About the lens distortion in Blender tracker, a few people commented on how to do this in Blender so just go down and read about it. Thanks everyone. :-)
You can add your own presets for those camera settings. Doesn't that help with your sensor issue? You could make a simple addon which saves more settings. Like focal, dof, sensor and what not into one preset
31:51 Blender is supposed to be able to do precise (un)distortion. However, the _Lens Distortion_ node is apparently meant as just an artistic effect. Instead, use the *Movie Distortion* node (confusingly just titled _Distortion_ after being added to the node tree). Also perplexing: *The distortion model & parameters are not adjusted at the node, but on the movie clip itself:* _Movie Clip Editor_ > sidebar menu on the right (press _N_ to show/hide) > _Track_ > _Camera_ > _Lens._ Then, select the clip in the _Distortion_ compositor node to (un)distort accordingly. The parameters can be adjusted manually, and/or estimated automatically when solving a track in within Blender's motion tracker. Check _Radial Distortion_ under _Solve > Solve > Refine_ before hitting _Solve Camera Motion._ The documentation says: "But you still have to know approximate initial values - it will fail to find correct values if they were set completely incorrectly initially." - not sure how critical that is for distortion compared to e.g. focal length. Since 2.90 it's possible to select the "Nuke" model which should give the same results as Nuke (or Natron, yeahhhh) with the same K1/K2 values. You could check if the SynthEyes import script also adds the distortion parameters it estimated to the movie clip - if so, mayyyybe Blender's _Movie Distortion_ node will even work out of the box?
That's really interesting. I knew about the distortion node because it's the one automatically inserted into the compositing tree when "Setup Tracking Scene" button is used, but I didn't realise all the other options in the movie clip editor and the different distortion models!
This is some of the denser stuff you don't see in a lot of blender tutorials and I really appreciate this marriage of good camera knowledge and good cg
Hi Bob , great video a must for any one doing 3d . I live in India and in the city of Chennai where I live it is most of the time around 30 to 32 deg C , except in summer when it can go upto 37. Thanks , look forward to more such great informative videos.
Just wanted to add; with focus distance locked and you zoom in, you're not "adding more beautiful bokeh", you're just magnifying what's already there. I know this is probably more a cinematography thing, but maybe a tutorial on how to use lens in combination with practical placement to get "beautiful bokeh" into the scene? Like, why is there always a distant candle in a dark lit room? Or always distant traffic lights in outside daylight cityscapes? Or distant bright metallic objects producing very hot but tiny reflections? Not something I need to worry about for what I use Blender for, but something in my conscious mind when I'm operating a real camera (DSLR only, not into movie making). I'd also recommend people to get out of their CG and Blender sphere and look up tutorials and masterclasses on photography, cinematography, and even gaffer work. Not that everything will be applicable and transferable, but it's very beneficial to get into the minds of these arts. In 3D we're far too obsessed with making things "realistic" (whatever that is, because that often don't transfer well into actual photorealism) rather than beautiful and motivated.
one minor quibble that is a common misconception - it is NOT the focal length of the lens that causes things to look different between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens. the factor that makes the difference is DISTANCE TO CAMERA. so for example if you had a camera with unlimited pixel resolution and you used an 18 mm lens of a long straight street and had someone right in front of the camera and someone in the same shot half a kilometer away, you would notice that the person that is right in front of camera exhibits the wide angle distortion (nose towards camera looks larger, ears away from camera smaller, etc). but if you went into photoshop and magnified the person half a kilometer away so that their face filled the frame (remember, hypothetical unilimited pixel resolution image file) so that their face filled the frame, their face would exhibit the qualities of telephoto distortion (flattened features). another example of this is a long straight road and telephone poles along the sides. if you shoot that scene with a wide angle lens, you'd see that the telephone poles NEAR us would exhibit the wide angle distortion - exaggerated apparent distance. but if you look way down the road toward the horizon, all the telephone poles look very close together... and in fact, if you blew up this distant portion of the photo, it would look like it was shot with a telephoto lens. so it's the distance to subject that changes appearance. the different lenses just allow us to adjust that distance while keeping the subject a reasonable size in frame.
Great information and fun to watch. The Kubric lens was actually a 0.7. There are also 0.95s coming out more often now, though you usually want to use 2.0 or higher on them. That temperature is not what I expect for Canada... but is a cold front where I live. :o) Actually, this has been the coolest summer we've had in 15+ years, with only a couple days over 38 C and actually some days where the high stays below 32 C. Typical summer day here is 37 C for the high and 27.2 C for the 5:00am low.
I've been following your vids for quite some time now and still haven't figured out if I'm here more for the jokes/presentation style or for the content. Regardless, cool and funny stuff as always dude! :)
Basic optical science and so important and a lot of photographers these days don’t understand this properly. I was given a university course as a bachelor intern at the university where I did my internship on the open tower telescope. As I had to do object tracking on the sun and they figured that a basic optics course would help. And this was 1993 so most people didn’t have a digital camera. I learned something very valuable that we used. I would take images at I believe it was 450mm mirror I forgot the focal length. Probably 2000mm or 2500mm. And we would track solar spots. But I had learned that the CCD we borrowed from the I believe Swedes at the time, could also crop. And since my tracking tool would follow a bounding box that was drawn, I’d know where the center of the solar spot was and I’d align it’s center in to the center of the image. Which would take adding extra steps to the the two stepper motors, that were programmed to follow a perfect arch following the sun. And I’d just add or substract a few steps to keep that in the center of the frame. If the solar spot was relatively small, I would actually instruct the CCD to run in crop mode, and we’d zoom in getting basically 40% longer focal length. And the sensor was already not very big! And yes, we had a massive ND filter on that CCD. I don’t know what it was made off because we were basically focussing the sun, it would get fairly hot and potentially melt the sensor. I think it were Mylar sheets. Anything goes!!!! Whenever I hear that song I’m instantly thinking about Kate Capshaw in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Funny you mentioned the island when looking at the crop factors. I was almost sure it's the island I live on, we have a view here which looks quite identical. Curaçao is the island I live on.
Great video Blender Bob! I am so thankful that before I ever got into 3d work in Blender, I was trained and worked in professional photography, so moving into Blender I already had the photography background to understand lenses, F stops, depth of field and lighting! If any new 3d artists are struggling with these concepts I can't encourage you more to take a few basic classes on photography and lighting. The information you will learn, even in older courses and traditional photography will be applicable in the 3d world and help you make even better images in Blender.
Where I'm from (Norway), "Pedestal" have always been referred to as "Crane" moves. Crane-up, crane-down. I was always in post-production so I will admit I didn't meet camera operators on the daily :P But that's what we learned in filmschool and that's what we kept using... It seems the most common, at least around here.
That example for anamorphic lense, isn't that from fstoppers? I've seen the example before. Love how the booth show ovals vs circular booeh. It adds such a specific touch and mood to a shot
Hi Blender Bob! Once again an excellent video. Thank you! Your way of explaining things is very concise and that's a very good thing 👍. Just wanted to mention a few things that you might find interesting . The only thing that makes your 24-105mm lens a "35mm lens" (might be safer to call it full frame rather than 35mm because it sounds like a focal length) is that it works on full-frame 36x24mm sensor cameras without a vignette. "APS-C" lenses are still the exact focal length they claim to be. Nothing needs to be recalculated. APS-C lenses just aren't suitable for full frame cameras because you'll get a vignette because the glass elements inside the lens are smaller than in lenses designed for "full frame" camera sensors. In other words a 50mm APS-C lens and a 50mm "full frame" lens would produce the same field of view on your APS-C sensor camera. APS-C lenses might sometimes also have protrusions at the back of the lens that mean they might not fit a full frame camera, but that's another story. So you input 24mm focal length on your lego shot because 24mm is the focal length you used (I assume!). I'm assuming you used that lens on your APS-C sensor camera but had it zoomed at 24mm? So that means 24mm focal length on the Blender Camera setting is correct. Combine that with the sensor size you specified in the blender camera settings, and it works perfectly. Unless I'm mistaken, Bob, Blender has calculated that all perfectly, which is why it works. No faults there as far as I'm aware. :-) A quick note regarding lens distortion and undistortion in VFX and compositing, too. Blender can and does calculate lens distortion when tracking and solving tracking (as long as you have Refine > Radial Distortion ticked when you solve camera motion). In fact, when you click the button to set up the "Setup Tracking Scene" button it will automatically put the undistortion node in the compositing area ready for you to add CG elements after it, then you can duplicate that node at the end of the compositing tree and change "undistort" to "distort" and it will put everything back how it was in the original footage, with perfectly distorted CG elements to match. Pretty powerful! Another little thing about anamorphic lenses in Blender. You can get authentic anamporphic lens effects by using the "Ratio" box under the Camera's settings > Depth of Field > Aperture > Ratio. If the lens you're trying to simulate has a 2:1 squeeze factor, simply type 2 in this box and you'll get physically correct squeeze on bokeh and out of focus elements in the scene. Really clever! Blender really is that good. I'm pretty sure it could be used in combination with the Aspect X and Y you talked about too? Once again Bob, thanks for a great video! I always learn a lot!
Well, here's the thing. I didn't use the APS-C lens for the Legos (on purpose). So I do have a crop factor and it shouldn't work. Also somewhere in the clip I show the table without the legos. two pictures, one with full 35 and one APS-C, at the same focal length and they don't look the same. Thanks for the comments :-)
Right, the _Movie (un)Distortion_ nodes are even set up automatically! If you know which buttons to click, Blenders motion tracker workflow is indeed quite comfortable out of the box. It's just always a bit confusing to me what exactly is happening behind the scenes - which would seem crucial if I were doing professional shots in a pipeline and im-/exporting between software. I'm too lazy to try it out, but does anyone happen to know whether, when you solve a shot and select parameters to be "refined", does it actually change the settings on the movie clip as if you'd adjusted them manually? Can you e.g. get the precise K1/K2 values the solver estimated?
@@BlenderBob Thank you for your reply. That's interesting! I can't see the exact brand and model of crop-sensor lens you're using there, but since they're both Zoom lenses (I think) rather than prime lenses, it's possibly a discrepancy between the lenses. I don't think it's a blender problem. Can you be sure both lenses were set to exactly 24mm? Was there any in-camera lens distortion correction already applied? (This would effectively crop the image) and was the camera definitely not moved at all between shots? I can see a slight change of angle (possibly from resting the lens or lens hood on a table) between the shots. I've also noticed other factors which would affect the seeming position of the camera during image capture. I *think* that the sensor's aparent position depends on the lens, not the camera. To illustrate, I once had a 21mm lens that was about 3cm long (physically) and so the light rays seemed to converge where you'd expect them to end, but often modern wide angle camera lenses are much longer (physically). Because of the glass position in the lenses, the photo appears to be taken from a location slightly forward of the camera body itself. Sorry this is hard to explain, but it also could explain why different photos appear to be very different even though they are using the same focal length of lens. The upshot is though, that I believe Blender is still doing the correct calculations on the images. Sorry for the long replies! :-) This is my favourite Blender channel and I really have learned a huge amount from you. Thank you
SO many sculpting artists struggle on doing likeness (which is already a HARD task) trying to using references from many different sources with different cameras and lenses. ;)
13:50 This works for linearly polarized 3D glasses, but I've heard most theaters use circular polarization, precisely because they still work as intended even if you tilt (sorry, _roll_ :^) ) your head. Flipping one of two lenses over (panning or tilting by 180°) should have the same effect of changing whether the two combined let through everything or nothing, but AFAIU you can't get a smooth transition in between like with your (very neat!) variable density filter based on linear polarized filters. Also, apparently circularly polarized filters are more expensive and have a brown tint, compared to the cheap neutral-grey linearly polarized ones. Anyway, just the tiniest footnote on this very helpful video - I learned a lot!
There's a crazy good addon for camera work called Photographer it gives all necessary camera settings in one place with additional auto exposure, camera management, physically correct light values for lights, tools for focusing etc..
Great info here for people who are new to optics and lenses. I feel like the part that was least clear (in topic not literally optically) was the lens distortion section at the end. I am interested in whether I can use Blender to correct for barrel or pincushion distortion in a manner that has a defined scale. I'm glad to see there is software that can measure and compensate. More info about his would be appreciated. I realize you keep your videos to an appropriate length so they do not become tedious and this one is a good length. Maybe a deeper look into lenses is warranted in PART II ! (update 2 mins later: I just noticed the nice link to a distortion primer Thanks!)
it is funny that with indie film makers, there has been this huge emphasis on shooting FULL FRAME... but that would be the equivalent of shooting a tiny, no budget movie on a VISTAVISION CAMERA! aps-c is more than good enough for indie films and as you've shown in your diagram, is actually BIGGER than the 35mm motion picture film frame.
As far as I know, the focal length is not what you say it is, but the distance from the sensor to the optical centre of the lens. I might be incorrect though. However, it's a great tutorial overall!
Bob, I`d like to ask about space scenes, namely your general approach to those. Say if I make a ship crashing onto the planet, how do I keep their proportions realistic? In my case the planet is too small and rocket is too big, so when they collide, they look like toys. But I can`t imagine a workflow in which I do proper scaling to each object. Maybe an idea for video? Thanks
The only thing you could do is to have the camera follow the rocket until it crashes. You have to use some clever tricks to change the planet’s geometry, like passing through clouds. It’s not an easy task.
I got to hold and handle the lens at NAB 2013... hopefully this link will work with a picture... drive.google.com/file/d/1bphmT8zSj2MAbvAh--qBY0BaVVaZMAiO/view?usp=sharing
That's why I added a feature in my quick switch addon to sync all viewports when I change viewport lens. De for 3dview. I made an option so when I switch workspace i get the exact same view in each workspace. I don't like that each workspace has its own lense settings and 3dview area
Perhaps you are the only able to answer and potentially solve two issues I'm experiencing with Blender, version does not matter (2.9 - 3.0 beta). I prefer to build space scenes at scale, with one exception, distances between planets. Nonetheless, if the camera, parented to the interior of a starship is located at Blender's default center, and one or more planets are located at a distance of 100-300 km, the clip start of the camera must be set to a value relative to the interior in order to prevent the camera from clipping through the starship model. However, the setting for the interior of the starship means that the settings for the planets is too short, resulting in artifacts within the planets when animated, made more obvious when the planet has a separate atmosphere from the surface. The second issue is extreme camera and model shacking once away from Blender's default center. Many have advised me to reduce the overall scale, but this only solves the shacking provided the scale extremely tiny. Tiny scales, whist resolving one issue (kind of), introduce other issues... Thank you.
@@BlenderBob Personal preference: I prefer creating the entire scene in one go. This allows me to envision and create a realistic scene bases on a realistic scale, but I also find it overly difficult to work with tiny scales. Whether the scene is to scale or not, the clipping issue, for me, still exist, maybe I'm not using Blender correctly. I understand the dynamics of the camera. I've turned to you because I value you experience. Whatever your advise might be I'm completely open to it. Thank you.
It's been a while I'm looking for a good Blender/Nuke workflow when talking about lens distortion, because Blender lacks a overscan resolution and a STMap export feature. There's an addon, yet that one cheat it by tweaking sensor size. I'm my studies I normally crop but I wonder if this is very common in VFX pipeline?
Changing the sensor size works perfectly. That’s what we do at the office using the addon. Just make sure you bake the camera if you use a farm thought
i see a lot of blender tutorial creators even some of the most experienced and most reverred who dont understand photography and visual arts who cannot work with lens and cameras.
Hey Blender Bob, how would you go about producing an Anamorphic lens effect in Blender? Under Depth of Field > Aperture there is an option called "Ratio" which does a pretty good job of faking anamorphic, but it looks a bit too clean and CG. I was wondering what your approach would be?
I've been wondering this myself. Compositing combined with that ratio. If I'm correct there are 3 common squeeze factors used, so either 1.333, 1.5 or 2, with 2 being the most extreme. Other than that, compositing would be the way to go to add characteristic anamorphic imperfections. Lens distortion, aberration and various types of glare & flare carefully combined. Some anamorphic lenses have a more blue horizontal flare than others too. There's a really really really really interesting and in depth series of videos on anamorphic lenses on the "media division" channel if you're interested and have time to watch them. One characteristic of anamorphic lenses that I'm not sure how to simulate would be what's called lens "breathing" when focusing. Possibly would need to attach drivers to the camera's focus distance and make them affect the camera's focal length and move the camera slightly on the local z axis too? Not sure as I'm no expert, but it would be interesting to experiment!
Interesting question. I am no expert (actually I don't know shit), but what I would do is to actually simulate what is happening in reality, which would mean to first study what is happening in reality with real cameras. I think the right approach when there are no tools that provide proper results out of the box would be to actually create lens effects in the original ratio, then squeeze them down in compositing. Since I am lazy (and don't use Blenders compositor) I would probably use Resolve/Fusion and hope that it provides some effects that would help doing this. I know for certain that there are multiple commercial addons available for compositors like Fusion/Nuke/Natron that simulate these kinds of lens effects very accurately, but with the usual financial downside of having to waste money. I am pretty sure that these can be manually recreated but then you have to know what you are doing and spent the time doing it. Another option would be to take actual real anamorphic lens effects captured from real cameras and add them to the scene. The famous lens effects in the Star Trek remake from J.J. Abrahms are made like this. For this too, there is commercial footage available, which again might be overkill (for you wallet).
Hello Bob I have a question I can't understand why I have a Canon DSLR sensor (22.3X14.9mm) = 1.5 apect ratio Filmed image 1920X1080 = aspect ratio 1.777 In tracking software like 3DEqualizer if I put the dimension of the sensor the ration aspect becomes 1.5 which is normal it is the size of the sensor. but if I export to maya or blender for example the aspect ratio is 1.5 normal it is the value that I set. but if replace the aspect ratio to suit my image (3d package) Are my tracking values respected? and if I change the aspect ratio in the cams of maya or blender I can see that it is not going good!! what am I not understanding thank you and very interesting work.
ok I just understood, I thought that in video also the device used the full sensor. only the photos which are 6000x4000 = a ratio of 1.5 full like the sensor thank you again i just learned something
hi blender bob Excuse me i have questions but it's not about the lenses. it's about the workflow between blender and houdini. I am starting to discover software other than blender but I don't know how to attack. is it possible to model and animate on blender then copy the model created on blender and put it on houdini (which has its own style of animation) and bake the animation from blender to that then i can work on it on houdini then reimport the model with its simulations on a blender or other software for rendering and composition
@@BlenderBob thank you so much i will try that.so if i dont want to use rig from blender but just the animation on the model with houdini rig i bake with alembic ?
Qurious, do you use lense profiles, like the distortion, chromatic abberation etc from the lenses? I feel like that is detail that is missed in the digital world.
Oh! You reminded me I forgot to talk about chromatic aberration. I even prepared footage for that. But it’s ok since I will take about it in a series I will do on compositing. We never use lens profiles for distortion since 3D equalizer is very good at figuring it out. We don’t use distortion charts either. It’s like a thing of the past. Cook have Nuke distortion nodes for their lenses and they are generated by lasers. But that’s too advanced for the clip. :-)
@@BlenderBob just the camera view area beyond the the camera frame. I set up a camera view I want with desired focal length but want to see more of objects beyond the frame - the grey out area.
@@BlenderBobok - I’ll try that and let u know how it goes. I just want to render more outside of frame so the image becomes more portrait - without changing focal length
Wait doesn't blender actually have fish eye like setting. I believe it has a camera setting to achieve the distortion. What is also like is that blender has camera-shift. Super handy for keeping verticals vertical. You didn't to uh that point
Merci je viens de comprendre pourquoi mes bokeh n'étaient pas raccord avec ce que je fait en photographie, je vais essayé les 80 et 200 mm en f. 2.0 ou f 4.5 jusqu'à maintenant je descendait dans des aperture f. 0.2 ce qui effectivement n'est pas réaliste. Faut aussi que je règle le sensor en 24/36
Blender Bob thanks for the video maybe you can help me I'm desperate! I just want to have a small logo in the corner of my rendering and I don't know how to do that. Isn't there a possibility? I've searched everywhere and couldn't find an answer anywhere :C
Did you hear the recent news on udims? It was I. Today's blender today,is it the issue that you were speakingof in that video you had on problems with blender?
Donc en faite quand ils parlent de motion control tourné en vista vision ou super 35mm, c'est en faite équivalent au bon vieux 24x36 à 8 perforation qu'ont utilisait sur un boîtier reflex argentique à l'ancienne, je me disait bien que le 35 mm 4 perforation ou même les aps c c'est pas le même crop factor. Mais à vrai dire avec le 70 mm y'a le même délire le IMAX c'est pas du panavision 70mm, je savait pas que ça foutait la merde au tracking, faut que je fasse gaffe au capteur en plus de la lentilles utilisé...
22:18 this is a little bit out of place here and if we did not knew what you are talking about, it would be hard to even understand it. I also think it is known nowadays that this is not very accurate and it is not very useful more so on the 3d world. the focus plane is probably the only spot to be razor sharp if you are using depth of field.
I am talking about the 1/3 2/3 rule, not the whole video. the video is awesome, it helped me connect lots of knoledge, but the 1/3 2/3 rule you mentioned at 22:18 is not much useful nor accurate. the way you matched your footage with the 3d using the legos is very smart, I've done it like that before, it really helps, but only the focus plane really is in focus. you will notice decreased sharpness at 1/3 and 2/3 of the distance when rendering at high resolutions
@@raulgalets The 1/3 2/3 rule is scientifically accurate. This is how optics react. May be it's not mathematically exactly 1/3. Maybe it's 1/3034675. I don't know exactly but this is how it works. So in photography, if you want a depth of field that will cover from point A to point B, you need to focus on the first third and adjust your aperture until both points are in focus
@@BlenderBob this is true for subjects that are considerably far away. when focusing on objects that are closer the ratio gets closer to 2/5. this ratio is also dependant on lots of other factors. in modern cameras it is dependant on the megapixels. if depends on focus breathing if your lens suffer from it. in the 3d world it is basically not a thing.
Damn, I was wondering why everything is in French, even though it is not Quebec but Montreal. Searched the web and found that Montreal is part of Quebec.
@@BlenderBob I figured that part out. We’re using celsius too but in the summer we start complaining when it reaches 40+. And I’m known to not like hot weather. I do enjoy the -20 deg winters a lot more.
About the lens distortion in Blender tracker, a few people commented on how to do this in Blender so just go down and read about it. Thanks everyone. :-)
You should do an "Anything Goes" music video :P
Hahaha
Tres bien!
@@MarCuseus That's as far as I'm going to push this. :-)
@@BlenderBob Fair enough :D
Blender Bob You Are Awesome!!!! 💖💖
You can add your own presets for those camera settings. Doesn't that help with your sensor issue?
You could make a simple addon which saves more settings. Like focal, dof, sensor and what not into one preset
blender guru calls you his new favourite blender youtube channel❤
I KNOW!!!!! SO COOOL! :-)
31:51 Blender is supposed to be able to do precise (un)distortion. However, the _Lens Distortion_ node is apparently meant as just an artistic effect. Instead, use the *Movie Distortion* node (confusingly just titled _Distortion_ after being added to the node tree). Also perplexing: *The distortion model & parameters are not adjusted at the node, but on the movie clip itself:*
_Movie Clip Editor_ > sidebar menu on the right (press _N_ to show/hide) > _Track_ > _Camera_ > _Lens._
Then, select the clip in the _Distortion_ compositor node to (un)distort accordingly.
The parameters can be adjusted manually, and/or estimated automatically when solving a track in within Blender's motion tracker. Check _Radial Distortion_ under _Solve > Solve > Refine_ before hitting _Solve Camera Motion._ The documentation says: "But you still have to know approximate initial values - it will fail to find correct values if they were set completely incorrectly initially." - not sure how critical that is for distortion compared to e.g. focal length.
Since 2.90 it's possible to select the "Nuke" model which should give the same results as Nuke (or Natron, yeahhhh) with the same K1/K2 values. You could check if the SynthEyes import script also adds the distortion parameters it estimated to the movie clip - if so, mayyyybe Blender's _Movie Distortion_ node will even work out of the box?
That's really interesting. I knew about the distortion node because it's the one automatically inserted into the compositing tree when "Setup Tracking Scene" button is used, but I didn't realise all the other options in the movie clip editor and the different distortion models!
A whole photography course in 30 min! Thanks!
By far the best video I've seen on this topic and I've been doing VFX since 2002! Great job!
Yo, i saw you on blender guru's email list! 25 years of vfx experience? Insane, great videos!
Congrats Blender Bob ….happy to discover you were in Montreal too
Thank you sir, 28:46 fix my sculpt problem, and 29:04 fix my whole day problem :)
This is some of the denser stuff you don't see in a lot of blender tutorials and I really appreciate this marriage of good camera knowledge and good cg
Thank you. I finally get what's up with anamorphic.
This is a masterclass in itself!
Congratz on the blenderguru shoutout
Consider diffraction limit, demosaicing of a Bayer filter and sensor noise... and we are on the way to advanced digital photography. Great video!
Ps what's also very cool, is the term lens breathing. Saw this year's back on a car render. It's so nice and smooth
Hi Bob , great video a must for any one doing 3d . I live in India and in the city of Chennai where I live it is most of the time around 30 to 32 deg C , except in summer when it can go upto 37.
Thanks , look forward to more such great informative videos.
i learn so much from you that i would miss, thx
Congrats on the blender guru shoutout
you are done such great videos with lot of fun. Thank you so much ...sir
Thank you fellow bob, very helpful.
I just learned so much watching this video. Thanks Blender Bob. Stoked seeing the post from the Guru.
Just wanted to add; with focus distance locked and you zoom in, you're not "adding more beautiful bokeh", you're just magnifying what's already there. I know this is probably more a cinematography thing, but maybe a tutorial on how to use lens in combination with practical placement to get "beautiful bokeh" into the scene? Like, why is there always a distant candle in a dark lit room? Or always distant traffic lights in outside daylight cityscapes? Or distant bright metallic objects producing very hot but tiny reflections? Not something I need to worry about for what I use Blender for, but something in my conscious mind when I'm operating a real camera (DSLR only, not into movie making).
I'd also recommend people to get out of their CG and Blender sphere and look up tutorials and masterclasses on photography, cinematography, and even gaffer work. Not that everything will be applicable and transferable, but it's very beneficial to get into the minds of these arts. In 3D we're far too obsessed with making things "realistic" (whatever that is, because that often don't transfer well into actual photorealism) rather than beautiful and motivated.
Great video. I got a Johnny Dangerously vibe 1/4 way through lol! You hit ND filters too, nice.
one minor quibble that is a common misconception - it is NOT the focal length of the lens that causes things to look different between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens. the factor that makes the difference is DISTANCE TO CAMERA.
so for example if you had a camera with unlimited pixel resolution and you used an 18 mm lens of a long straight street and had someone right in front of the camera and someone in the same shot half a kilometer away, you would notice that the person that is right in front of camera exhibits the wide angle distortion (nose towards camera looks larger, ears away from camera smaller, etc). but if you went into photoshop and magnified the person half a kilometer away so that their face filled the frame (remember, hypothetical unilimited pixel resolution image file) so that their face filled the frame, their face would exhibit the qualities of telephoto distortion (flattened features).
another example of this is a long straight road and telephone poles along the sides. if you shoot that scene with a wide angle lens, you'd see that the telephone poles NEAR us would exhibit the wide angle distortion - exaggerated apparent distance. but if you look way down the road toward the horizon, all the telephone poles look very close together... and in fact, if you blew up this distant portion of the photo, it would look like it was shot with a telephoto lens.
so it's the distance to subject that changes appearance. the different lenses just allow us to adjust that distance while keeping the subject a reasonable size in frame.
That’s pretty much what I explain at one point where I show the wide angle and it in the cropping of the telephoto. :-)
I am new to blender thank you for all the advises and lessons
26:13 I would like to clarify that the fastest lens was the Carl Zeiss Planar f/0.7. It was used by Kubrick in the movie "Barry Lyndon".
You stole my thunder. :-)
Great information and fun to watch.
The Kubric lens was actually a 0.7. There are also 0.95s coming out more often now, though you usually want to use 2.0 or higher on them.
That temperature is not what I expect for Canada... but is a cold front where I live. :o) Actually, this has been the coolest summer we've had in 15+ years, with only a couple days over 38 C and actually some days where the high stays below 32 C. Typical summer day here is 37 C for the high and 27.2 C for the 5:00am low.
I've been following your vids for quite some time now and still haven't figured out if I'm here more for the jokes/presentation style or for the content. Regardless, cool and funny stuff as always dude! :)
This is very good information, and well explained. Thank you. Very generous of you to share your knowledge. I really appreciate this.
Basic optical science and so important and a lot of photographers these days don’t understand this properly. I was given a university course as a bachelor intern at the university where I did my internship on the open tower telescope.
As I had to do object tracking on the sun and they figured that a basic optics course would help. And this was 1993 so most people didn’t have a digital camera.
I learned something very valuable that we used. I would take images at I believe it was 450mm mirror I forgot the focal length. Probably 2000mm or 2500mm. And we would track solar spots. But I had learned that the CCD we borrowed from the I believe Swedes at the time, could also crop.
And since my tracking tool would follow a bounding box that was drawn, I’d know where the center of the solar spot was and I’d align it’s center in to the center of the image. Which would take adding extra steps to the the two stepper motors, that were programmed to follow a perfect arch following the sun. And I’d just add or substract a few steps to keep that in the center of the frame.
If the solar spot was relatively small, I would actually instruct the CCD to run in crop mode, and we’d zoom in getting basically 40% longer focal length. And the sensor was already not very big! And yes, we had a massive ND filter on that CCD. I don’t know what it was made off because we were basically focussing the sun, it would get fairly hot and potentially melt the sensor. I think it were Mylar sheets.
Anything goes!!!! Whenever I hear that song I’m instantly thinking about Kate Capshaw in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
6:10 - I really love this silly bloopers! It really helps to main brain to get in information. Nice trick)
Love your work!
Funny you mentioned the island when looking at the crop factors. I was almost sure it's the island I live on, we have a view here which looks quite identical. Curaçao is the island I live on.
Great video Blender Bob! I am so thankful that before I ever got into 3d work in Blender, I was trained and worked in professional photography, so moving into Blender I already had the photography background to understand lenses, F stops, depth of field and lighting! If any new 3d artists are struggling with these concepts I can't encourage you more to take a few basic classes on photography and lighting. The information you will learn, even in older courses and traditional photography will be applicable in the 3d world and help you make even better images in Blender.
Where I'm from (Norway), "Pedestal" have always been referred to as "Crane" moves. Crane-up, crane-down. I was always in post-production so I will admit I didn't meet camera operators on the daily :P But that's what we learned in filmschool and that's what we kept using... It seems the most common, at least around here.
btw, this video is the densest introduction to lenses I've seen. Really great stuff...
Thank you. Now I'm able to refer people to this video instead of explaining all that by myself. Well done!
this video is awesome, finally I've understood something about focal length and fStop :)
Very nice tutorial and good to see that there is another MAC user working the same shifts.
That example for anamorphic lense, isn't that from fstoppers? I've seen the example before. Love how the booth show ovals vs circular booeh. It adds such a specific touch and mood to a shot
Hi Blender Bob! Once again an excellent video. Thank you! Your way of explaining things is very concise and that's a very good thing 👍.
Just wanted to mention a few things that you might find interesting .
The only thing that makes your 24-105mm lens a "35mm lens" (might be safer to call it full frame rather than 35mm because it sounds like a focal length) is that it works on full-frame 36x24mm sensor cameras without a vignette. "APS-C" lenses are still the exact focal length they claim to be. Nothing needs to be recalculated. APS-C lenses just aren't suitable for full frame cameras because you'll get a vignette because the glass elements inside the lens are smaller than in lenses designed for "full frame" camera sensors. In other words a 50mm APS-C lens and a 50mm "full frame" lens would produce the same field of view on your APS-C sensor camera. APS-C lenses might sometimes also have protrusions at the back of the lens that mean they might not fit a full frame camera, but that's another story.
So you input 24mm focal length on your lego shot because 24mm is the focal length you used (I assume!). I'm assuming you used that lens on your APS-C sensor camera but had it zoomed at 24mm? So that means 24mm focal length on the Blender Camera setting is correct. Combine that with the sensor size you specified in the blender camera settings, and it works perfectly. Unless I'm mistaken, Bob, Blender has calculated that all perfectly, which is why it works. No faults there as far as I'm aware. :-)
A quick note regarding lens distortion and undistortion in VFX and compositing, too. Blender can and does calculate lens distortion when tracking and solving tracking (as long as you have Refine > Radial Distortion ticked when you solve camera motion). In fact, when you click the button to set up the "Setup Tracking Scene" button it will automatically put the undistortion node in the compositing area ready for you to add CG elements after it, then you can duplicate that node at the end of the compositing tree and change "undistort" to "distort" and it will put everything back how it was in the original footage, with perfectly distorted CG elements to match. Pretty powerful!
Another little thing about anamorphic lenses in Blender. You can get authentic anamporphic lens effects by using the "Ratio" box under the Camera's settings > Depth of Field > Aperture > Ratio. If the lens you're trying to simulate has a 2:1 squeeze factor, simply type 2 in this box and you'll get physically correct squeeze on bokeh and out of focus elements in the scene. Really clever! Blender really is that good. I'm pretty sure it could be used in combination with the Aspect X and Y you talked about too?
Once again Bob, thanks for a great video! I always learn a lot!
Well, here's the thing. I didn't use the APS-C lens for the Legos (on purpose). So I do have a crop factor and it shouldn't work. Also somewhere in the clip I show the table without the legos. two pictures, one with full 35 and one APS-C, at the same focal length and they don't look the same. Thanks for the comments :-)
Right, the _Movie (un)Distortion_ nodes are even set up automatically! If you know which buttons to click, Blenders motion tracker workflow is indeed quite comfortable out of the box.
It's just always a bit confusing to me what exactly is happening behind the scenes - which would seem crucial if I were doing professional shots in a pipeline and im-/exporting between software.
I'm too lazy to try it out, but does anyone happen to know whether, when you solve a shot and select parameters to be "refined", does it actually change the settings on the movie clip as if you'd adjusted them manually? Can you e.g. get the precise K1/K2 values the solver estimated?
@@BlenderBob Thank you for your reply. That's interesting! I can't see the exact brand and model of crop-sensor lens you're using there, but since they're both Zoom lenses (I think) rather than prime lenses, it's possibly a discrepancy between the lenses. I don't think it's a blender problem. Can you be sure both lenses were set to exactly 24mm? Was there any in-camera lens distortion correction already applied? (This would effectively crop the image) and was the camera definitely not moved at all between shots? I can see a slight change of angle (possibly from resting the lens or lens hood on a table) between the shots. I've also noticed other factors which would affect the seeming position of the camera during image capture. I *think* that the sensor's aparent position depends on the lens, not the camera. To illustrate, I once had a 21mm lens that was about 3cm long (physically) and so the light rays seemed to converge where you'd expect them to end, but often modern wide angle camera lenses are much longer (physically). Because of the glass position in the lenses, the photo appears to be taken from a location slightly forward of the camera body itself. Sorry this is hard to explain, but it also could explain why different photos appear to be very different even though they are using the same focal length of lens. The upshot is though, that I believe Blender is still doing the correct calculations on the images. Sorry for the long replies! :-) This is my favourite Blender channel and I really have learned a huge amount from you. Thank you
@@davebulow2 I actually tried it with different focal length and I got the same results. There is a difference in the field of view.
Luv your humor...even though I have to watch the whole thing 10X's to get it. Maybe because I'm old enough to be your dad.
Great timing! As I'm doing a project after not touching blender for 2 months!
Thanks Bob’s Blenders! Dropping you a sub
SO many sculpting artists struggle on doing likeness (which is already a HARD task) trying to using references from many different sources with different cameras and lenses. ;)
13:50 This works for linearly polarized 3D glasses, but I've heard most theaters use circular polarization, precisely because they still work as intended even if you tilt (sorry, _roll_ :^) ) your head.
Flipping one of two lenses over (panning or tilting by 180°) should have the same effect of changing whether the two combined let through everything or nothing, but AFAIU you can't get a smooth transition in between like with your (very neat!) variable density filter based on linear polarized filters.
Also, apparently circularly polarized filters are more expensive and have a brown tint, compared to the cheap neutral-grey linearly polarized ones.
Anyway, just the tiniest footnote on this very helpful video - I learned a lot!
There's a crazy good addon for camera work called Photographer
it gives all necessary camera settings in one place with additional auto exposure, camera management, physically correct light values for lights, tools for focusing etc..
Cool! I'll check it out. You still need to know about lenses though. :-)
@@BlenderBob Sure thing!
Lots of great info. Thanks.
That was awesome and super clear and informative!
Looks like Bora Bora in French Polynesia... Maybe somewhere around the Sofitel Resort? Did you vacation there?
It is...
Great info here for people who are new to optics and lenses. I feel like the part that was least clear (in topic not literally optically) was the lens distortion section at the end. I am interested in whether I can use Blender to correct for barrel or pincushion distortion in a manner that has a defined scale. I'm glad to see there is software that can measure and compensate. More info about his would be appreciated. I realize you keep your videos to an appropriate length so they do not become tedious and this one is a good length. Maybe a deeper look into lenses is warranted in PART II ! (update 2 mins later: I just noticed the nice link to a distortion primer Thanks!)
it is funny that with indie film makers, there has been this huge emphasis on shooting FULL FRAME... but that would be the equivalent of shooting a tiny, no budget movie on a VISTAVISION CAMERA! aps-c is more than good enough for indie films and as you've shown in your diagram, is actually BIGGER than the 35mm motion picture film frame.
As usual, Amazing video
As far as I know, the focal length is not what you say it is, but the distance from the sensor to the optical centre of the lens. I might be incorrect though. However, it's a great tutorial overall!
Yeah, you're right.:-)
Very thorough and informative tutorial. Thank you :)
You are the Man! Thank You for posting awesome stuff.
Bob, I`d like to ask about space scenes, namely your general approach to those. Say if I make a ship crashing onto the planet, how do I keep their proportions realistic? In my case the planet is too small and rocket is too big, so when they collide, they look like toys. But I can`t imagine a workflow in which I do proper scaling to each object. Maybe an idea for video? Thanks
The only thing you could do is to have the camera follow the rocket until it crashes. You have to use some clever tricks to change the planet’s geometry, like passing through clouds. It’s not an easy task.
@@BlenderBob understood, thanks for the tips!
Damn right it was hot that day, feels good today tho. Merci pour tes videos. Fantastic job. Thank you so much.
Top work as usual.
Kubrick's custom NASA lens was for Barry Lyndon. He wanted to light some interior scenes using candles alone.
I knew... I just wanted to make the moon landing joke... :-)
I got to hold and handle the lens at NAB 2013... hopefully this link will work with a picture...
drive.google.com/file/d/1bphmT8zSj2MAbvAh--qBY0BaVVaZMAiO/view?usp=sharing
@@imagesh1 Cool! YT will probably remove your comment because of the link
thanks, as always very good tutorial :)
That's why I added a feature in my quick switch addon to sync all viewports when I change viewport lens. De for 3dview. I made an option so when I switch workspace i get the exact same view in each workspace. I don't like that each workspace has its own lense settings and 3dview area
Perhaps you are the only able to answer and potentially solve two issues I'm experiencing with Blender, version does not matter (2.9 - 3.0 beta). I prefer to build space scenes at scale, with one exception, distances between planets. Nonetheless, if the camera, parented to the interior of a starship is located at Blender's default center, and one or more planets are located at a distance of 100-300 km, the clip start of the camera must be set to a value relative to the interior in order to prevent the camera from clipping through the starship model. However, the setting for the interior of the starship means that the settings for the planets is too short, resulting in artifacts within the planets when animated, made more obvious when the planet has a separate atmosphere from the surface. The second issue is extreme camera and model shacking once away from Blender's default center. Many have advised me to reduce the overall scale, but this only solves the shacking provided the scale extremely tiny. Tiny scales, whist resolving one issue (kind of), introduce other issues... Thank you.
Why would you want to make the planet real size?
@@BlenderBob Personal preference: I prefer creating the entire scene in one go. This allows me to envision and create a realistic scene bases on a realistic scale, but I also find it overly difficult to work with tiny scales. Whether the scene is to scale or not, the clipping issue, for me, still exist, maybe I'm not using Blender correctly. I understand the dynamics of the camera. I've turned to you because I value you experience. Whatever your advise might be I'm completely open to it. Thank you.
I like "there r four things that can"... while showing 7 fingers :D
Ah ah, you are new in the neighborhood huh? Keep watching the other clips. :-)
Great video :)
As always the best info presented usefully!
6:22, if only you knew how to count :-)
I love Tintin
6:14 I feel you Bob :/
It's been a while I'm looking for a good Blender/Nuke workflow when talking about lens distortion, because Blender lacks a overscan resolution and a STMap export feature. There's an addon, yet that one cheat it by tweaking sensor size. I'm my studies I normally crop but I wonder if this is very common in VFX pipeline?
Changing the sensor size works perfectly. That’s what we do at the office using the addon. Just make sure you bake the camera if you use a farm thought
I read long time ago it was more about 40mm, but doing again today. I noticed multiple articles says it's around 17-25mm
is not PAN PAN PAN PAN everywhere... , just like client revisions... :-D
This is gonna be fun.
Another hit! :D
i see a lot of blender tutorial creators even some of the most experienced and most reverred who dont understand photography and visual arts who cannot work with lens and cameras.
Hey Blender Bob, how would you go about producing an Anamorphic lens effect in Blender? Under Depth of Field > Aperture there is an option called "Ratio" which does a pretty good job of faking anamorphic, but it looks a bit too clean and CG. I was wondering what your approach would be?
I've been wondering this myself. Compositing combined with that ratio. If I'm correct there are 3 common squeeze factors used, so either 1.333, 1.5 or 2, with 2 being the most extreme. Other than that, compositing would be the way to go to add characteristic anamorphic imperfections. Lens distortion, aberration and various types of glare & flare carefully combined. Some anamorphic lenses have a more blue horizontal flare than others too. There's a really really really really interesting and in depth series of videos on anamorphic lenses on the "media division" channel if you're interested and have time to watch them. One characteristic of anamorphic lenses that I'm not sure how to simulate would be what's called lens "breathing" when focusing. Possibly would need to attach drivers to the camera's focus distance and make them affect the camera's focal length and move the camera slightly on the local z axis too? Not sure as I'm no expert, but it would be interesting to experiment!
Interesting question. I am no expert (actually I don't know shit), but what I would do is to actually simulate what is happening in reality, which would mean to first study what is happening in reality with real cameras.
I think the right approach when there are no tools that provide proper results out of the box would be to actually create lens effects in the original ratio, then squeeze them down in compositing. Since I am lazy (and don't use Blenders compositor) I would probably use Resolve/Fusion and hope that it provides some effects that would help doing this.
I know for certain that there are multiple commercial addons available for compositors like Fusion/Nuke/Natron that simulate these kinds of lens effects very accurately, but with the usual financial downside of having to waste money. I am pretty sure that these can be manually recreated but then you have to know what you are doing and spent the time doing it.
Another option would be to take actual real anamorphic lens effects captured from real cameras and add them to the scene.
The famous lens effects in the Star Trek remake from J.J. Abrahms are made like this.
For this too, there is commercial footage available, which again might be overkill (for you wallet).
the new hotness now is recreating actual lenses and setting the camera to orthographic so you can get cinima distortion.
Depth of Feel
Hello Bob
I have a question I can't understand why
I have a Canon DSLR sensor (22.3X14.9mm) = 1.5 apect ratio
Filmed image 1920X1080 = aspect ratio 1.777
In tracking software like 3DEqualizer if I put the dimension of the sensor the ration aspect becomes 1.5 which is normal it is the size of the sensor.
but if I export to maya or blender for example the aspect ratio is 1.5 normal it is the value that I set.
but if replace the aspect ratio to suit my image (3d package)
Are my tracking values respected?
and if I change the aspect ratio in the cams of maya or blender
I can see that it is not going good!!
what am I not understanding
thank you and very interesting work.
If you shoot in HD, you will not use the full sensor. So the aspect ration will be 16:9 (or 1.777). This is what you need to feed the tracker with.
ok I just understood, I thought that in video also the device used the full sensor.
only the photos which are 6000x4000 = a ratio of 1.5 full like the sensor
thank you again i just learned something
In multan this temperature feels like warm
hi blender bob Excuse me i have questions but it's not about the lenses. it's about the workflow between blender and houdini. I am starting to discover software other than blender but I don't know how to attack. is it possible to model and animate on blender then copy the model created on blender and put it on houdini (which has its own style of animation) and bake the animation from blender to that then i can work on it on houdini then reimport the model with its simulations on a blender or other software for rendering and composition
You can use FBX to transfer the animation with the rig or baked with alembic.
@@BlenderBob thank you so much i will try that.so if i dont want to use rig from blender but just the animation on the model with houdini rig i bake with alembic ?
Yep
@@BlenderBob hehe thanks
👍👍👍!
Qurious, do you use lense profiles, like the distortion, chromatic abberation etc from the lenses? I feel like that is detail that is missed in the digital world.
Oh! You reminded me I forgot to talk about chromatic aberration. I even prepared footage for that. But it’s ok since I will take about it in a series I will do on compositing. We never use lens profiles for distortion since 3D equalizer is very good at figuring it out. We don’t use distortion charts either. It’s like a thing of the past. Cook have Nuke distortion nodes for their lenses and they are generated by lasers. But that’s too advanced for the clip. :-)
@@BlenderBob Ahh I suppose that makes sense. Thanks always something I was wondering about.
Aaaand Dunning-Kruger effect sinks in.. I just learned a shit ton and learned theres more I don't know haha
i have set up an image but i don't want to change the focal length - can i see more of the image artificially each side in all directions of the crop?
Huh? Sorry I don’t understand. Can you try again? If you can reach my discord server. It’s easier to fix problems this way. :-)
@@BlenderBob just the camera view area beyond the the camera frame. I set up a camera view I want with desired focal length but want to see more of objects beyond the frame - the grey out area.
@@GameShifu You could change the sensor size but that's kind of doing the same thing as changing the focal length.
@@BlenderBobok - I’ll try that and let u know how it goes. I just want to render more outside of frame so the image becomes more portrait - without changing focal length
@@BlenderBob thanks for your time
50mm is standard only with full size sensor.
Wait doesn't blender actually have fish eye like setting. I believe it has a camera setting to achieve the distortion. What is also like is that blender has camera-shift. Super handy for keeping verticals vertical. You didn't to uh that point
Merci je viens de comprendre pourquoi mes bokeh n'étaient pas raccord avec ce que je fait en photographie, je vais essayé les 80 et 200 mm en f. 2.0 ou f 4.5 jusqu'à maintenant je descendait dans des aperture f. 0.2 ce qui effectivement n'est pas réaliste. Faut aussi que je règle le sensor en 24/36
Blender Bob thanks for the video maybe you can help me I'm desperate!
I just want to have a small logo in the corner of my rendering and I don't know how to do that. Isn't there a possibility? I've searched everywhere and couldn't find an answer anywhere :C
Can't you just add it in the compositor?
Did you hear the recent news on udims? It was I. Today's blender today,is it the issue that you were speakingof in that video you had on problems with blender?
Yep! And I know that they are also working on other fixed related to my UDIM clip. :-)
Blender guru send me here
I actually prefer 50mm over 35mm ):
Donc en faite quand ils parlent de motion control tourné en vista vision ou super 35mm, c'est en faite équivalent au bon vieux 24x36 à 8 perforation qu'ont utilisait sur un boîtier reflex argentique à l'ancienne, je me disait bien que le 35 mm 4 perforation ou même les aps c c'est pas le même crop factor. Mais à vrai dire avec le 70 mm y'a le même délire le IMAX c'est pas du panavision 70mm, je savait pas que ça foutait la merde au tracking, faut que je fasse gaffe au capteur en plus de la lentilles utilisé...
22:18 this is a little bit out of place here and if we did not knew what you are talking about, it would be hard to even understand it. I also think it is known nowadays that this is not very accurate and it is not very useful more so on the 3d world. the focus plane is probably the only spot to be razor sharp if you are using depth of field.
What do you mean by it’s not accurate?
And it’s actually very useful, actually crucial if you work in VFX and you need to match live action plates.
I am talking about the 1/3 2/3 rule, not the whole video. the video is awesome, it helped me connect lots of knoledge, but the 1/3 2/3 rule you mentioned at 22:18 is not much useful nor accurate. the way you matched your footage with the 3d using the legos is very smart, I've done it like that before, it really helps, but only the focus plane really is in focus. you will notice decreased sharpness at 1/3 and 2/3 of the distance when rendering at high resolutions
@@raulgalets The 1/3 2/3 rule is scientifically accurate. This is how optics react. May be it's not mathematically exactly 1/3. Maybe it's 1/3034675. I don't know exactly but this is how it works. So in photography, if you want a depth of field that will cover from point A to point B, you need to focus on the first third and adjust your aperture until both points are in focus
@@BlenderBob this is true for subjects that are considerably far away. when focusing on objects that are closer the ratio gets closer to 2/5. this ratio is also dependant on lots of other factors. in modern cameras it is dependant on the megapixels. if depends on focus breathing if your lens suffer from it. in the 3d world it is basically not a thing.
26:13 ... You are a effing SAVAGE
Huh what? Why?
@@BlenderBob For that big not-so-secret about Kubrick 😂😂😂
26:21 - He would have used a higher F-stop on the Moon, right? The Sun is brighter up there because the flat Earth isn't up there to block it.
Mo'orea?
Bora Bora
Damn, I was wondering why everything is in French, even though it is not Quebec but Montreal. Searched the web and found that Montreal is part of Quebec.
Ah ah and Montréal is an island too. Few people know that. :-)
Anyone else get super motion sick watching this?
you said 4 things but your other hands only 3 hahahaha
Andrew Price?
33 deg ? Hot? wth.
Celsius...
@@BlenderBob I figured that part out. We’re using celsius too but in the summer we start complaining when it reaches 40+. And I’m known to not like hot weather. I do enjoy the -20 deg winters a lot more.
With the humidity factor it was 43
Where are you from, if I may ask?
@@BlenderBob Romania