Do you also experience stress from the creative life we live? Consider BetterHelp here; www.BetterHelp.com/kaizen. Don't bottle up frustrations and issues that come with learning and growing as a human, but share your problems through therapy. Stay healthy friends 🧡
Hey Kaizen. Thanks for your video! Hey just wanted to give you a heads up about the sponsor you're using, Better Help. They have been caught & officially fined by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) for deliberately selling their clients personal information & data, you can read more about this with any net search or this link as 1 of the many sources ::: www.consumernotice.org/news/betterhelp-fine-mental-health-data/#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Trade%20Commission%20fined,mental%20health%20data%20to%20advertisers. Many other TH-camrs have also stopped using them as sponsors as that's just unacceptable to be selling their own clients information & data, especially considering the private sensitivity of the data they sold & for sure still do sell. I know you mean well & wouldn't of used them as a sponsor if you already knew this, but goes to show it's worth doing some homework regarding the sponsors you choose. Appreciate your time & videos, this is my 2nd account I'm subscribed to you with now :) Cheers Kaizen.
if you dont want to calculate all the camera settings and have complicated set ups for a specific look there is a great add on that lets you control the blender camera like a real camera. Its easy to use and the results are very "cinematic". Its called Photographer 5 and i use it every project
To get a bit of perspective of how important good cinematography actually is (especially in animation), look up freecam cutscenes from games. Everything looks really weird and doesn't make any sense from a different point of view. Devs are intentionally breaking rigs, quickly moving stuff around, layering effects, hiding transitions etc. just to get the perfect shot.
The film grain I handle the same like Polyfjord explains, the important thing to make it look realistic is having more noise in the dark areas than in the bright areas, not only for analog film grain, but also when recreating digital camera noise, because underexposed parts of digital images also usually have more noise due to the worse signal to noise ratio. For vignetting on the other hand I use an Ellipse mask set to a circle size instead of Box, because originally the vignetting comes from the circular image of a lens not fully exposing the rectangular film strip.
Thanks for your input! I think an ellipse mask is also quite nice, but in this specific case I liked the box mask a little better. You're right though that from a camera perspective ellipse makes more sense. And yeah I just put on some filmgrain on overlay, but paying more attention to adding proper grain would probably be better!
@@KaizenTutorials Yeah, I mean whatever suits you better is fine 👍. Since none of this is really there because we are not using real camera footage either analog or digital, it all comes down to artistic choice. My examples were only what I do if I tried to mimic reality, most of the time I don't do it that much because the realism is not necessary for me. We are just in the lucky position opposite to using real footage of not having to deal with noise or vignetting in cases where we would want to get rid of - we just don't add it then. 😁
Cinematographer here. In my opinion something can be described as cinematic 90% thanks to great compositions and a right use of black and white values. Usually there is the main subject in the shot, if it is bright, the background is dark and it’s well placed - I’m sure this shot could be described as cinematic. You can do this separation with colours, but trust me, values work much better. ‘Fix this in post’ is a joke because you can’t fix bad composition or badly separated BW image. Watch ‘best movie shots’ or something like this on TH-cam and ask yourself ‘why this shot is great’ Wish you cinematographic renders!
Yes! But it doesn't use an instancing function, meaning every tile is considered additional geo and this makes the project and renders REALLY slow. So the manual instancing is so much better for optimization and the visual result is the same anyways.
Speaking the truth, I didn't plan to watch the video today, but you are talking so thrillingly, that I didn't notice watching the video from start to finish. Nice one!
Well done kai, this is one of my headache, when I do my videos, a quick one, sometimes when you gonna do shots with diferents cameras inside the scene the time with each camara count as well, because if don't give the right balance could look like bored
Great video and nice approach👍🏻 lot to learn from this! One thing that makes me wondering if the ‘technical expert’ is the (only) one to judge if a scene or shot is awesome? Setting restrictions based on if it can or cannot be done by real gear or skills isn’t always the way to go… but then again, knowing how things work in real life is great to get a ‘familiar experience’. So yes, great video… thanks 🙏🏻
Yeah you’re right there’s so many ways of approaching it. A real Blender and cinematography expert like Polyfjord’s opinion is very valuable, but in the end art is in the eye of the beholder right.
Would be fun to see version 2 after implementing Polyfjord's advice. Interestingly the first 2 he said, low poly character and patterned ocean, were the two I had in mind (as a layperson, lol).
One thing I noticed, is when he turns his head to the left in the beginning, I feel like I too want to see what he is looking at but the camera doesn't pan. Maybe he should be looking to the left from the moment we see him and then he turns forward from the moment we see his head
Hmm not a bad idea. I understand what you mean with wanting to see what he's seeing. My thought was some sort of 4th wall awareness of the camera to let the audience know he knows.
this video was great and refreshing but IMO most people already knows Polyfjord and his involvement with CG and Blender etc. I think next time you should get someone who isn't associated Blender or CG in anyways and knows nothing about CG and only familiar working with real cameras as a fulltime profession to get fresh sets of eyes and perspectives.
adding a slight camera shake can be more realistic as real world cameras dont stay perfectly flat on the ground also nice video i learnt a few things about cinematography .
i have an old project, i want to render it again with cinematography rules so I deleted the old camera and added a new one but when I try to render it renders the old scene ....idk how to fix this
Well done Kaizen! Glad you passed the test! 🙂 Really interesting exercise, too! Great tips, and I like the result. I'm a huge fan of your channel, and your work is great, so please don't treat the following in any way as criticism, just tips for future reference. 🙂 I would advise against using the method shown for achieving the anamorphic look. I don't think your method actually achieves the desired results. I may be wrong, but I think once the picture becomes unsqueezed the bokeh shape actually remains the same (circular by default) as it would be without doing that, so you're just losing resolution in one direction. Instead, under camera settings, under aperture, setting "Ratio" either to 2 will give you the correct "squeeze factor" you're after. Of course there are other things that can make a shot look anamorphic, especially lens flares, but since your scene is intentionally low contrast and doesn't feature bright lights, flare would be essentially invisible anyway. By the way, 'Media Division' youtube channel has a fascinating, in-depth series on anamorphic lenses if anyone's interested. Once again, great video! Thank you for sharing this with us. It's not easy letting someone else judge your work! You did well!
Thanks for the kind words and you're right on the anamorphic look. It doesn't really work, besides the resolution change and lens distortion node. Next time I'll be sure to use your tips, thanks!
If anybody wants to create a cinematic shot, I recommend focusing on mimicking filmic lighting techniques before camera techniques. Good cinematographers paint their subjects with light and on a real set lighting is the part that takes the longest to perfect. Using lighting to shape shadows and create depth will make your shots look so much better in your final renders!
I‘m not a cinematographer but once i have learned that choice of focal length depends on how do you want the audience to feel and be part of the scene. A wideangle for just be same involved as the shown actor and the more tele you use the more „personal“ distance you have to the scene. You just observe it. So in the original movie they have chosen a wideangle exactly for the feeling that the viewer is also in danger. It would have been nice to see a second, corrected version after all the good tipps of polifjord to reach the 10. 🙂
I love Interstellar as well! In did the same scene with Wave, Love it! I follow this guy (Polyfjord or Lotsalote) since his love to Rigid Bodies :) he is very good! Thanks for Sharing skills!
I love blender and 3D art. My background is photography (as a hobby, not professional), so focal lengths, apertures, grain, exposure, lighting, contrast, colors, all that is easy for me. I suck at modelling though...
Nice! I honestly think that's a really good starting point though, because you already know how to make an image look good for real. Now you just need the skill to do it in 3D!
It is amazing that for a CG desk job, you have ads for mental health support... This really shows how bad things are getting in this industry, how unvalued is personal and family sacrifice, and how little aspiring and some super skilled artists are willing to be paid in order to get a job modeling massive scenes. Yeah, sad times, people, sad times...
I dont really get the anamorphic look. I understand that streching the aspect ratio and then correcting the squeeze later in post creates some of the iconic movie imperfections such as horizontal oval flares, veiling glare, horizontal blue lines etc. But what i dont understand is why you would pick this process over just not stretching the image and then when adding vfx, just stretching the vfx instead
Yeah I think I didn't really have the best setup here. That's also some feedback that I got. Apparently using the Photographer 5 addon is a lot better and if you don't want that you have to change aperture ratio to 2 and just the resolution and some lens distortion!
Can somebody explain to me what this anamorphic lens workflow is suppose to archive? I don't get it. An anamorphic lens literally compresses the light by distorting the way photons travel. These lenses where invented to make more use of an already established film (negative) format. Premium quality on a smaller budget - the ability to project a movie in scope format without having to use an different (more expensive) film projector and more expensive film material. It always was a technical workaround for an technical issue that is no longer relevant due to modern digital cameras (and projectors). I fail to see how rendering stretched and squashing in post would create any meaningful differences in the end result.... Why do 1 * 2 /2 = 1 if you can just do 1 = 1? Is there something I am missing?
You're correct. Changing the pixel ratio (aspect) in blender and then stretching it back in post indeed does NOTHING to the image compared to simply setting a 2.35:1 aspect, due to the lack of a physical lens distorting the light. Normally, such a process would create/accentuate a suite of distortions in the real world - oval bokeh, barrel distortion, cat's eye effect, border softness, and so on. All of which can be desirable by some cinematographers, in contrast to ultra sharp & clean modern ARRI Primes. These distortions can be achieved in myriad of ways in blender, pixel ratio (aspect) is not one of them. I believe this was a mistake, granted a understandable one, of trying to emulate the anamorphic look.
I've been seeing mixed input on it's effectiveness. If you zoom in and compare the two renders they do change a bit. There's some additional blur, like focus falloff and border softness it seems with this setup and lens flares will be stretched as well. But yeah most true anamorphic side effects are hard to achieve.
@@KaizenTutorials I'm afraid you're not quite right on this one. All you're seeing is rasterized non-square pixels being stretched by 2 uniformly across the whole image - a literal blur in a similar fashion to zooming in on an image by cropping the resolution in half. Nothing on the render pass changes except for the pixel ratio (aspect). This will become especially apparent If you compare the two image in photoshop, in the Difference blending mode. Yes there's a difference, but it clearly does not get you closer to the anamorphic look - a slight vertical 0.001 directional blur would practically achieve what this does without the hassle. Anyway, for the "true anamorphic" effects, I'd recommend taking a look at Photographer 5 (Optical Vignette and easy barrel distortion) and Jackimorphic (True anamorphic camera kit, albeit not the most user-friendly).
@@KaizenTutorials I think you are completely right. While the pixel stretching/squishing does not archive anything for the majority of the image (that's what I was focused on), it does archive the correct effect in areas that are out of focus and affected by motion blur (that's what I failed to realize). You can stretch the bokeh shape itself in the DoF settings, but I wonder if this archives the same effect as stretching the whole area that is affected. Motion blur is also definitely affected. Horizontal movement should produce a wider blur than vertical movement. I am actually not aware of any other way to archive this effect except this type of workflow. I think other renderers might provide more options for anamorphic DoF effects rendered in camera, but I'v actually never seen or heard anything about the different response of the motion blur.
Fastest way to do anamorphic in blender is to use Rotation and Ratio option in Camera Properties , Below the Aperture F-stop option , set the rotation to 90 and then the ratio to whatever Ratio you're looking for I usually use 2.35, you should see the effect immediately
If You want a digital Type of „grain“ just add a Lens distortion node and enable jitter and fit (don‘t enable projector) and put distort to 0 and dispersion to .01
Amazing work. We need something like Nanite they have in unreal, that would be blender's next greatest feature, although there's too much hype for generative AI. Blender chokes when the poly count hits like a million even for you people with powerful computers, almost infinite mesh polycount that will be gold.
Camera lenses utilized in filmmaking can extend up to 400mm, as seen in films like 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.' Studying cinematography demands a rigorous and extensive journey over the years to attain expertise and a deep understanding of the essence of cinematography. It involves mastering a multitude of technical skills, such as lighting, composition, and camera operation, while also delving into the intricacies of visual storytelling. Additionally, cinematographers must develop a keen artistic sensibility to effectively convey emotions, themes, and narratives through visual imagery. And for the final touch, anamorphic does not give you a cinema look, it gives you something else.
Oh yes! It’s absolutely not an easy thing to do. This was one of my first attempts to make something more ‘cinematic’ and I agree an anamorphic lens doesn’t make something necessarily more cinematic but the accompanying aspect ratio really helps emphasize the cinematic look, just necause people are used to seeing it in this light
@@KaizenTutorials I totally get that, especially for something that is for demonstration purposes. If this was for a movie that time investment would make sense.
Does it? Try it out for yourself. Using the tile function in the ocean sim makes it so that every tile has it's own geo. Ocean tiles aren't instances. Meaning this scene would have had around 60 million vertices and my PC can't handle that. Using this instance trick is waaaaaay faster, easier and better to handle for anyone's PC.
as a cinematography teacher i can say with confidence that teachers are hardest on the people who they believe the most in. if someone ever has lots of feedback for you then this normally means they see lots of potential in you. really well done!
I see everything ;-) but yeah I know about tiling. The difference is though ocean modifier tiles are actual geometry copies so they make the scene really heavy and slow.
Regarding Log,when he says "compression", that comes across a bit wrong. Not sure what he actually meant, but it's not really a hack for data compression, it's about value compression of anything, ie, applying a curve to bring all high values below 1. The reason it's a curve instead of just general brightness is to save as much image information as possible inside the visible range of the image format, ie avoiding clipping. Log file formats (dpx, cin, prores, others) are typically 8bit, 10bit or 16bit but not as floating point values, but instead integer (whole number) values, meaning their max value is 255 or, 1024, or 65535 respectively, and all gradients in the image will be stepping along this limited range of numbers. And if your value compression is linear (ie. just brightness) all values will be equally treated, but if you instead compress it under a curve (incidentally; a Log curve), then the values you care more about will have more integer steps available to them. When you bring those log values into your grading suite, that software will have more gradient values to play with where it counts for creative choices. And finally, the result of the grading session usually means exporting an 8bit final result which is meant to be displayed on your 8bit sRGB monitor or TV. The final output format can also be an HDR format if you have an HDR TV, in which case the final unpacking of the curve happens in that display device (that's the simplified explanation anyway)
Thanks for the in-depth explanation on Log! I think this is basically what he meant, but he just simplified the explanation some more. I know Polyfjord is very much into HDR and stuff, so he probably knows all this too. I didn't though, so thanks for sharing!
This video should be a must watch for 3PS game developers (except Guerrilla Games, for example). They usually just put the character in the center and that's all for the cinematography. :)
@@KaizenTutorials Just look how adaptive and intuitive it is, in-game control. th-cam.com/video/dQGkHYUx6QI/w-d-xo.html watch till the end, just some minutes. :) After she reaches the shore and walk along, it reveals how the character placement adapts. That's all, end of the list, all the other developers should be in the classroom. 😁
I know the choice of words in the title is for the TH-cam algorithm but this is called critiquing. No artist can grow in a vacuum, we should all regularly seek advice, especially from professionals.
Thanks for another great video. And though I'm by no means a "professional" I think I can explain what an anamorphic lens is and "how it works", well enough to let people "get the gist" of it. Simply put, all (normal) "lenses" are ROUND, and so the image that they "project" into the camera towards the "film/sensor" is thereby also circular (round). So in order to get a "square final image" that "circular projection" has to be at least so large that it's diameter covers the "film/sensor" diagonal (otherwise You will "see" the inside/apperture" in Your "final image". This means that You always "crop" the "projected image" to get Your "final image". And since all lenses also have more or less distortion towards the edges " You also usually do not let Your "final image" reach all the way out to the edge of the projected image (as You then will get a "degraded image", though having some of it can be considered an "artistic choice". These "premises" makes it so that to get the "highest amounts" of "good pixels" in Your "final image" from a given (normal lens with it's circular "projection") You would use a square image (film/sensor) format. Because if You choose final image to have a "wide" (or "tall" ?) format You are then forced to simply "Crop out" more of the (circular) "projected image". Which will result in a "lower resolution" image. So FINALLY to the "Anamorphic Lenses", in these You have a "special lens element" that "distorts the image" so that it "squeezes the projected image" horizontally , so that everything has it's correct height, but is "narrower horizontally". This means that all though the "projected image" is STILL "circular", it "encompasses" more of the scene "out to the sides" ((i.e. HORIZONTALLY) than an image of a "normal lens" (i.e. the "same lens" but "without the squeezing"). And so You can now "crop out a square from this "horizontally squeezed" image, thereby "utilising the maximum of "god pixels" of the film/sensor, and will still "see more out to the sides" in the "final image".... BUT this "final image" that we have created by a "square crop" of a "horizontally squeezed" image of course looks severely distorted... when viewed "as a square"... How ever if You "stretch it out horizontally" You have a "wide screen image" that has used a "higher (maximum) amount" of "good pixels" in that "final image" compared to if You had chosen to "just crop" a normal ("unsqueezed) projected image"... And so that means to "correctly" show/view an "anamorphicly(?) created" image You need an "anamorphic projector/viewer". That is a "projector/viewer" that has a lens (or software) that reverses the "horizontal squeeze" that the "camera lens has introduced"... So that's about it (I believe). Now the fact that anamorphic lenses needs "special lens elements" also gives rise to a host of other "consequences" and it is these that gives them the "special look", besides their "high horizontal resolution"...
So the commercial breaks are longer than the actual review. For the next episode. Get a master movie editor. Just kidding. I know you can't do it for free and would be happy to look at them when the conclusion of this clip is more than 10 sec of review snippets.
Man, the background music at 10:00 is really irritating with the rapidly thumping bass. I wanna hear what you're saying, but I don't want to piss off my neighbours at the same time. lol
You are not doing your anamorphic correctly, you just stretched it the wrong way. The other number goes on the x axis. You want to produce a more square image and then stretch it back out horizontally. If you look up how the lenses work it will make more sense 🤘🏻
Very enjoyable video but 'Depth of field point' or target makes no sense. (Is there a depth of water point for example?) Stick with focal length if you are talking about the lens or focal point maybe if you are talking about the scene.
your colour space transform for interstellar is wrong. seems like you used the 4k HDR version of the film, where you'd need to import it as REC2020 ST2084 4000 nits and output it to whatever (srgb or rec709 or rec2020 ST2084 if u have an HDR display) with a wide enough timeline gamut. I can assure you that scene is not washed out at all, especially when you watch it in actual IMAX film where there is no possibility for colour space errors.
I take a little exception to the title of this video.. You don't "LET a Real Cinematographer Roast you 3D Art", you are "Gifted with the knowledge of a real cinematographer on your 3D Art". ;)
As an artist I think the character is too centered, you could lower the camera and center the vanishing point of the sea more and... I don't understand why you tilted the camera 😆
he was way to soft on you...after pointing out all the mistakes and things you could change, I'll say a 6/10 because it's not so bad after all. But yes I'm nobody to be listened to.
because the duplication (actually an instance) means you get the large scale without losing density or adding tons of computing power just to render the ocean!
I hate to be nitpicky but all the steps at 10:35 were unnecessary. The image turned out exactly the same after doing the aspect and compositing scaling except your pixels are now stretched out in the final render. I would also like to point out that when you do the color grading, maybe not in this case but in general it's a good time to assess your materials, go back and tweak them if they don't react to the compositing properly.
@@KaizenTutorials Yea i totally missed the point of that lol. But i get it now. Although your method did something different because it also stretches the glare and dispersion effects which is cool.
@@KaizenTutorialsits a very bad sponsor because of the awful use of user data. they used very critical user data to advertise on facebook, infact added the better help status to the facebook accounts of users without permission.
There is no such thing as a "depth of field point" so why even say it and then say "...or focal point" ? Just say 'focal point'. Depth of field is a value based on a ratio that cannot be a 'point'. The depth is greater or shallower depending on the aperture.
I know, but in Blender we can select a focal point and tweak our depth of field. These are 2 different settings, so from a Blender perspective explaining it like this makes sense to me!
I never get these "I got someone to rate my art" type videos. To me, art is an expression of yourself, a portion of your soul projected onto a medium comprehensible by others. Every piece of art, made not to mimic someone else's soul, but to express your own is a 10/10 This might be controversial to say, but I believe good art is made for the sake of the artist, not the audience See Goya's paintings never meant to be seen, or in contrast Disney's inoffensive movies made to cater to the largest possible audience
I get what you mean and that's true when we're talking about art. But I wouldn't consider this art. It's a 3D story and visual. And those are open to critique in my opinion since the opinion is what gives it value. This is also the case with art. Every piece of art is a 10/10 in terms of the attributed emotional value from the artist. But the beholder values it and that's what gives art true value. If no-one thought the Mona Lisa was nice, it wouldn't be hanging in a museum nor would it be worth anything. Art is in the eye of the beholder, but so is value.
@@KaizenTutorials That's a very capitalistic approach in my opinion. If taken to the extreme, this would mean that you pursue to make a living than to make great art, which would be understandable. Living another day is probably more important than making great art. That said, I believe that a piece of art will only have great value in the eye of the beholder if it holds value to the artist as well at least partially. I couldn't name a single piece of art in any medium that became incredibly successful because the artist tried to get a high rating. In opposition, if we look at Star Wars 1-3, it's speculated that those movies had elements that even George Lucas thought were a mistake(Jar-Jar for example) in retrospect because he was surrounded by yes-men who never critiqued his thoughts, so there's definitely a strong need for critique as well. In conclusion, just don't go for either extremes. I realise now that I wrote this down that you probably weren't going to do that anyway, but it was nice to have an argument. Arguments are a kind of art as well, since they help us boil down complex thoughts and feelings into simple conclusions. But I'm rambling. (edit: sorry for the light novel amount of text)
eyyy after watching the entire video its disapointing to put polys feedback behin a paywall :( basically i watched the entire thing to hear how he would do it :/
Do you also experience stress from the creative life we live? Consider BetterHelp here; www.BetterHelp.com/kaizen. Don't bottle up frustrations and issues that come with learning and growing as a human, but share your problems through therapy. Stay healthy friends 🧡
No
@@bbrainstormer2036 Good for you! 😀
Hey Kaizen. Thanks for your video! Hey just wanted to give you a heads up about the sponsor you're using, Better Help. They have been caught & officially fined by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) for deliberately selling their clients personal information & data, you can read more about this with any net search or this link as 1 of the many sources :::
www.consumernotice.org/news/betterhelp-fine-mental-health-data/#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Trade%20Commission%20fined,mental%20health%20data%20to%20advertisers.
Many other TH-camrs have also stopped using them as sponsors as that's just unacceptable to be selling their own clients information & data, especially considering the private sensitivity of the data they sold & for sure still do sell.
I know you mean well & wouldn't of used them as a sponsor if you already knew this, but goes to show it's worth doing some homework regarding the sponsors you choose.
Appreciate your time & videos, this is my 2nd account I'm subscribed to you with now :) Cheers Kaizen.
Awful company you should look up their controversy before taking their money dude. Do better
betterhelp has some horrible things happening. like what @TheBeardsShow said, you should take a look at what has happened with them
Nothing like a well roasted render 🔥 Glad I could help
🍗🍗🍗🍗
@@KaizenTutorials Did you shared the link to the cheat sheet, I can't find it
@@SmallPasswordDeutsch?
@smallpassword here it is www.wearethefirehouse.com/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet
@@KaizenTutorialsTHanks
if you dont want to calculate all the camera settings and have complicated set ups for a specific look there is a great add on that lets you control the blender camera like a real camera. Its easy to use and the results are very "cinematic". Its called Photographer 5 and i use it every project
That’s a great tip! Thanks 🙏🏻
as a cinematographer, its great to see 3D artists taking more time to learn the craft to amplify their work!
Thank you, cinematography truly is a crucial skill!
To get a bit of perspective of how important good cinematography actually is (especially in animation), look up freecam cutscenes from games. Everything looks really weird and doesn't make any sense from a different point of view. Devs are intentionally breaking rigs, quickly moving stuff around, layering effects, hiding transitions etc. just to get the perfect shot.
Haha that’s a great example! They do this in movies to. The shot looks amazing but everything around it can be crap ;-)
The film grain I handle the same like Polyfjord explains, the important thing to make it look realistic is having more noise in the dark areas than in the bright areas, not only for analog film grain, but also when recreating digital camera noise, because underexposed parts of digital images also usually have more noise due to the worse signal to noise ratio.
For vignetting on the other hand I use an Ellipse mask set to a circle size instead of Box, because originally the vignetting comes from the circular image of a lens not fully exposing the rectangular film strip.
Thanks for your input! I think an ellipse mask is also quite nice, but in this specific case I liked the box mask a little better. You're right though that from a camera perspective ellipse makes more sense. And yeah I just put on some filmgrain on overlay, but paying more attention to adding proper grain would probably be better!
@@KaizenTutorials Yeah, I mean whatever suits you better is fine 👍. Since none of this is really there because we are not using real camera footage either analog or digital, it all comes down to artistic choice. My examples were only what I do if I tried to mimic reality, most of the time I don't do it that much because the realism is not necessary for me. We are just in the lucky position opposite to using real footage of not having to deal with noise or vignetting in cases where we would want to get rid of - we just don't add it then. 😁
Two of my favorite Blender TH-camrs? Together at last!! ❤❤
Great video
Thanks Thomas! 🧡🧡
Cinematographer here. In my opinion something can be described as cinematic 90% thanks to great compositions and a right use of black and white values. Usually there is the main subject in the shot, if it is bright, the background is dark and it’s well placed - I’m sure this shot could be described as cinematic. You can do this separation with colours, but trust me, values work much better.
‘Fix this in post’ is a joke because you can’t fix bad composition or badly separated BW image.
Watch ‘best movie shots’ or something like this on TH-cam and ask yourself ‘why this shot is great’
Wish you cinematographic renders!
Thanks for the input and your suggestions!
Great video, I did something on this topic a few years back, using some of your techniques but your quality is waaaay higher. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you, appreciate that!
Focal length is one. Film/sensor size is two. It will impact the perceived angle and the aperture result will also be different.
Good tip!
I'd watch hours of these, keep going man. love you both 😘
Eyy that’s awesome to hear, thanks!
This is a crazy concept! Love it
Thank you!
Polyfjord's normal camera shoots are better than my renders that take me hrs😅(I usually give up due to the burn outs)
Keep at it! He didn’t learn this overnight either ;-)
Yeah it's always crazy how much he can milk any little scene to the maximum
@@milansvancara bruh I can't even milk a cow😂😂
The ocean modifier has a tile built in so you don't need to do it manually 🎉
Yes! But it doesn't use an instancing function, meaning every tile is considered additional geo and this makes the project and renders REALLY slow. So the manual instancing is so much better for optimization and the visual result is the same anyways.
Great video as always!
Thanks you!
Speaking the truth, I didn't plan to watch the video today, but you are talking so thrillingly, that I didn't notice watching the video from start to finish. Nice one!
Thank you, that's kind!
Well done kai, this is one of my headache, when I do my videos, a quick one, sometimes when you gonna do shots with diferents cameras inside the scene the time with each camara count as well, because if don't give the right balance could look like bored
Good tip! Thanks 🙏🏻
thanks for the film grain plug. 🔥
I love this video prompt sm great stuff
Thank you, appreciate it!
Great video and nice approach👍🏻 lot to learn from this! One thing that makes me wondering if the ‘technical expert’ is the (only) one to judge if a scene or shot is awesome? Setting restrictions based on if it can or cannot be done by real gear or skills isn’t always the way to go… but then again, knowing how things work in real life is great to get a ‘familiar experience’. So yes, great video… thanks 🙏🏻
Yeah you’re right there’s so many ways of approaching it. A real Blender and cinematography expert like Polyfjord’s opinion is very valuable, but in the end art is in the eye of the beholder right.
Would be fun to see version 2 after implementing Polyfjord's advice. Interestingly the first 2 he said, low poly character and patterned ocean, were the two I had in mind (as a layperson, lol).
Thanks for the input and yeah I considered adding in a V2. But I didn't want to make the vid too long!
Another day, another banger from ma boy kaizen
Thanks haha 🧡
Mah Boah!
Heeeeeey, a long overdue collaboration 🙂👏
And great tips!! Wrote everything down 📝
Thanks Niko, glad you liked it!
One thing I noticed, is when he turns his head to the left in the beginning, I feel like I too want to see what he is looking at but the camera doesn't pan. Maybe he should be looking to the left from the moment we see him and then he turns forward from the moment we see his head
Hmm not a bad idea. I understand what you mean with wanting to see what he's seeing. My thought was some sort of 4th wall awareness of the camera to let the audience know he knows.
2 of my favorite Blender creators😁
Aaah thanks!
those were very useful cinematography tips.
Thanks!
this video was great and refreshing but IMO most people already knows Polyfjord and his involvement with CG and Blender etc. I think next time you should get someone who isn't associated Blender or CG in anyways and knows nothing about CG and only familiar working with real cameras as a fulltime profession to get fresh sets of eyes and perspectives.
Fair point! Thanks for the input and I'll take this into account for a future video like this one.
adding a slight camera shake can be more realistic as real world cameras dont stay perfectly flat on the ground also nice video i learnt a few things about cinematography .
Thanks for the tip and for the compliment!
i have an old project, i want to render it again with cinematography rules so I deleted the old camera and added a new one but when I try to render it renders the old scene ....idk how to fix this
Well done Kaizen! Glad you passed the test! 🙂 Really interesting exercise, too! Great tips, and I like the result.
I'm a huge fan of your channel, and your work is great, so please don't treat the following in any way as criticism, just tips for future reference. 🙂 I would advise against using the method shown for achieving the anamorphic look. I don't think your method actually achieves the desired results. I may be wrong, but I think once the picture becomes unsqueezed the bokeh shape actually remains the same (circular by default) as it would be without doing that, so you're just losing resolution in one direction. Instead, under camera settings, under aperture, setting "Ratio" either to 2 will give you the correct "squeeze factor" you're after. Of course there are other things that can make a shot look anamorphic, especially lens flares, but since your scene is intentionally low contrast and doesn't feature bright lights, flare would be essentially invisible anyway. By the way, 'Media Division' youtube channel has a fascinating, in-depth series on anamorphic lenses if anyone's interested.
Once again, great video! Thank you for sharing this with us. It's not easy letting someone else judge your work! You did well!
Thanks for the kind words and you're right on the anamorphic look. It doesn't really work, besides the resolution change and lens distortion node. Next time I'll be sure to use your tips, thanks!
i really hope this (relatively) new style of video is working for your channel because it's so much better than before.
Thanks! It’s doing ok, not great though but that might be the topic not the style
great video i loved it💙
Thanks, appreciate that!
Amazing videoo!!
Kaizen n polyjford best duo
polyjford is amazing i like him from a whilee
!
He’s amazing! One of the best out there 💪🏻
another interstellar stan i see. absolute great movie
The best, ever. Love it to death haha
Absolutely
17:15
Alright I know I'm not the only person who thought someone was knocking on my door with that music
lol
If anybody wants to create a cinematic shot, I recommend focusing on mimicking filmic lighting techniques before camera techniques. Good cinematographers paint their subjects with light and on a real set lighting is the part that takes the longest to perfect. Using lighting to shape shadows and create depth will make your shots look so much better in your final renders!
Great tip and absolutely true! Lighting is a key concept, crucial to your shots.
certainly food for thought brother..
You should have stayed with the focal length at 02:48.
The most important part of the scene.
😂😂😂😂
10:45 you can get that look just by going into your camera depth of field settings, and under aperture, change the ratio to 2.
Yeha I think I did it wrong in the end. But that's what this was for, learning! :-D
Not the exact same effect, because the dispersion and glare compositing nodes is also plugged in before the scale node
Fascinating video!
Thanks a lot!
@@KaizenTutorials o7
My input would be the camera is moving waaaaay too fast. There is a reason why 24 fps is considered cinematic.
Thanks for the input! And yeah you’re right it’s too fast, especially for this 24fps shot
I‘m not a cinematographer but once i have learned that choice of focal length depends on how do you want the audience to feel and be part of the scene. A wideangle for just be same involved as the shown actor and the more tele you use the more „personal“ distance you have to the scene. You just observe it. So in the original movie they have chosen a wideangle exactly for the feeling that the viewer is also in danger. It would have been nice to see a second, corrected version after all the good tipps of polifjord to reach the 10. 🙂
Nice, thanks for sharing! And yeah it would maybe have been a good addition 🙌🏻💪🏻
I love Interstellar as well! In did the same scene with Wave, Love it! I follow this guy (Polyfjord or Lotsalote) since his love to Rigid Bodies :) he is very good! Thanks for Sharing skills!
Glad to hear it and Polyfjord is amazing indeed!
I love blender and 3D art. My background is photography (as a hobby, not professional), so focal lengths, apertures, grain, exposure, lighting, contrast, colors, all that is easy for me. I suck at modelling though...
Nice! I honestly think that's a really good starting point though, because you already know how to make an image look good for real. Now you just need the skill to do it in 3D!
It is amazing that for a CG desk job, you have ads for mental health support... This really shows how bad things are getting in this industry, how unvalued is personal and family sacrifice, and how little aspiring and some super skilled artists are willing to be paid in order to get a job modeling massive scenes. Yeah, sad times, people, sad times...
I think this is common practice in any field these days to be fair, but yeah mental health is super important!
I dont really get the anamorphic look. I understand that streching the aspect ratio and then correcting the squeeze later in post creates some of the iconic movie imperfections such as horizontal oval flares, veiling glare, horizontal blue lines etc. But what i dont understand is why you would pick this process over just not stretching the image and then when adding vfx, just stretching the vfx instead
Yeah I think I didn't really have the best setup here. That's also some feedback that I got. Apparently using the Photographer 5 addon is a lot better and if you don't want that you have to change aperture ratio to 2 and just the resolution and some lens distortion!
Haha "Where lens" - great video nonetheless! thank you:)
Thanks!
9:11 enable "show limits" in the viewport display of the camera and then you can see the focal point of the camera
Good tip!
I've quit Blender for a while now, but seeing these projects make me feel good
Why did you quit and why do these projects make you feel good? :-D
Can't wait to watch this. My camera work is absolute trash
Hope this will help you🧡
Polyfjord + Kaizen. The collab we didn't know we need. But the one we deserve.
🧡
Can somebody explain to me what this anamorphic lens workflow is suppose to archive? I don't get it.
An anamorphic lens literally compresses the light by distorting the way photons travel. These lenses where invented to make more use of an already established film (negative) format. Premium quality on a smaller budget - the ability to project a movie in scope format without having to use an different (more expensive) film projector and more expensive film material.
It always was a technical workaround for an technical issue that is no longer relevant due to modern digital cameras (and projectors).
I fail to see how rendering stretched and squashing in post would create any meaningful differences in the end result....
Why do 1 * 2 /2 = 1 if you can just do 1 = 1?
Is there something I am missing?
You're correct. Changing the pixel ratio (aspect) in blender and then stretching it back in post indeed does NOTHING to the image compared to simply setting a 2.35:1 aspect, due to the lack of a physical lens distorting the light.
Normally, such a process would create/accentuate a suite of distortions in the real world - oval bokeh, barrel distortion, cat's eye effect, border softness, and so on. All of which can be desirable by some cinematographers, in contrast to ultra sharp & clean modern ARRI Primes.
These distortions can be achieved in myriad of ways in blender, pixel ratio (aspect) is not one of them. I believe this was a mistake, granted a understandable one, of trying to emulate the anamorphic look.
I've been seeing mixed input on it's effectiveness. If you zoom in and compare the two renders they do change a bit. There's some additional blur, like focus falloff and border softness it seems with this setup and lens flares will be stretched as well. But yeah most true anamorphic side effects are hard to achieve.
@@KaizenTutorials I'm afraid you're not quite right on this one. All you're seeing is rasterized non-square pixels being stretched by 2 uniformly across the whole image - a literal blur in a similar fashion to zooming in on an image by cropping the resolution in half. Nothing on the render pass changes except for the pixel ratio (aspect). This will become especially apparent If you compare the two image in photoshop, in the Difference blending mode.
Yes there's a difference, but it clearly does not get you closer to the anamorphic look - a slight vertical 0.001 directional blur would practically achieve what this does without the hassle.
Anyway, for the "true anamorphic" effects, I'd recommend taking a look at Photographer 5 (Optical Vignette and easy barrel distortion) and Jackimorphic (True anamorphic camera kit, albeit not the most user-friendly).
@@KaizenTutorials I think you are completely right. While the pixel stretching/squishing does not archive anything for the majority of the image (that's what I was focused on), it does archive the correct effect in areas that are out of focus and affected by motion blur (that's what I failed to realize). You can stretch the bokeh shape itself in the DoF settings, but I wonder if this archives the same effect as stretching the whole area that is affected. Motion blur is also definitely affected. Horizontal movement should produce a wider blur than vertical movement.
I am actually not aware of any other way to archive this effect except this type of workflow. I think other renderers might provide more options for anamorphic DoF effects rendered in camera, but I'v actually never seen or heard anything about the different response of the motion blur.
Fastest way to do anamorphic in blender is to use Rotation and Ratio option in Camera Properties , Below the Aperture F-stop option , set the rotation to 90 and then the ratio to whatever Ratio you're looking for I usually use 2.35, you should see the effect immediately
Yep you're right, I messed it up here.
Why not use the built in anamorphic option Blender has? It's under panoramic lenses
If You want a digital Type of „grain“ just add a Lens distortion node and enable jitter and fit (don‘t enable projector) and put distort to 0 and dispersion to .01
I always think jitter is too colourful though?
Well i try to adjust it with the Color Balance node but i also prefer heavier colors
Polyfjord is the greatest to ever exist
Ikr? He explains things so concisely and makes it funny as well (Kaizen does the same, I like them both equally)
@Enderblade18 yooo thanks! And yes I agree, he has a great way of explaining and telling things 🧡
@@KaizenTutorials No problem man! Keep up the tutorials they really help!
@@Enderblade18 for real i just love how they teach
Amazing work. We need something like Nanite they have in unreal, that would be blender's next greatest feature, although there's too much hype for generative AI. Blender chokes when the poly count hits like a million even for you people with powerful computers, almost infinite mesh polycount that will be gold.
A tool like nanite would be amazing, especially for scenes like these where a limitation for the ocean quality is absolutely the polycount!
@@KaizenTutorials Yap. I saw that, that's why you instanced the ocean collection. 😁
This roast was delicious 😋
Thanks dude!
I think the focus should change sooner. You wouldn't want the very edge of the footage to be in focus while everything else is blured.
Yeah maybe that would've been nice
Camera lenses utilized in filmmaking can extend up to 400mm, as seen in films like 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.' Studying cinematography demands a rigorous and extensive journey over the years to attain expertise and a deep understanding of the essence of cinematography. It involves mastering a multitude of technical skills, such as lighting, composition, and camera operation, while also delving into the intricacies of visual storytelling. Additionally, cinematographers must develop a keen artistic sensibility to effectively convey emotions, themes, and narratives through visual imagery. And for the final touch, anamorphic does not give you a cinema look, it gives you something else.
Oh yes! It’s absolutely not an easy thing to do. This was one of my first attempts to make something more ‘cinematic’ and I agree an anamorphic lens doesn’t make something necessarily more cinematic but the accompanying aspect ratio really helps emphasize the cinematic look, just necause people are used to seeing it in this light
The repeat on the ocean tiles is the giveaway that this is a digital scene for me.
Yeah it kinda is haha, didn’t want to make a full scale ocean sim cus that takes ages to render
@@KaizenTutorials I totally get that, especially for something that is for demonstration purposes. If this was for a movie that time investment would make sense.
Duplicating the water instead of using the ocean sim options hurt my bones
Does it? Try it out for yourself. Using the tile function in the ocean sim makes it so that every tile has it's own geo. Ocean tiles aren't instances. Meaning this scene would have had around 60 million vertices and my PC can't handle that. Using this instance trick is waaaaaay faster, easier and better to handle for anyone's PC.
@@KaizenTutorials oooh, my bad then
as a cinematography teacher i can say with confidence that teachers are hardest on the people who they believe the most in. if someone ever has lots of feedback for you then this normally means they see lots of potential in you. really well done!
Thanks for your kind words. Glad to see another cinematography teacher also thinks it's well done haha
You probably won't see this but for future reference the ocean modifier has a input for tiling so you can do that instead of duplicating it
I see everything ;-) but yeah I know about tiling. The difference is though ocean modifier tiles are actual geometry copies so they make the scene really heavy and slow.
@@KaizenTutorials Ah, Are you using instancing? I haven't messed around with it a whole lot (mostly because i enjoy modeling more then rendering)
Hey Kaizen Great video !! But i think you forget to add the camera resolution Cheat sheet in the description Please add it .
My bad you’re right! I’ll fix it in a bit.
Regarding Log,when he says "compression", that comes across a bit wrong. Not sure what he actually meant, but it's not really a hack for data compression, it's about value compression of anything, ie, applying a curve to bring all high values below 1. The reason it's a curve instead of just general brightness is to save as much image information as possible inside the visible range of the image format, ie avoiding clipping. Log file formats (dpx, cin, prores, others) are typically 8bit, 10bit or 16bit but not as floating point values, but instead integer (whole number) values, meaning their max value is 255 or, 1024, or 65535 respectively, and all gradients in the image will be stepping along this limited range of numbers. And if your value compression is linear (ie. just brightness) all values will be equally treated, but if you instead compress it under a curve (incidentally; a Log curve), then the values you care more about will have more integer steps available to them. When you bring those log values into your grading suite, that software will have more gradient values to play with where it counts for creative choices. And finally, the result of the grading session usually means exporting an 8bit final result which is meant to be displayed on your 8bit sRGB monitor or TV. The final output format can also be an HDR format if you have an HDR TV, in which case the final unpacking of the curve happens in that display device (that's the simplified explanation anyway)
Thanks for the in-depth explanation on Log! I think this is basically what he meant, but he just simplified the explanation some more. I know Polyfjord is very much into HDR and stuff, so he probably knows all this too. I didn't though, so thanks for sharing!
BRROOO - I love interstellar as well haha
Awesome!
This video should be a must watch for 3PS game developers (except Guerrilla Games, for example). They usually just put the character in the center and that's all for the cinematography. :)
Hahah nice!
@@KaizenTutorials Just look how adaptive and intuitive it is, in-game control. th-cam.com/video/dQGkHYUx6QI/w-d-xo.html watch till the end, just some minutes. :) After she reaches the shore and walk along, it reveals how the character placement adapts.
That's all, end of the list, all the other developers should be in the classroom. 😁
HI kaizen what tutorials do you recommend after the donut , iam a beginner
Find what you think you’ll enjoy most, watch some tutorials and try creating your own mini-project from that!
I thought he will hit you with a sold 4 or 5, Lmao
Haha yeah I thought I would get a 5-6 myself, but he's too nice!
Interstellar was a amazing choice great job
Thank you :-D
I know the choice of words in the title is for the TH-cam algorithm but this is called critiquing. No artist can grow in a vacuum, we should all regularly seek advice, especially from professionals.
You're right, we all need advice and feedback! And yes the title is a bit YT heavy ;-)
I love Interstellar the most too. It is so beautiful.
Truly is! 🧡
Bro if you want to get that anamorphic oval stretched bokeh, just under the aperture settings change Ration 1 to 2 )))
Yh this ^ it's way easier haha
Good tip too!
Haha didn’t know that one. Nice
Thanks for another great video.
And though I'm by no means a "professional" I think I can explain what an anamorphic lens is and "how it works", well enough to let people "get the gist" of it.
Simply put, all (normal) "lenses" are ROUND, and so the image that they "project" into the camera towards the "film/sensor" is thereby also circular (round). So in order to get a "square final image" that "circular projection" has to be at least so large that it's diameter covers the "film/sensor" diagonal (otherwise You will "see" the inside/apperture" in Your "final image".
This means that You always "crop" the "projected image" to get Your "final image". And since all lenses also have more or less distortion towards the edges " You also usually do not let Your "final image" reach all the way out to the edge of the projected image (as You then will get a "degraded image", though having some of it can be considered an "artistic choice".
These "premises" makes it so that to get the "highest amounts" of "good pixels" in Your "final image" from a given (normal lens with it's circular "projection") You would use a square image (film/sensor) format. Because if You choose final image to have a "wide" (or "tall" ?) format You are then forced to simply "Crop out" more of the (circular) "projected image". Which will result in a "lower resolution" image.
So FINALLY to the "Anamorphic Lenses", in these You have a "special lens element" that "distorts the image" so that it "squeezes the projected image" horizontally , so that everything has it's correct height, but is "narrower horizontally". This means that all though the "projected image" is STILL "circular", it "encompasses" more of the scene "out to the sides" ((i.e. HORIZONTALLY) than an image of a "normal lens" (i.e. the "same lens" but "without the squeezing"). And so You can now "crop out a square from this "horizontally squeezed" image, thereby "utilising the maximum of "god pixels" of the film/sensor, and will still "see more out to the sides" in the "final image"....
BUT this "final image" that we have created by a "square crop" of a "horizontally squeezed" image of course looks severely distorted... when viewed "as a square"...
How ever if You "stretch it out horizontally" You have a "wide screen image" that has used a "higher (maximum) amount" of "good pixels" in that "final image" compared to if You had chosen to "just crop" a normal ("unsqueezed) projected image"...
And so that means to "correctly" show/view an "anamorphicly(?) created" image You need an "anamorphic projector/viewer". That is a "projector/viewer" that has a lens (or software) that reverses the "horizontal squeeze" that the "camera lens has introduced"...
So that's about it (I believe). Now the fact that anamorphic lenses needs "special lens elements" also gives rise to a host of other "consequences" and it is these that gives them the "special look", besides their "high horizontal resolution"...
Thanks for the in-dept information! I didn't know a lot of this and it's really fun and interesting to read.
So the commercial breaks are longer than the actual review. For the next episode. Get a master movie editor. Just kidding. I know you can't do it for free and would be happy to look at them when the conclusion of this clip is more than 10 sec of review snippets.
The review is nothing more than a test I guess. There's a lot more feedback but I didn't want to make the video very long.
I thinking about cinematic render...!
Good stuff!
why the compare betweeen anamorphic and default camera transition so quik? i can hardly tell the difference
Thanks for the feedback!
16:04 cool film grain technique
Yeah it really is!
Man, the background music at 10:00 is really irritating with the rapidly thumping bass. I wanna hear what you're saying, but I don't want to piss off my neighbours at the same time. lol
HAha noted, I'll tune it down in future vids.
Betterhelp have a controversial past,the therapist isn't licensed
Hmm ok ill look into that
You are not doing your anamorphic correctly, you just stretched it the wrong way. The other number goes on the x axis. You want to produce a more square image and then stretch it back out horizontally. If you look up how the lenses work it will make more sense 🤘🏻
Yeah I think I did, I also didn't stretch the bokeh at all.
Very enjoyable video but 'Depth of field point' or target makes no sense. (Is there a depth of water point for example?) Stick with focal length if you are talking about the lens or focal point maybe if you are talking about the scene.
Thank you!
your colour space transform for interstellar is wrong. seems like you used the 4k HDR version of the film, where you'd need to import it as REC2020 ST2084 4000 nits and output it to whatever (srgb or rec709 or rec2020 ST2084 if u have an HDR display) with a wide enough timeline gamut. I can assure you that scene is not washed out at all, especially when you watch it in actual IMAX film where there is no possibility for colour space errors.
You're probably right! So much still to learn.
one of us
I take a little exception to the title of this video.. You don't "LET a Real Cinematographer Roast you 3D Art", you are "Gifted with the knowledge of a real cinematographer on your 3D Art". ;)
Haha yeah that’s true! Doesn’t roll of the tongue though 😝
As an artist I think the character is too centered, you could lower the camera and center the vanishing point of the sea more and... I don't understand why you tilted the camera 😆
Thanks for the input and your feedback! The camera is tilted to give an uneasy feeling, which I added to dramatize the scene.
At 17:30 what does he mean by "the horizon is a little bit off" ?
at 17:07 you can see that the camera is rotated a bit making the whole scene feel tilted
@@techrz888👍
Yeah so the camera is rotated on the Y, because I wanted to create an uneasy feeling for the viewer because of the danger of the wave!
@@KaizenTutorials thats well thought through and actually not a bad idea!
This is more of a Tutorial then a roast and for the really interesting Feedback you have to be a pattreon. :/
It is a tutorial packaged with roast information yes!
he was way to soft on you...after pointing out all the mistakes and things you could change, I'll say a 6/10 because it's not so bad after all. But yes I'm nobody to be listened to.
Haha thanks for the input! Yeah Polyfjord is a real nice guy ;-)
Just saying but you could really make the Ice planet from Interstellar
That'd be awesome!
Why duplicate the plane and not just scale it larger?
because the duplication (actually an instance) means you get the large scale without losing density or adding tons of computing power just to render the ocean!
I hate to be nitpicky but all the steps at 10:35 were unnecessary. The image turned out exactly the same after doing the aspect and compositing scaling except your pixels are now stretched out in the final render.
I would also like to point out that when you do the color grading, maybe not in this case but in general it's a good time to assess your materials, go back and tweak them if they don't react to the compositing properly.
Never mind, i understand what you were doing now. The effect you were after was a stretched out bokeh effect.
Thanks for the input! Yeah I wanted stretched bokeh, but apparently a correct way of doing this is just setting the aperture ratio to 2 haha.
@@KaizenTutorials Yea i totally missed the point of that lol. But i get it now. Although your method did something different because it also stretches the glare and dispersion effects which is cool.
oh no not betterhelp maaan
?
@@KaizenTutorialsits a very bad sponsor because of the awful use of user data. they used very critical user data to advertise on facebook, infact added the better help status to the facebook accounts of users without permission.
Polyfjord isn't a cinematographer LOL
Actually is though. Graduated film school as a cinematographer :-)
@@KaizenTutorials ok so he wrote a few essays about cinematography at some point 😂 not really the same thing
You shouldnt take better help. They have leaked customer details and have unlicenced therapists. Shameful company
Ok, thanks for letting me know. I'll look into it.
There is no such thing as a "depth of field point" so why even say it and then say "...or focal point" ? Just say 'focal point'. Depth of field is a value based on a ratio that cannot be a 'point'. The depth is greater or shallower depending on the aperture.
I know, but in Blender we can select a focal point and tweak our depth of field. These are 2 different settings, so from a Blender perspective explaining it like this makes sense to me!
I never get these "I got someone to rate my art" type videos. To me, art is an expression of yourself, a portion of your soul projected onto a medium comprehensible by others.
Every piece of art, made not to mimic someone else's soul, but to express your own is a 10/10
This might be controversial to say, but I believe good art is made for the sake of the artist, not the audience
See Goya's paintings never meant to be seen, or in contrast Disney's inoffensive movies made to cater to the largest possible audience
I get what you mean and that's true when we're talking about art. But I wouldn't consider this art. It's a 3D story and visual. And those are open to critique in my opinion since the opinion is what gives it value.
This is also the case with art. Every piece of art is a 10/10 in terms of the attributed emotional value from the artist. But the beholder values it and that's what gives art true value. If no-one thought the Mona Lisa was nice, it wouldn't be hanging in a museum nor would it be worth anything. Art is in the eye of the beholder, but so is value.
@@KaizenTutorials That's a very capitalistic approach in my opinion. If taken to the extreme, this would mean that you pursue to make a living than to make great art, which would be understandable. Living another day is probably more important than making great art.
That said, I believe that a piece of art will only have great value in the eye of the beholder if it holds value to the artist as well at least partially. I couldn't name a single piece of art in any medium that became incredibly successful because the artist tried to get a high rating.
In opposition, if we look at Star Wars 1-3, it's speculated that those movies had elements that even George Lucas thought were a mistake(Jar-Jar for example) in retrospect because he was surrounded by yes-men who never critiqued his thoughts, so there's definitely a strong need for critique as well.
In conclusion, just don't go for either extremes. I realise now that I wrote this down that you probably weren't going to do that anyway, but it was nice to have an argument. Arguments are a kind of art as well, since they help us boil down complex thoughts and feelings into simple conclusions. But I'm rambling.
(edit: sorry for the light novel amount of text)
interstellar vfx was better
doesnt mean yours is bad
It sure was and so it should be hahaha I only spent a fraction of the time that was spent on just 1 second of Interstellar.
eyyy after watching the entire video its disapointing to put polys feedback behin a paywall :( basically i watched the entire thing to hear how he would do it :/
Sorry, I understand. I've added quite a bit of his points in the video already though :-)
@@KaizenTutorials yupyup all good and ur aproaches were educative too though:) thx for ur videos, u taught me a lot in the past year!
5/10
:-(
You can't do a 5 minute sponsored segment, bro. TF is going on with that
What do you mean? The sponsorsegment is like 1,5 min tops.
But when you fast Forward it looks like the segment is super long. Probably you didnt set up the video markers correctly.
@@karimoh3154 yeah lol forgot to have it end at some point! Fixed it 😀