Nah, single-player game is. It combines elements of movies, world-building, storytelling, music, science(computer graphics, programming) in an interactive manner. Also Games are closer to CGI level of fidelity now, like was shown in Unreal Engine 5 demo and Nvidia Marbles Day & Night demo.
@@jon7186 I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to all movies in general but just blade runner 2049 and also please be kind enough to PISS OFF as you're arguing in a wrong comment section under a wrong video for you.
P G You picked the wrong examples. The Marvel movies are awesome and have heart and I personally love them. I ABSOLUTELY loved BR2049. A masterpiece. The issue is that the casual moviegoer (American) is always on the run. 2 hrs and 45 minutes of cerebral is too much for them. Shit, I am actually surprised movies still make money now a days. When someone says :" Movie was ok." And I ask: "Oh, when did you see it?" "The other day on a firestick" I cringe. They build movie theaters for this and people, if they could, would live their entire lives from the couch. Sad.
Well im from europe, and to be honest a lot of the guys i know thinks most movies are cool.. Just as long as it has action..The main problem i have with most movies, super hero movies or not is the time spend on the story vs the time spend on the effects. Movies like arrival, batman, birdman and so on works well.. But most action movies is just so uncreative and the cgi is so poorly done and makes a lot of movies unwatchable. Its a real shame when you think of the budget of those. i hope this will change, and the main driver of movies will be the story. Sorry for the marvel picking.. It was just an example, I really haven't watched it so it was not fair.
P G No worries, I am a comic book fan and I can say that Marvel has nailed it right (story wise at least), whereas DC has shit the bed. I stayed home for Justice League. Regardless, we can agree that BR2049 is superior to anything I mention ;).
the fact is this: they had to trade production budget with the marketing budget. so they had all the money they needed to create this great movie, but were not left with enough to promote it as well as it should've been.
DNeg did the main LA shots, Framestore did Las Vegas and the dumps, Weta did the miniatures, MPC did the Joi holograms and Rachael and RodeoFX did the matte paintings. 1190 VFX shots in all.
@@TryptychUK DNEG - LA shots, most of Joi holograms and ending MPC - recreation of Rachel Framestore - Las Vegas, dumps and some Joi holograms Weta - miniatures RodeoFX - one LA shot, Wallace building set extensions, orphanage, some Las Vegas shots UPP - CG face replacements, some Wallace building interiors and CG elements in ending BUF - CG Elvis, Marylin and Frank, glitchy effects in casino and Dr. Ana lab holograms
Kytetiger I see. In this day and age it's easy to forget multiple effect houses are working on a movie. Considering the effects done on the entire film, I'd say give them all a statue. :-)
ummm ... sorry but the Rachel scene is the worst part of the movie, the recreated Rachel's face looks very dowdy and kind of oddly puffy, they got the walking gait and lips of Rachel awkwardly wrong too ... As someone who has watched the first movie, this Rachel clone scene in 2049 really puts me off and takes me out of the movie immediately (not that the movie itself is any good) ...
This video actually made me wonder how much of the look was designed by Roger Deakins and how much was designed by the visual artists. I'm super happy that Deakins is the frontrunner for the cinematography Oscar, but this video almost made it look as if the visual artists came up with much of the look of the movie.
@@HerreraAlonso The illustrations prepared by artists for the 2049 is far more atmospheric and detailed than the movie itself ... sadly. Its a poor decision to overfog the movie to such an extent it blurs out so much details and textures that it almost look like cgi and too smooth in many scenes ...and the lightings are rather flat in many scenes too ....
I think the future for vfx could be realtime. I imagine a future with no need for rendering as everything would be realtime maybe using engine like unreal.
Juno Kid several. Just to mention some: Nuke, cinema4d, maya, Fusion, after effects, photoshop, zbrush, houdini, unity, etc etc...all combined with miniatures, chroma key and mocaps. Not to mention big real size structures.
There wasn't enough lighting in the buildings, not from those living in them nor from advertising which should have been spread out. The gritty look was fine, the dust on the ground unexplained, but then it came to the outside bar scene and it was clean and sanitised. It really didn't fit in. The director's vision and the look he went for wasn't just right. The original film set the scene for dystopian films that followed, it was cohesive, but this was a bit of a disjointed world.
Blade Runner 2049 - The best CGI visuals covered by the most smoke and fog ever put to film. Such a shame that not more of the landscapes and models were just compeltely washed out.
yes, and everything is blurry and in fog, so I think, they missed s point quite a lot. Well, at least they could bake some stuff. Probably, they just want to get some more money )
you quite don't get may be, it's a laverage point when u can say there are billions of polygons so u can get more money, improve your expertise and hire more talent, expand the bussiness. Seems like you have never worked as a PM. Put off your shinny peorple glasses
The visuals are underwhelming, just google cyberpunk or blade runner inspired art ... there are far more visually stunning artistic creations out there ... and I'm an artist for decades, 2049 is utterly disappointing to me, Ridley Scott's stunning original has been an inspiration for countless artists and filmmakers for decades, but this sequel really disappoints on almost all aspects from the visuals, to the music, plot, thematics etc ..
Frankly the visual effects (models, cgi etc) in 2049 is very underwhelming to me ... I've seen far far better aesthetics in artistic creations inspired by Ridley Scott's original Blade Runner movie, just google "sci fi art", "cyberpunk", "Blade Runner inspired art" you will see far more beautifully rendered stuffs than 2049, not to mention that the original first movie's visuals are far more beautiful and sophisticated than 2049 ..
+Miguel Pereira Of course I can, the greatest movies evokes the beauty and moods found in magnificent paintings ... please remember that a lot of the great visuals in movies like Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, Star Wars, Raiders Of the Lost Ark uses the most magnificent matte paintings as backdrops to create the wonderfully cinematic settings in the final movie ... Frankly there are very very few sci fi movie which is able to capture the best sci fi illustration art, but guess what, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is one of those rare movies that perfectly captures the magnificence of the best sci fi art .. its a shame that a movie meant to be the sequel made 30 years later actually look worse ... 2049 really pales when compared to the same illustrations inspired by the great visuals of the first movies ... its heartbreaking for me to say that, I had hoped that the sequel will wow me again but its just too wishful of me ... I thought the sequel would accomplish what Empire Strikes Back did for A New Hope .. nope, not even close ...
+Miguel Pereira Its fine, I have nothing personal against people who likes 2049 .. I just want to broaden people's horizon by pointing out that they should try googling the best sci fi/cyberpunk visuals and see for themselves how 2049 pales in comparison ... I am an artist myself, so maybe I'm a little more discerning when it comes to aesthetics ..
88feji Yeah I guess I can understand. I respext people's opinions and I also have no problem with people not liking this film. Have a nice day/night man
The movie still sucks and it has no sense to exist, the beauty of the first ones ending was not knowing what happens later, now we have a stupid sequel which explains it...
To be honest, 2049 was good but no where near as good as the original in terms of VFX. The original looked real, its camera work was real camera work. And notably, though 2049 makes use of more buildings its landscapes do not look as vast as the opening wide shot in the original. Also 2049 felt CG. The biggest problem with CGI is not the realism that can be created, its the motion of the cg camera that absolutely dispells the sense of reality. notably its a combination of lens used, and most importantly the camera's motion being far too perfect and almost always far too fast. The original BR used a real camera on a minature stage. 2049 did the same as well but the motion control setup was transfered from a camera move most likely done in maya. as such the move looks CG, and its far too fast. The ever so typical panoramic Lord of the rings type panoramic wide shot moving far too fast that couldve neven been created in reality. Because of it, and the aboslute smoothness of the motion it makes everything look CG. a prolific mistake by directors in hollywood.
Most of it was done practically actually. The city landscapes were mainly miniature sets and didn't look CG at all. They actually looked a lot better than most CGI they put out these days.
uh i see perfectly smooth real camera movements all the time without any effects.. its called having camera equipment to achieve the stillness. doesnt take away from the cg at all and besides there was a fuck load of practical enviroments in this move. go watch the vfx breakdown for this and then deadpool and see the difference... moron. this movie looked pretty photorealistic unlike those shitty superhero movies shot in 100% green screened surroundings... moron
disagree. theres a ton of practical effects in 2049 and you see that. the way they used the data from the practical effects in that shot to make the CGI in said shot look realistic and fitting is quite unmatched. Smooth cam movement is very easy to achieve with the camera equipement that they were able to use. Its a matter of preference. I think a lot of movies use to "hide" their cgi in handheld camera movement for that extra realism, but thats a matter of cinematography and stylistic choice and i prefer the calm, steady movement. the shots where the cam pans over the city in 2049 were absolutely breathtaking
Honestly the fire transition shot is probably one of my favorites from the film & up there on my list of best transitions of all time.
I worked on that shot, among others. Glad you liked it!
Movie was an artistic TRIUMPH
Nah, single-player game is. It combines elements of movies, world-building, storytelling, music, science(computer graphics, programming) in an interactive manner. Also Games are closer to CGI level of fidelity now, like was shown in Unreal Engine 5 demo and Nvidia Marbles Day & Night demo.
@@jon7186 I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to all movies in general but just blade runner 2049 and also please be kind enough to PISS OFF as you're arguing in a wrong comment section under a wrong video for you.
America not watching this film en mass at cinemas was a shame
Let the mass have Their captain America and spiderman movies...
P G You picked the wrong examples. The Marvel movies are awesome and have heart and I personally love them. I ABSOLUTELY loved BR2049. A masterpiece. The issue is that the casual moviegoer (American) is always on the run. 2 hrs and 45 minutes of cerebral is too much for them. Shit, I am actually surprised movies still make money now a days. When someone says :" Movie was ok." And I ask: "Oh, when did you see it?" "The other day on a firestick" I cringe. They build movie theaters for this and people, if they could, would live their entire lives from the couch. Sad.
Well im from europe, and to be honest a lot of the guys i know thinks most movies are cool.. Just as long as it has action..The main problem i have with most movies, super hero movies or not is the time spend on the story vs the time spend on the effects. Movies like arrival, batman, birdman and so on works well.. But most action movies is just so uncreative and the cgi is so poorly done and makes a lot of movies unwatchable. Its a real shame when you think of the budget of those. i hope this will change, and the main driver of movies will be the story. Sorry for the marvel picking.. It was just an example, I really haven't watched it so it was not fair.
P G No worries, I am a comic book fan and I can say that Marvel has nailed it right (story wise at least), whereas DC has shit the bed. I stayed home for Justice League. Regardless, we can agree that BR2049 is superior to anything I mention ;).
the fact is this: they had to trade production budget with the marketing budget. so they had all the money they needed to create this great movie, but were not left with enough to promote it as well as it should've been.
Better than the original... A masterpiece.
Double Negative did the CG? Holy shit that explains how good it was; these guys worked on Interstellar and Inception!
I think Rodeo FX did some too
There were, if I recall correctly, at least 5 different companies who made VFX for this film, as the work is too large for one studio.
DNeg did the main LA shots, Framestore did Las Vegas and the dumps, Weta did the miniatures, MPC did the Joi holograms and Rachael and RodeoFX did the matte paintings.
1190 VFX shots in all.
@TheDeluxe guy now 2.0 - DNEG
@@TryptychUK
DNEG - LA shots, most of Joi holograms and ending
MPC - recreation of Rachel
Framestore - Las Vegas, dumps and some Joi holograms
Weta - miniatures
RodeoFX - one LA shot, Wallace building set extensions, orphanage, some Las Vegas shots
UPP - CG face replacements, some Wallace building interiors and CG elements in ending
BUF - CG Elvis, Marylin and Frank, glitchy effects in casino and Dr. Ana lab holograms
This is awesome - congrats to all the team at Dneg. 👍🏻👌🏻🔥
Just the effects done on Rachel alone should get them an award. I really think they pushed effects to another level with this film.
Actually, it was MPC that did the Rachel part
Kytetiger I see. In this day and age it's easy to forget multiple effect houses are working on a movie. Considering the effects done on the entire film, I'd say give them all a statue. :-)
ummm ... sorry but the Rachel scene is the worst part of the movie, the recreated Rachel's face looks very dowdy and kind of oddly puffy, they got the walking gait and lips of Rachel awkwardly wrong too ...
As someone who has watched the first movie, this Rachel clone scene in 2049 really puts me off and takes me out of the movie immediately (not that the movie itself is any good) ...
ummm ...
This video actually made me wonder how much of the look was designed by Roger Deakins and how much was designed by the visual artists. I'm super happy that Deakins is the frontrunner for the cinematography Oscar, but this video almost made it look as if the visual artists came up with much of the look of the movie.
RedVIII i think roger and denis supervise direct the whole crew but it could be that the vfx team can come up with the concepts or even art direction
@@HerreraAlonso
The illustrations prepared by artists for the 2049 is far more atmospheric and detailed than the movie itself ... sadly. Its a poor decision to overfog the movie to such an extent it blurs out so much details and textures that it almost look like cgi and too smooth in many scenes ...and the lightings are rather flat in many scenes too ....
@@88fejiI completely agree, even tho I loved the movie when I saw it in the theater
AWESOME JOB GUYS! Best Sci Fi film I've seen in a long time.
Thank you thank you thank you for making a sequel! Architecture at its fine implementation!
Also check out the models Weta Workshops in NZ made for Bladerunner 2049.
I think the future for vfx could be realtime. I imagine a future with no need for rendering as everything would be realtime maybe using engine like unreal.
The background noise is really annoying, like nobody is paying attention to what he saying
This was at a big conference with lots of scenes giving presentations concurrently.
Cause its boring
looking forward to see your work on Dune and new wonder woman
such a fantastic video !! really loved it ... Thanks a lot for sharing this :)
Amazing VFX Double Negative but I have a question, did you work the VFX at the Arri camera 4:3 aspect ratio or The Imax 1.90:1 aspect ratio?
mind blown!
Failed how?
the ending of the video was cool
Pump up the volume
What's that Web Summit bottom bar doing all along your video...?
Regarding the city scape work - BRAVO !!! But he didn’t mention the bigatures ... 🤔
Well done!
when building a city remember to have green recreation areas, trees and a big central park
Just move to the suburbs if you want green spaces.
trees are overated
Trees make you healthy
There are no trees or plants by 2049.
We have killed everything.
I love this movie so much
#ThereIsStillSomeFaithInTheNewGeneration
I thought WETA did the effects?
There were multiple effect teams. WETA did minatures.
oh they did the REAL effects
on movies this big, typically like 4-8 companies work on the vfx side.
Rodeo, Weta, Double Neg, others all worked on Blade Runner 2049
Weta is one of many on this film
what software do they use to do things like that ?
Juno Kid several. Just to mention some:
Nuke, cinema4d, maya, Fusion, after effects, photoshop, zbrush, houdini, unity, etc etc...all combined with miniatures, chroma key and mocaps. Not to mention big real size structures.
I worked at dneg on the film, and the main software used was, clarisse, maya and nuke
I was here because Shanker 2.0 maker told about you....
There wasn't enough lighting in the buildings, not from those living in them nor from advertising which should have been spread out. The gritty look was fine, the dust on the ground unexplained, but then it came to the outside bar scene and it was clean and sanitised. It really didn't fit in. The director's vision and the look he went for wasn't just right. The original film set the scene for dystopian films that followed, it was cohesive, but this was a bit of a disjointed world.
900,000,000,000 Polygons? Holy shit.
Blade Runner 2049 - The best CGI visuals covered by the most smoke and fog ever put to film. Such a shame that not more of the landscapes and models were just compeltely washed out.
I'm sorry, did he say Nine Hundred Billion polygons?
yes, and everything is blurry and in fog, so I think, they missed s point quite a lot. Well, at least they could bake some stuff. Probably, they just want to get some more money )
fuckyougoogle You don't know how vfx contracts work
sorry, what?
fuckyougoogle Contracted vfx jobs are one price that's bid on. They don't get more money for doing extra work or more more hours.
you quite don't get may be, it's a laverage point when u can say there are billions of polygons so u can get more money, improve your expertise and hire more talent, expand the bussiness. Seems like you have never worked as a PM. Put off your shinny peorple glasses
Did this take place a fuckin airport?
Visuals are great - sound is absolutely rubbish on the video.
900 billion polys in one scene? Thats just badly optimised...
He really made an effort not to say Smoke and Mirrors
Brahmastra vfx..
GREAT CONTENT! BUT! the presenter Uhm says ah, and ah uhm, so uhm many times i uhm can't deal uhm with it
You sound Scottish.
The plot was meh, but the visuals are brilliant even my girlfriend that's not into design, was stunned.
The visuals are underwhelming, just google cyberpunk or blade runner inspired art ... there are far more visually stunning artistic creations out there ... and I'm an artist for decades, 2049 is utterly disappointing to me, Ridley Scott's stunning original has been an inspiration for countless artists and filmmakers for decades, but this sequel really disappoints on almost all aspects from the visuals, to the music, plot, thematics etc ..
zero interest from the crowd.
Frankly the visual effects (models, cgi etc) in 2049 is very underwhelming to me ... I've seen far far better aesthetics in artistic creations inspired by Ridley Scott's original Blade Runner movie, just google "sci fi art", "cyberpunk", "Blade Runner inspired art" you will see far more beautifully rendered stuffs than 2049, not to mention that the original first movie's visuals are far more beautiful and sophisticated than 2049 ..
You can't compare paintings and drawings to a movie of this scale
+Miguel Pereira
Of course I can, the greatest movies evokes the beauty and moods found in magnificent paintings ... please remember that a lot of the great visuals in movies like Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, Star Wars, Raiders Of the Lost Ark uses the most magnificent matte paintings as backdrops to create the wonderfully cinematic settings in the final movie ...
Frankly there are very very few sci fi movie which is able to capture the best sci fi illustration art, but guess what, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is one of those rare movies that perfectly captures the magnificence of the best sci fi art .. its a shame that a movie meant to be the sequel made 30 years later actually look worse ... 2049 really pales when compared to the same illustrations inspired by the great visuals of the first movies ... its heartbreaking for me to say that, I had hoped that the sequel will wow me again but its just too wishful of me ... I thought the sequel would accomplish what Empire Strikes Back did for A New Hope .. nope, not even close ...
88feji Well, if that's how you feel...sorry that you didn't like the film, I personally loved it.
+Miguel Pereira
Its fine, I have nothing personal against people who likes 2049 .. I just want to broaden people's horizon by pointing out that they should try googling the best sci fi/cyberpunk visuals and see for themselves how 2049 pales in comparison ... I am an artist myself, so maybe I'm a little more discerning when it comes to aesthetics ..
88feji Yeah I guess I can understand. I respext people's opinions and I also have no problem with people not liking this film.
Have a nice day/night man
The movie still sucks and it has no sense to exist, the beauty of the first ones ending was not knowing what happens later, now we have a stupid sequel which explains it...
To be honest, 2049 was good but no where near as good as the original in terms of VFX. The original looked real, its camera work was real camera work. And notably, though 2049 makes use of more buildings its landscapes do not look as vast as the opening wide shot in the original. Also 2049 felt CG. The biggest problem with CGI is not the realism that can be created, its the motion of the cg camera that absolutely dispells the sense of reality. notably its a combination of lens used, and most importantly the camera's motion being far too perfect and almost always far too fast. The original BR used a real camera on a minature stage. 2049 did the same as well but the motion control setup was transfered from a camera move most likely done in maya. as such the move looks CG, and its far too fast. The ever so typical panoramic Lord of the rings type panoramic wide shot moving far too fast that couldve neven been created in reality. Because of it, and the aboslute smoothness of the motion it makes everything look CG. a prolific mistake by directors in hollywood.
Most of it was done practically actually. The city landscapes were mainly miniature sets and didn't look CG at all. They actually looked a lot better than most CGI they put out these days.
4 words that completely destabilize your argument: they used practical effects.
uh i see perfectly smooth real camera movements all the time without any effects.. its called having camera equipment to achieve the stillness. doesnt take away from the cg at all and besides there was a fuck load of practical enviroments in this move. go watch the vfx breakdown for this and then deadpool and see the difference... moron. this movie looked pretty photorealistic unlike those shitty superhero movies shot in 100% green screened surroundings... moron
disagree. theres a ton of practical effects in 2049 and you see that. the way they used the data from the practical effects in that shot to make the CGI in said shot look realistic and fitting is quite unmatched. Smooth cam movement is very easy to achieve with the camera equipement that they were able to use. Its a matter of preference. I think a lot of movies use to "hide" their cgi in handheld camera movement for that extra realism, but thats a matter of cinematography and stylistic choice and i prefer the calm, steady movement. the shots where the cam pans over the city in 2049 were absolutely breathtaking
Most of it wasn't CGI. th-cam.com/video/sLxxbfsj8IM/w-d-xo.html
Dude’s speaking is dry AF. Fascinating work and he’s managing to lose his audience.
"We wanted to do something different" and that is why you failed.