The Photorealism Mindset: What About The Physical Camera?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- When talking about photorealism, it’s easy to get fixated on textures and surface imperfections of the objects in our scene.
This talk aims to look beyond this mindset, by shifting the focus to the many limitations of the physical camera. What questions can we ask ourselves as 3D artists, to understand the fourth-wall-breaking consequences of committing to a truly photorealistic scene?
"The Photorealism Mindset: What About The Physical Camera?" by Asbjørn Lote --
Learn more about Blender Conference 2023 at conference.blender.org/2023/
#BCON23 #b3d 
Кино
Real videographers : Trying to achieve perfection.
3D artists : Trying to add imperfections.
These recordings from the blender conference are literal pieces of gold, and this one from Polyfjord is one of my favourites so far.
That's not what 'literally' means.
@@daniellee6912 It's a known as a semantic shift, people nowadays started using "literally" as an emphasis. Language evolves ...
or is that 'devolves' 😏
@@octagonal8905 or people just make errors
Was the sky too clear for any clouds to shake your fist at today?
Something that always breaks immersion for me in big budget movies is when there's some impossible camera movement. If there's just no way the camera could physically do what it's doing, then my brain knows it's not real. I feel like his advice here helps to fix that.
That's one of the rules Pixar established in their early days to improve audience suspension of disbelief; always treat the virtual camera as though it were a physical camera in the scene being filmed.
This is why the live-action Ghost in The Shell scenes (like the roof jump from the intro) felt so much more fake than the anime film.
The anime purposefully used a tripod shot when we see Major step off the ledge, in order to make the sudden fall feel more dramatic, while the live-action version used a virtual, weightless, floating camera that tracked Major perfectly as she fell, completely robbing any sense of drama from the shot.
Mandatory Pacific Rim mention
This is why 1993 Jurassic Park is still way more realistic than Jurassic World. Everything feels so much more realistic in Jurassic Park. And that movie is 30 years old! It's insane!
Watching Anime fights you see people moving at like light speed, yet the way they animate following the fight as if it's a camera is incredible, it can make the unbelievable believable.
My man Polyfjord really just taught photorealism with a meme and I loved every second of it ♥
As a film industry professional for 20+ years, I can say that he naild it in the video. This is what really makes the difference. If you want photorealism, you need to understand the process behind generating a real image, so then you can apply it to a virtual scene. Great video!
About 15 years ago i worked for a major VFX company and we were making a video for car maker, full animated an rendered but photorealistic. We weren’t satisfied with the camera motion so we build a model of the car in the office (we used chairs boxes, table and some other stuff just to have the position of the wheels the seats an all the other important parts) and took a cheap camera. Whit the camera we filmed the model, tested all the camera moves we needed than we camera-tracked the footage. That made it perfect,because all the little imperfections in the movement made it look real.
the video from the drone was insanely realistic
Was about to say that! Holy sh*t!
Reminded me of the game Unrecord, cheatcode to realism is simulating a shitty camera
It was missing some vibration and shaking. And everyone who has seen dronefootage before knows, that it was fake. The scene itself was missing photorealism too.
But this was just a simple demonstration of a really important concept that's often overlooked. A real project would be a little more refinend. Awesome presentation though.
@@haifutter4166 Thanks for pointing that out I was gonna write the same as a drone pilot who has flown dji Phantom 4 for years now an Avata in Manual mode 😉😉 . This did not blow my mind like the Unreal Engine's latest photorealism....
@@URAZKIVANER It was a good demonstration piece.
But what bothered me most: You just know, that either drone footage is bad AND analogue with characteristic artifacts and distortion, or locally stored and thereby looking like "high quality" actioncam footage.
BCon's has never disapoint never. ....Wow...thx ....
I will share this every time I see "Why doesn't this look real"-questions on the Blender sub-reddit 😂
But in all honesty, I love this take. Very informative and interesting presentation!
that first example for the experienced cinematographer mindset really hit hard. it's amazing how a change in the mindset really affects the final product
This is great!
I teach actual film and video at a university and I will be sharing this with students to give them solid points to consider before shooting. Also good for my VR classes and production design classes! Thanks!
One of the best wisdom I heard about achieving "Photoreal" is "Real Life Imperfection is Digital Perfection".
Unrealistic camera movement always annoys me, they even do it in marvel movies, thanks for showing us a better way :D
I found myself clapping and I'm watching this at home. Great job, Polyfjord! Am a devoted fan of your work.
If you look at how the lion king remake was made, they went over the top with the camera thing. They used VR and combined it with real equipment and recorded the movements of their physical equipment into the virtual world to make it convincing. So every shake, tilt, etc. was real.
If I remember Peter Jackson had already done a similar thing on Lord of the Rings.
This was pretty awesome! Using the same scene in different situations was a clever idea.
As a film maker and VFX-person thanks for expressing my absolute pet peeve when it comes to visual effects in Hollywood and elsewhere. They never think about the physicality of the actual camera and the impact it has on the shot. E.g. imagine a film with an absolute flood of zombies - which image feels more jarring:
Flying around in rollercoaster-fashion through the zombie horde? Or staying there with the protagonists (whom we're supposed to care about) and watch the horde approaching while the camera slowly dollys in?
Now most film directors and DOPs that are currently working on such films grew up with never being able to do expensive crane or helicopter shots, because they were too expensive. But in CG you can do that for free, so they are really tempted to use that just to show off or "add production value". The truth is, that CG works best in nearly all situations if you try to ground everything in the scene (including the camera) in physical reality, as this typically makes it easier for viewers to put themselves into that place. If you want your camera to fly, let it fly, but give me a reason to understand why it is doing that.
i like it when he mentioned that surface imperfections isn't the key to photorealism
Another one 🙏🏼🚀
This is an essential for all cg artists. I can now spot this everywhere
Loved this one! Great presentation Asbjørn!
7:46 Lens distortion does not mean the lens is cheap, and anamorphic swirly bokeh is in fact more cinematic than round bokeh
awesome information thank you
Everytime, we as 3D artists, get closer to photorealism, but still I feel something is missing. Even in this video that something was still missing. I really dont know what that something is.. But definately we are overlooking some fundamental concepts of photorealism. Hope one day somebody will find that and really nail photorealism😊
Great presentation
This is very informative; I REALLY appreciate this. I never thought about these questions about camera movement and all. Thanks, Polyjford.
Awesome talk, definitely got a bunch of tips I can use in a future project!
Insane. Won't be long until this will be indistinguishable with real life
Great showcase here! Love the logical work flow.
Very amazing presentations. I love this
Awesome speech, nice to see Polyfjord at the Blender conference!
We're at a point where the technology is so good we have to work on the psychology of the content.
Such a thought provoking presentation, well done!
I love it! The drone crashing was genius!
Absolutely smashing presentation (even the tech hiccups just added a bit of photorealism to the whole thing :) )
This is really cool. I have learned a lot from this presentation.
Damn! This is so great! In so many levels! Yeah! Start with WHY!
I really like this approach, the lack of such principles is why the most recent Godzilla/Kong movies started looking more like 3D cartoons, i think.
The drone video blew my mind.
The legend himself! Absolutely killed it! :D
That was a great presentation… 👍👍👍
This was fascinating!
Great video. I've been trying to put this into words for decades. I noticed this is what polyphony digital have been attempting to do for 25yrs with their game Gran Turismo.
Nobody ever understood what I was talking about but I believe this is why their graphics have always stood out from the rest.
Great talk!!!
Great talk. Pehaps there should be concerns about both things, story telling (Or why the shot?) and also other things, because in this example camera is fine, all realistic movement, but the 3D Itself doesn't look real in my opinion, and this is lacking of photo reference to achieve what a real photo would look like.
True, I think it has to do with all the process, 3d model details, shading details and lighting as well as post and color grading
Agreed. The talk had nothing to do with photorealism. Was more about gimmicks to improve "believability"/"immersion" rather than photorealism.
I wouldn't say it's gimmicks. He demonstrated a fundamental underlying concept that allows you to build your world, logically, from the ground up. Behind all of the high res textures, sharpening, lighting and nice models, the thing that contributes the most to photorealism is a sense of meaning, because in real life people tend to do things for a reason. All of the super nice graphics and colour grading falls apart if your scene lacks authenticity and is not grounded in reality @@MuffFlux
@@southpaw9041 "The thing that contributes most to a sense of photorealism is a sense of meaning".
That is objectively false. Pixar movies and video games have incredible amounts of "meaning" ascribed to them. It doesn't mean they are photo real.
Tell that to the whole industry of commercial/product cgi studios. The iPhone ads with photoreal iPhone renders floating in space, breaking all the laws of physics and lacking camera shake and the other gimmicks. But the iPhone still is photo real photoreal. Same for all kinds of product campaigns.
Also gimmicks are quite literally "alter or augment with an extra device or feature". I didn't mean the definition that attributes negative connotations.
Inspiring as always
Que locuraaaaa, gran explicación
Just wonderful. Great talk.
Oh, it's so cool with a person in the reflection. really gives + to realism.
I learned more on this about making a realistic render from this Norwegian guy than I did sitting through a damn day of tutorials.
Wow! I learnt so much
So cool, thanks !
Wonderful presentation 👏👏👏
And we take another step toward a world where your eyes cannot be trusted
really truly impressive stuff
yet again Asbørn brings a new perspective to the 3d world that suddenly brings everything into focus.🧡🤍💙
That was so amazing! 🥰❣
incredible
Great information :)
너무 좋은 강연이네요! 감사합니다!
This is very nice.
Great idea!
i've always said since i was little that photorealism always looks off because it doesn't feel like someone is actually recording something! i'm glad after like 10 years of thinking this, someone actually validates my assumption.
This is a great idea for a Blender Plugin
This is a great talk, Blender is just amazing
Really mindblowing! 😮
Amazing software with an amazing community.
well-made video!
wow! holy shooooooooooot.
#1 as always
This is just amazing
He's an expert in unscripted surprising. 🤩🤩
14:40 Replicating a low-quality camera feels more realistic than replicating a high-quality camera. It's just like the Uncanny Valley, but for photorealism.
Removing or distorting the 3D details for a more realistic view is quite counter-intuitive. But our brain is great for filling up the missing details, so we interpreted the 3D as photorealistic.
I think we have our own intuition about photorealism. One person thinks that the detailed 3D scene is photorealistic, but it feels unrealistic for another person. So, finding the common denominator in a 3D scene, such as replicating the low-quality camera (since most people have low-quality cameras on their smartphones), and letting most people fill in the missing details, makes the 3D scene more photorealistic.
Wooow! Here's Polyfjord 💛💛
14.52 : the side view mirror , convex mirror distortion needed.
1:59 Hey been struggling about this. How did you make the path with the curves blending with the environment? Thank you!
Gem of a video.
that was great!
Someone nearly got cleaned up on that crossing in Tokyo 😂😂
I just learnt something big. This could be a full long course.
How the f is this so realistic
Money can buy happiness habibi
There's literally a 20 minute video explaining why
5:08 That guy on a bike is crazy. Almost got killed.
That is why most Blender Animation videos have VHS filters or other rough-looking compositing.
Polyfjord talk lets gooooooooooooo
Imperfection is perfection
Polyfjord!! So happy he's at Bcon!!!!
Love it❤
❤
Oh yes , he is good 👍🏻
blender should make a kit targeting architecture and interior design, to fully replace autocad/3d-max those trash apps.
King
The ad company may have transported the car to the scene covered but two individuals have driven it there, maybe thru dirt road and the windows would have dust in them. Windshield and frontgrille would have smashed bugs. It may have rained the previous day and the driver side windscreen viper may have spread a squished beetle in to a nasty yellow arc?
wow
why we cant add Lut in blender?
why we cant add realistic bloom & glare in blender?
I've been questioning this for pretty long time.. How do you add noise only applied to the shadow?
Davinci Resolve has great tools for that but I'm sure you could do it in any program
You could use the Noise Texture Node, use a B/W converted output of your render in the composer, invert the color (dark is bright, bright is dark now) and plug it in to the roughness input. This way you mask out the brighter areas.
And instead of inverting your B/W image, you could use the color ramp node to fine tune the areas that should get noise added
Wow 😮
I think this video is more about camera motions than photorealism.
The irony of this is that now car companies are moving toward rendering their commercials instead of filming them
why they didn't download the videos from those google drive links, instead of waiting for the network to load ! 🤦♂
It's funny how these exact questions end up debunking every single "alien" video ever. XD
5:11 whoops, by accident we've almost seen an accident there ;-)