YOU RUINED MY LIFE (for about a week) I SPENT SO LONG TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT ON MY OWN THAT I SEE LENSMAKING EQUATIONS IN MY SLEEP thanks for the files now my addiction is reawakened and now the rest of summer break is going to be indoors
The biggest proof of all that you're a mad scientist is that you only charged 5 dollars for this. I was legit expecting a price of 50 bucks at the VERY least.
I still can't believe the "unnecessarily " complicated render video only has like 500k views. It really blew my mind and now I can freaking download the file!? Thank u so much!!!
I can't believe I will be able to play around with this. Your video was incredible, not only for what you achieved to do in blender, but also the editing. And now you optimized and made it more user friendly! Bravo
Before clicking the link in the description, I randomly guessed around 20-30 dollars for access to such a project just based on the amount of work and knowledge required to make this happen. I think you underestimate what this can be worth to people...
Of course, more interesting than this base effort is if someone wrote this kind of compensation within the renderer, but this will do perfectly for now.
This is so awesome. You're starting a whole new generation of 3D Rendering. Thank you so much for making us a part of it. I know how hard you worked to make it happen.
I have one final improvement suggestion - remove the renderer camera and just use the texture baking option since it reduces losses for another order (didn't try it actually but the hypothesis needs to be tested) and also helps to win an extra light bounce, so bounce count can be reduced 1 step down for extra speed.
Wow, nice bro! I see a lot of people posting your video on photography discord servers, theres definitely some people that would want to get their hands on this.
I WOULD LOVE a video made for the people that are not used to 3D design but would love to play around with the camera, people like regular designers, photographers and the rest of us peasants :D
This is really cool! Done some interesting experiments myself. Including making functional newtonian based telescopes that includes functional barlow and eyepieces. Very interesting what blender is capable of.
I love using the camera but just wish that there was a version with a wider fov, its so narrow at the moment that you can only capture small scenes or you have to move really far away with the camera wich makes the scene look a bit flat
It's a terrific work, congrats! I have two questions: - how do you get the correct aperture? Do you approximate a Sunny16 calculation with the scene and check roughly how the blades on the camera are open/closed? - does the setup works also with Blender 3.5? (I started the render process but I had to stop it because I needed the PC, I'll try again later, but I would like to know if there's something that will mess up the result in that Blender version) Thanks!
Thanks! For the aperture it's approximate, I didn't attach any actual numbers to it so it's "guess and check" to see what looks good. The viewfinder camera approximates the aperture darkening effect. As for the blender version, it should still work in 3.5 but if you run into issues, try 3.6
I wonder if it's possible to speed it up even more. I bought the file and played a bit with it - I tested a different method - instead of looking at a glossy reflection I turned the image plane into a transmission material and placed the camera on the other side - looking at the back end of the plane. I also had to set the color value of the transmission shader to 25 because the resulting image was too dark. This method renders the same sample count 3 times faster but it is more noisy than your method. However the transmission plane isn't using any fancy normals (in fact it's barely affected by them, but you'd probably have more luck in modifying your setup than I do). Maybe it would be possible to combine these two methods to achieve much faster rendering. I also tried making the plane into a glass shader with high roughness and it worked similarly to the transmission shader except it was actually visibly affected by the normals - the issue of modifying the normal setup to work with this approach still remains tho.
Thanks for checking it out! Yeah as of yet, the "fancy normals" method is the fastest I found which still retains the physically accurate nature of the raycasting and doesn't sacrifice any of the cool lens effects (which is the whole point of the project lol), because of how the material is made. I have no doubt there are improvements to be made somewhere though!
I had been hoping you would do this. Actually, have you tried splitting the projection plane into its individual R, G and B layers to try and mimic physically accurate halation?
question. obviously, different wavelengths of light refract differently even if you have the same two mediums. did you use something like the sellmeier equation, cauchy equation, or the drude-lorentz model to calculate the different "indexes of refraction" for the glass given specific wavelengths? or did you just eyeball it increase/decrease the indexes of refraction arbitrarily? i am going insane. thanks.
I eyeballed it since it wasn't going to be precise anyways. Cycles isn't a spectral renderer so the colour/wavelength translation is an approximation to start off with..
And to think, some time back in the past, you probably opened up Blender, saw the default cube and thought, "what the hell do I do with this?.. it doesn't make any sense at all, I'm confused...".
wow! just wow! question. Is there some wiki of forum where we can chat about this? Like for instance how to improve render times or how to avoid fireflies?
I can't seem to properly get the subject in focus, any tips on that? When rotating the focus wheel, there is a black line with a cross in front of it. Is that the focus plane? Is the tip of the line the focus or the cross?
The center of the focus empty should roughly be the focus point. You might need a little bit of trial and error. Send me an email if you continue having issues!
@@sirrandalot Thanks! After experimenting for a while it seems that the utmost tip of the focus empty is the sharpest! Another question, I'll write it here instead of E-Mail just to be quick: When rendering with F12, three separate layers are rendered. One red, one green and one blue. Is there a difference in rendering these three in comparison to just rendering the ViewLayer? I compared both and the RGB layer render is very noisy compared to the ViewLayer?
@@SeGin_ depends on the distance, the calculation isn't perfect. In order to get the proper effects of the colour filters and halation, you need to render the 3 layer way, otherwise you're missing out on all those film effects and only getting the lens distortion. Still works but not really the complete style package.
Heyas! I've been playing around with the camera for a few days now trying to re-render some old renders to see how they look. I keep getting an issue though where the scale of the camera to the scale of the other models is completely out of whack due to how I made those old scenes. I tried just simply pulling the camera back but even adjusting the focus ring to as far as it can go causes things to still be really out of focus on some renders. I was wondering if there was a way to adjust the camera to focus further away and/or if there was a way to just simply scale the whole camera up without causing problems?
It's difficult to scale the camera due to how all the calculations and drivers work. Best bet would be to scale the scene you're trying to render if that's possible. The closest the camera can focus is about 1m, and the farthest is 32m which is effectively infinite because of how inaccurate the lens focusing is.
Fair enough! The scenes I have been working with have things like hair and other constraints that don't scale well which is why I was asking. But thank you!@@sirrandalot
Of course! No need to be sorry, I've been having a blast with it. It's been fun.I just thought I'd ask before I go trying to tinker with things. You did a good job! @@sirrandalot
I guess you could. The importing your scene into the camera file would be the difficult part, I'd start my animation from scratch inside the file... what he could do, and certainly I'd pay for it also, is an addon that brings this virtual camera and the whole composition and render script into any blender project.
The updated screen material uses a perfectly glossy shader, but then modifies the normal texture to randomly reflect rays within only a certain range. If you pause on my crappy paint diagram you'll see that I drew it out (as best I could with a mouse on ms paint). This effectively gets rid of any "lost rays" that would have originally just bounced into the inside walls of the camera box, which was actually the majority of the rays.
@@NameWasntTaken Will likely screw it up, not sure about massively though. I'm guessing it'll mess with the intensities rather than the actual form of the image.
@@sirrandalot I clamped indirects just a tiny bit, I had a dark render and stray RGB pixels were appearing in the shadows, incongruous to any light source. From A/B testing it doesn't appear to affect the rest of the image in any way (or if it did, it's basically unnoticeable). Similar artifacts were showing up in just a standard camera render too so I think it's a cycles thing rather than the virtual camera. Fixing that, your camera has made my renders look incredible - the grainy effect looks so much better than when I try to apply it in post in Photoshop! Bravo sir
I got an error on Blender 3.62 on MAC OS : Python: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/Users/xxx/xxxx/xxxx/RenderPhoto.py", line 49, in KeyError: 'bpy_prop_collection[key]: key "DummyLayer" not found'
Did you copy the camera into another file? The scene setup is important, as mentioned in the readme, so it's better to import your subject into a copy of the virtual camera file. If you followed the readme instructions then there may be a bug. Let me know, thanks!
YOU RUINED MY LIFE (for about a week) I SPENT SO LONG TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT ON MY OWN THAT I SEE LENSMAKING EQUATIONS IN MY SLEEP
thanks for the files now my addiction is reawakened and now the rest of summer break is going to be indoors
😇
The biggest proof of all that you're a mad scientist is that you only charged 5 dollars for this. I was legit expecting a price of 50 bucks at the VERY least.
I still can't believe the "unnecessarily " complicated render video only has like 500k views. It really blew my mind and now I can freaking download the file!? Thank u so much!!!
I can't believe I will be able to play around with this. Your video was incredible, not only for what you achieved to do in blender, but also the editing.
And now you optimized and made it more user friendly! Bravo
still absolutely blown away by this...incredible job dude!!
oh hey your the spiderverse guy
omg the og? I'm surprised that I'm seeing you here
As a developer: That opening is such a mood 😭
Before clicking the link in the description, I randomly guessed around 20-30 dollars for access to such a project just based on the amount of work and knowledge required to make this happen. I think you underestimate what this can be worth to people...
Awesome, so kind of you!
You inspired me to make my own camera obscure last time and it was very fun playing with it. Got some nice renders too.
I'm not even a 3d designer but still so appreciate what you did. just amazing
Of course, more interesting than this base effort is if someone wrote this kind of compensation within the renderer, but this will do perfectly for now.
Brings new meaning to the term digital sensor
This is so awesome! Already bought and tried it.
This is so awesome.
You're starting a whole new generation of 3D Rendering.
Thank you so much for making us a part of it. I know how hard you worked to make it happen.
Yo floppyfish? biggest fan
@@TeamGalactic-Cyrus Ayo ayo, good to see you here. Are you staying epic? 😎
@@FloppyFish Yep! You motivated me to try out some 3d animation of my own, so, thank you :-)
I have one final improvement suggestion - remove the renderer camera and just use the texture baking option since it reduces losses for another order (didn't try it actually but the hypothesis needs to be tested) and also helps to win an extra light bounce, so bounce count can be reduced 1 step down for extra speed.
Wow, nice bro! I see a lot of people posting your video on photography discord servers, theres definitely some people that would want to get their hands on this.
I WOULD LOVE a video made for the people that are not used to 3D design but would love to play around with the camera, people like regular designers, photographers and the rest of us peasants :D
i finally got around to using this and oh my god almost every "picture" i took just looked amazing, its hard to try and make a pic look bad
This video needs more views, its so good!
I've been OBSESSING over this ever since your first video, I'm dizzy. AAAAA
Looks great for liminal space photography
Will someone please give this man a technical Emmy
This is really cool! Done some interesting experiments myself. Including making functional newtonian based telescopes that includes functional barlow and eyepieces. Very interesting what blender is capable of.
The results of the camera look so cool! Thanks for making it available to use!
Thank you, camera, man 🫡
i just spent a month and some change making my own camera and now i realize you released your own :
so my question is
what if you try to simulate different types of cameras INSIDE blender, like recreating 80's cameras and stuff
This is why I pay internet!
Thank you for sharing your experiment! It'll be much appreciated!
This still blows my fkn mind... and thats before we even get into the video editing lmao. damn bro, top stuff
Oh wow I was just wondering when and if a sequel woukdcome out for this and looked at your profile for it
I love using the camera but just wish that there was a version with a wider fov, its so narrow at the moment that you can only capture small scenes or you have to move really far away with the camera wich makes the scene look a bit flat
Do we have to sign a release form saying that if this render melts our GPUs in to slag, we won't sue?
You mad man!
Thanks for sharing!
dudes rock
Can you make a monochromatic version? ;-)
It's a terrific work, congrats!
I have two questions:
- how do you get the correct aperture? Do you approximate a Sunny16 calculation with the scene and check roughly how the blades on the camera are open/closed?
- does the setup works also with Blender 3.5? (I started the render process but I had to stop it because I needed the PC, I'll try again later, but I would like to know if there's something that will mess up the result in that Blender version)
Thanks!
Thanks! For the aperture it's approximate, I didn't attach any actual numbers to it so it's "guess and check" to see what looks good. The viewfinder camera approximates the aperture darkening effect. As for the blender version, it should still work in 3.5 but if you run into issues, try 3.6
thats truly insane.
If someone makes an animation with this they're either rich or crazy.
So good. I love it.
Excellent work!
madness
What a mad lad.
You're f amazing
I wonder if it's possible to speed it up even more. I bought the file and played a bit with it - I tested a different method - instead of looking at a glossy reflection I turned the image plane into a transmission material and placed the camera on the other side - looking at the back end of the plane. I also had to set the color value of the transmission shader to 25 because the resulting image was too dark. This method renders the same sample count 3 times faster but it is more noisy than your method. However the transmission plane isn't using any fancy normals (in fact it's barely affected by them, but you'd probably have more luck in modifying your setup than I do). Maybe it would be possible to combine these two methods to achieve much faster rendering.
I also tried making the plane into a glass shader with high roughness and it worked similarly to the transmission shader except it was actually visibly affected by the normals - the issue of modifying the normal setup to work with this approach still remains tho.
Thanks for checking it out! Yeah as of yet, the "fancy normals" method is the fastest I found which still retains the physically accurate nature of the raycasting and doesn't sacrifice any of the cool lens effects (which is the whole point of the project lol), because of how the material is made. I have no doubt there are improvements to be made somewhere though!
I had been hoping you would do this. Actually, have you tried splitting the projection plane into its individual R, G and B layers to try and mimic physically accurate halation?
iirc he already did that
Yeah, it's in the other video
Yooooo sick
AWESOME
This leaves me wondering: is it possible to optimize rendering based on this? (i.e. bake camera mechanics directly into t he rendering engine)
Great job you crazy psychopathic nice guy
Can you make an anamorphic lens for this?
question.
obviously, different wavelengths of light refract differently even if you have the same two mediums. did you use something like the sellmeier equation, cauchy equation, or the drude-lorentz model to calculate the different "indexes of refraction" for the glass given specific wavelengths? or did you just eyeball it increase/decrease the indexes of refraction arbitrarily?
i am going insane.
thanks.
I eyeballed it since it wasn't going to be precise anyways. Cycles isn't a spectral renderer so the colour/wavelength translation is an approximation to start off with..
@@sirrandalot cool, thanks. another question-how did you do the optimization with the procedural normals you mentioned in this video?
@@sirrandalot
Nice....
Now make different lenses for your camera.
Maybe include a kaleidoscope lens just for fun....
And to think, some time back in the past, you probably opened up Blender, saw the default cube and thought, "what the hell do I do with this?.. it doesn't make any sense at all, I'm confused...".
I am pretty convinced that most of that work could be done in settings or by some addon. But good work, it's nice and fun to watch video 🙂
wow! just wow!
question. Is there some wiki of forum where we can chat about this? Like for instance how to improve render times or how to avoid fireflies?
wow
Can you make a setup that use 2 camera that is combine in compositor to simulate human eye
I can't seem to properly get the subject in focus, any tips on that?
When rotating the focus wheel, there is a black line with a cross in front of it. Is that the focus plane? Is the tip of the line the focus or the cross?
The center of the focus empty should roughly be the focus point. You might need a little bit of trial and error. Send me an email if you continue having issues!
@@sirrandalot Thanks! After experimenting for a while it seems that the utmost tip of the focus empty is the sharpest!
Another question, I'll write it here instead of E-Mail just to be quick: When rendering with F12, three separate layers are rendered. One red, one green and one blue. Is there a difference in rendering these three in comparison to just rendering the ViewLayer? I compared both and the RGB layer render is very noisy compared to the ViewLayer?
@@SeGin_ depends on the distance, the calculation isn't perfect.
In order to get the proper effects of the colour filters and halation, you need to render the 3 layer way, otherwise you're missing out on all those film effects and only getting the lens distortion. Still works but not really the complete style package.
Heyas! I've been playing around with the camera for a few days now trying to re-render some old renders to see how they look. I keep getting an issue though where the scale of the camera to the scale of the other models is completely out of whack due to how I made those old scenes. I tried just simply pulling the camera back but even adjusting the focus ring to as far as it can go causes things to still be really out of focus on some renders. I was wondering if there was a way to adjust the camera to focus further away and/or if there was a way to just simply scale the whole camera up without causing problems?
It's difficult to scale the camera due to how all the calculations and drivers work. Best bet would be to scale the scene you're trying to render if that's possible. The closest the camera can focus is about 1m, and the farthest is 32m which is effectively infinite because of how inaccurate the lens focusing is.
Fair enough!
The scenes I have been working with have things like hair and other constraints that don't scale well which is why I was asking. But thank you!@@sirrandalot
@@Neonhorn no problem, sorry you're not having the easiest time with it. Let me know if you have any other questions!
Of course! No need to be sorry, I've been having a blast with it. It's been fun.I just thought I'd ask before I go trying to tinker with things. You did a good job! @@sirrandalot
I need an animation with the real fake camera
I know it’s insane and would take a ludicrous amount of time to render but would it be possible to film animation with this?
I guess you could. The importing your scene into the camera file would be the difficult part, I'd start my animation from scratch inside the file... what he could do, and certainly I'd pay for it also, is an addon that brings this virtual camera and the whole composition and render script into any blender project.
Guess this was all a giant comercial 😂 but nice work
hello good sir, would an rtx 3080 be able to run this camera? im impressed, surprised and scared
Yes, that should be sufficient. It technically worked on my old gtx 970 but would go much faster on a 3080
Could you make an 23h long video of how you precisly did it
Good hand job but can't there be a tutorial for the camera
Ha ha ha.... You're crazy 🤣👍
0:25 could you explain a bit further how that normal texture trick works?
The updated screen material uses a perfectly glossy shader, but then modifies the normal texture to randomly reflect rays within only a certain range. If you pause on my crappy paint diagram you'll see that I drew it out (as best I could with a mouse on ms paint). This effectively gets rid of any "lost rays" that would have originally just bounced into the inside walls of the camera box, which was actually the majority of the rays.
@@sirrandalot thanks!
Now make it work with motion blur
How should we send you the renders
Email would be best :)
(Listed in the file and on my channel)
hi, try to doing some collab with youtuber "pwnisher"
he already has big community in 3D rendering and i would love to see more virtual photos
Where should I send the render?
nvm i don't even have money for the file
Now do a camera with a cmos chip
OK, but, what if someone recorded an animation with it?
Hi, this is a shot in the dark, but have you eve considered anamorphic lenses? a whole extra level of complexity :)
Someone already did. Try and search it on yt
alright now use the virtual blender camera to record this video
if i have a massive firefly problem with my rendering will it screw up massively if i start clamping direct and indirect light?
@@NameWasntTaken Will likely screw it up, not sure about massively though. I'm guessing it'll mess with the intensities rather than the actual form of the image.
@@sirrandalot I clamped indirects just a tiny bit, I had a dark render and stray RGB pixels were appearing in the shadows, incongruous to any light source. From A/B testing it doesn't appear to affect the rest of the image in any way (or if it did, it's basically unnoticeable). Similar artifacts were showing up in just a standard camera render too so I think it's a cycles thing rather than the virtual camera. Fixing that, your camera has made my renders look incredible - the grainy effect looks so much better than when I try to apply it in post in Photoshop! Bravo sir
gg
Great, now my computer hates me 😅
Yippe
Is there any way somebody else can purchase this on my behalf since I can’t do international payments? (My brother can because he is in canada)
My poorly optimized render already took 45 minutes on my decent pc😂 I have no shot of making it with this
no free download
i've been trying to download it for 20 minutes and i can't get the file
If you keep having issues, send me an email and we'll figure it out
**I CAN HEAR MY LAPTOP SCREAMING HARDER**
May be worth it to add a De-noiser to the final photo.
What is the system requirements?
i think its just normal blender requirements, with lots of patience
Are you okay
📷
Bruh... only 3.9k views.
Does it work in eevee ?
Nope, it needs proper path tracing.
@@sirrandalot oh ok
Nvidia employee came up with a plan to to drive up gpu prices by blowing up existing ones:
now add video support
haha joking do not torture yourself anymore
First it was "download camera" now "get the camera". Eeh..
For FREE?????? You’ve got to have a patreon or something
Bro, make the price higher for the sanity you lost 😵
Make that camera atleast $100 , which will be close to a real film camera
5 CAD is so cheap LOL bump it up to $12 or something
You're welcome to pay more if you want ;)
I'm sorry, but I don't get the hype
its a working camera in a 3d modelling software
I got an error on Blender 3.62 on MAC OS : Python: Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/Users/xxx/xxxx/xxxx/RenderPhoto.py", line 49, in
KeyError: 'bpy_prop_collection[key]: key "DummyLayer" not found'
Did you copy the camera into another file? The scene setup is important, as mentioned in the readme, so it's better to import your subject into a copy of the virtual camera file. If you followed the readme instructions then there may be a bug. Let me know, thanks!
Very nice. But what was he saying? Something fun I bet.