someone(corridor as well) who cares so much about sharing and exploring with an audience. Thank you
Thank you!
I never had a particular interest in CG but Wren is such an amazing teacher that no matter what he talks about, I’m totally glued to the screen hanging on his words. Great vid as always
I wish I could go to Corridor and learn how to do VFX in person. All of these videos feel so educational that I bet just being in proximity would help you learn.
As a glasses-wearer, I've always been curious about the various types of blur. For example, without my glasses, the world is blurry, but it's not like a smooth gaussian blur, or a smeared motion blur... it's kind of like a distance blur, where edges will blur out to a certain "distance", but then there's almost a hard edge, a place where the blur cuts off. In any case, it'd be fascinating to see if renderers can simulate the blur of poor eyesight somehow.
Sounds like life turned on the Depth of Field option for you.
Mine would be pretty easy to simulate, my one eye literally just has blur filter on it lol. There is no point in which the vision in it get's any clearer, just things get easier to see as they get closer because they're bigger. Glasses only provide the slightest increase in clarity.
I had the same question before! Look up "bokeh", it's the out of focus effect you're thinking of that happens with our eye's pupil. Our eyes don't focus light properly so it blurs everything in that manner.
Wren's ability to take complex concepts and boil them down to their basics so they're easily understood is amazing. No wonder he's the designated narrator most of the time.
They've taken so much time to develop new technology for the Avatar sequels, I would not be surprised at all if they've found a more effective way of doing it "for real".
Huge respect to our universe for rendering these all in real time
jeez, i never had so much respect for the guys who have to code literal reality into their render engines
The TRUE heroes of vfx!
I've always simulated water wave caustics simply by using a Voronoi noise shader in World space under a Colorizer filter in the Luminance channel. The gradient of the colorizer is then mapped to an inverse-square falloff (I use a Python node to generate the gradient knots from a formula) to give it the sharp contrast between the bright thin regions and dim falloff characteristic of these kinds of caustics.
It looks very close to real, and adds zero to the render time.
I would love more of a deep dive into early graphics engines, and how they were made/developed. Between Tron and Jurassic Park is about 11 years, but the way the technology evolved is huge!
One cool thing about Tron: the textures are procedural. Not enough RAM in the computers of the day to use raster textures.
Wren and all the crew, thank you for inspiring me and teaching me so much about film and visual effects. Because of your passion and amazing teaching skills, at the start of this year i enrolled in a Diploma of screen and media in video games/vfx. I surprise myself all the time when i already know the answer to questions the teachers ask or have a good idea because I've seen it on corridor crew! Wren, never let go of that enthusiasm and drive. Know that you are all amazing teachers and have inspired me so much. Love your work!
PS: i can send through my first fly through render for you guys to check out too if you are interested to see
Hey thanks! And congrats!
Congratulations, Wren. I think this is the best video you've ever done. Well done, you did a great job putting this together
I can just watch WREN all day getting amazed and amazing me.
I have been through the VFX artist shows series so many times!!
4:25 Is that Markiplier?! 😂
These r hands down some of my favorite videos. The time and research invested into these videos always shows!
Drafter/3D Modeler here; the first program I used for creating renderings of interior spaces did a beautiful job, but because of these caustics, it would take at least an hour and a half to render one image. I couldn't imagine sitting and rendering thousands of frames for a whole movie!!!
Damn it feels like forever since the last "Wren explains cool shit" video. I missed this.
I love when a difficult task in 3D software like caustics gets fixed and it completely changes the workflow. Last thing was probably viewport denoise for Blender (i dont know if other render engines had that yet). I can't wait for viewport caustics to be a thing! Then the next bottleneck in the workflow will be addressed :)
Other rendering engines have had a denoiser for like 10 years.... That's one of the few things Blender was VERY behind on. That and render times....
@@macksnotcool He's talking about AI denoising, which didn't exist before 2017.
@@macksnotcool AI powered denoising by OptiX, my man. That's a fairly recent development.
@@TheTattorack I'm talking about denoising. Also Blender doesn't just use Optix, it also uses OpenImageDenoiser, and it's own denoiser... None of that has to do with my point that rendering engines have had denoisers since like 2010-ish...
@@macksnotcool
I literally just used OptiX to render a scene in blender not 10 minutes ago. Have you ever even clicked on the little drop-down menu?
Yes, we're all quite aware you're talking about denoising. What you don't seem to understand is the difference between the regular denoising that was around 2010 (and which blender had too) and AI powered denoising.
Please make more videos like this. A few years ago I experimented with replacing the environment texture in Blender with a 360 video to make it seem like my 1950s cg car was really moving through LA with proper reflections, but I could never find a video that was HD or filmed correctly for what I was doing. I would like to see a video about a modern approach to this.
Yeah, Wren's video essays on VFX are almost as good as his one wheel skills... I take that back, he hasn't slid a rail yet so these are better.
I'm pretty sure cg matter or default cube made a video about this very thing you described
I think the modern approach is just to use multiple HDR cameras to capture the video. You could also use an approximation of the lighting, as well as some fixed camera angles and clever compositing to make a similar effect.
When it comes to glass objects, simulated looks incredible! The way it splits the light up into a rainbow like a prizm is perfect !
Wren. You're such a cool dude that these randomly super nerdy esoteric niche cgi videos are really entertaining and educating to watch. Keep up the good work.
As a former photographer/video producer/physics teacher/astronomer, I am perpetually looking at light artifacts/phenomena. My favorite discovery was when I was eating breakfast and my cat started going crazy. It took while because I kept shifting my head, but the cat was chasing the caustics created by an 8 lamp chandelier refracting through my glasses. Every time I moved my head the slightest, the cat saw eight light bugs (Caustics) flying around the room. It was very funny. (probably not to the cat.)
7:53 "I know its hot, but i just wanted to... feel it" I see that Wren is getting a little bit influenced by Mark-"Not a masochist"-iplier, because that sounds a little too close to "I just wanted to see if my body can take it"
Ok, here is one for you:
Using just the render engine and no compositing tricks like using After Effects and such, creating a completely accurate physical atmosphere such as the one around earth. Imagine doing a documentary in which you are approaching earth from the moon, and you need to not only simulate how the atmosphere of the earth changes in appearance as the spacecraft you are in gets closer and closer until it is orbiting at the altitude of the ISS, and during this process, you witness several sunsets and sunrises, and then once in orbit, watch a few more as well.
Using just the app and the render engine of your choice, try simulating the physics of absorption and scattering through multiple layers of the atmosphere such as the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, ozone, etc and the behaviour of light through each in order to create the Rayleigh scattering, albedo calculations and other accurate behaviours of light involved. While Blender does have a few (paid in most cases) add-ons to help accomplish this, I would love to see you approach it in the same manner that you examined caustics in this video.
If that sounds like a fun challenge, I would love to see your approach to it.
Enjoy. :)
So glad you guys got this series back!
I love seeing videos like this and hearing Wrens explanations. I'm sure it's a hell of a lot of work but the way he scripts these out just makes it feel so accessible! Great job!
4:45 I didn't even realize that was Mark at first. XD
These videos made by wren are some of my favorite videos on corridor
Corridor Crew: "And it has never crashed!"
Dinosaurs: "I beg to differ."
We need more videos like this, in-depth analysis of CGI production ! We need some that go even deeper, I was left hanging at the end of this video :)
ya my main gripe with this channel is they only go really shallow most of the time
@@zachhoy That’s because they aren’t IN PRODUCTION VFX artists, ie actually working in a real vfx house that makes the movies and tv shows we are all thinking of. Use of all this in an actual show is way different than doing it for fun or for a RUclips video.
@@lesliechung8322 they aren't? Are you sure?
Hello Wren, VFX supervisor here, I think that the best difference with Gobo and actual simulation is that regarding the proximity to the surface, water interaction (splashes or surface tension) cannot be achieved with the Gobo method, so if you talk about realisim as in how it looks, they are almost the same, but realism as in it can be closer to the surface and the water interacts with the object moving underneat I would go with the sim, that would be correct time invested.
Full respect for ren, who brings such an amazing videos with such a great enthusiasm and depth.
Just when I needed a video to my cereal to
yeah
dinner for Europe lmao
Dwight? How's Jim doin?
Huh
Eat* :)
I’d love to see you do a video about turning day into night; like when a shot had been filmed in broad daylight, then in post they’ve had to change it to night time. Some of the old Bond films make me laugh with just a very obvious blue filter (you can even see the sunlight in the shots!) I wondered how you guys would go about achieving the effect with today’s software and advances!
tbh the blue filter is still being used. Even when it's not, it's stupid obvious when they show a light source like a campfire that barely gives off any light.
all the night shots in Fury Road were filmed in bright sunlight. and even over-exposed, crazy, huh.
As a VFX and 3d artist i love dynamics 🧬
I love that, when Wren gets interested in something, he always walks the fine line between niche knowledge and actual full-blown obsession.
More videos like this!!! Entertaining and very informative.
You guys got me into VFX so thank you opening this opportunity for me
@0:25, 90s Bill Nye vibes and i’m here for it!
The difference between the simulated caustics and the gobo you're talking about (at the dinosaur comparison), that's probably easily to fix with a Curves Adjustment Layer on the Gobo (bring up the shadows for example)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that would only need some minutes of tweaks and it gets so difficult to tell what what is, that you will ask again if you should simulate it. Sometimes tricks are so close to the real one, that you only want to use this tricks, because mostly they save a lot of time.
This might be a stupid question but: is it possible and/or plausible to construct a "dynamic gobo" based on the relation between the object, the light source, and the surface in between? Taking a water surface as an example, can you pass a plane under the lowest valley in the water curves, take that as a "noise map", add some sharpness, etc, and make it a "dynamic gobo"? (idk what I'm talking about and the terms might be all wrong here, I'm just being curious)
I absolutely loved this video Wren!!
It gives me huge "Bill Nye in 2022" vibes with the effects, editing, and witty script, but it also kinda feels like the VFX version of PBS Spacetime in that it's very informative but also approachable to novices. I loved how you really got into the nitty-gritty details of how rendering works and what the computer is doing under the hood.
Would love to see more content like this!
To me, the gobo caustics looked like a projection and the photon caustics looked legit. It could make the difference in certain cases.
if the gobo one is a bit slower and isnt compared to the real one i dont think anyone would notice, because most of the time comparison is what makes it easy to see
I love these kind of videos from Corridor it’s fun and educational and Wren does a great job explaining how or why something works as it does
Wow thanks Wren, I'll make sure to avoid caustic lights for now on
Wren educational videos are always excellent!
10:36 Oh... so Wren started early on the next satisfying renders chanlenge.
the TLDR of the video is hard thing to render is hard, the work around that everyone uses is the best option. Wow how informative
The showreel was real nice. Hope to see more of this in future corridor renders.
Holy crap - the 100-hour shot of the glass shapes looked incredible. I had a moment of completely believing it was real because of.. you know, the way that it is.
Even with the glass passing through wood?
@@skarfie123 trick wood, obviously
I've been in enough discussions, with many of my colleagues, about the Avatar effects and by now I risk to say that they are making everything "real". They have an insane fluids dynamics engine, so they for sure have a renderer capable of "real caustics"... that mixed with a billion of CPUs to render it.
Billion of CPUs can definitively solve render time issues.
@@leucome Well, "a billion" is just me making the comment look more dramatic, as far as I know, the real number is: 4000 Hewlett-Packard BL2x220c servers packed with 35,000 processor cores and 104 terabytes of RAM :)
@@rogper so they dump whatever they need to render is a server. That's really cool.
@@chairvergil4552 Though it is called a render farm. It is basically just a bunch of beaffy computer in a barn. So it is somewhat less complicated than a server/data center or a supercomputer.
@@rogper BUT, can it run Crysis?
I can't even rotate the view properly in blender and look at what you are doing man that looks real
Absolutely love when Wren breaks visuals down, and to be frank I didn't have much desire to see Avatar... but Wren made me want to see it JUST for the caustics.