https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhWc3b3KhnYNewest movie from the blender foundation.Let's start the shitposting war.
A thread died for this?
>>675323>GUYS>GUYS WE CAN DO HAIR AND VOLUMETRICS LOOK>GUYS LOOK HAIR AND VOLUMETRICS>GUYS HAIR AND VOLUMETRICS HOLY SHITIt was shit like all the other ones. Well, maybe except Agent 327.
>>675330It didn't feel like they improved any of those techs. This is at least the impression I got. Since Blender productions are usually geared toward demonstrating some tech improvement, what are they showcasing here exactly?
>>675332The technology to awaken giant wood spirits.
>>675332The technology for getting people to pay up for mediocre animated shorts.
>>675336eww, get the FUCK out
That skin shader looks awful t b h
It's nowhere near the Disney quality and there's hardly any improvement compared to Agent 327.Environment and animation are what stood out the most for me.I hope they'll put out the next "big" update sooner than in 5 years.
>>675341327 was Cycles, this is Eevee.
>>675341>It's nowhere near the Disney qualityJust curious, did they ever advertise it as it were?>and there's hardly any improvement compared to Agent 327.If I'm correct this was the first movie produced with 2.80 starting the movie with the very first versions and it's still not even officially out yet so I guess they had to really fight with the software to get this movie done in the first place.Currently the new Blender still has to catch up with 2.79 to get everything complete as that old version before taking off.I think once we reach 2.81 or 2.82 we'll see some serious stuff, especially since they had like 3k and less per month funding and now are close to 30k and rising. Still silly to compare them to Autodesk with its millions of funding power.Just wish they'll succeed and so far they're doing fine.
>>675341It looks professional enough for most normalfags, which is what matter.
>>675346For cartoony style, yeah.
>>675342Is it really Eevee? It doesn't look like it. Blender Cloud doesn't mention it as well. >>675343>did they ever advertise it as it were?By "Disney quality" I meant high quality and they do advertise it as a "visually stunning" short movie. Meanwhile Spring is far from it. Mediocre assets and poor animation as well as no quality control is why it's average. It's more of a fault of people working on it than the software though. >starting with the very first versions"The very first versions" of 2.8 were crashing every 3 minutes and half of the modifiers wasn't working. They must have started with 2.79 and jumped on the 2.8 once it was stable enough for production.Also it's not the first time Blender Animation Studio was working on a new, unstable version of Blender, other open movies were done in similar matter.>>675346Sad, but true.
>>675342if it was eevee they would have explicitly mentioned it because that would have been really something
To be fair it's quite nice, nothing groundbreaking but it's more than passable. I don't really like the main character model, but other than that it's pretty cool. The compositing and creature design especially seem to be the high points overall.Let's note that the artists who worked on it are quite kickass too. Julien Kaspar is a personal favourite.>inb4 this short gets mentioned all the fucking time by blendlets now as the best thing since sliced bread..>inb4 hurr durr RIP Pixar RIP autodesk
>>675364>nothing groundbreakingThat's the issue here, isn't it? All these short films made by Blender themselves have always been to showcase what Blender can really do with a (semi-)professional production team, in other words showing what Blender is at its best. If this is what Blender is at its best, then what is the Foundation trying to say?
>>675364kek I just noticed, these eyelashes and eyebrows are hilariousthe eyes are weird also, they're quite flat both in shape (they don't even seem to be round?) and shading (quite diffuse and lifeless).. that's probably the main reason why the character doesn't sit well with me..so yeah, the creatures and environment seem a lot more successful, quality-wise
>>675365Meh, it's good enough for plenty of things I suppose. Nobody ever mentions it in a professional context of course, but I guess it can be useful to learn the basics of 3D or something. For modeling maybe? I can't really say.. I just wouldn't expect Blender to compete with the professional tools that have been developed and pushed to their limit for the past 20 years anyway. At best a startup with a few skilled people could use it to create short TV ads or whatnot, the bar is usually lower for those.As far as I'm concerned, since my main thing is rendering, there's no way in hell I will ever consider Blender for anything I do.
>>675360>eeveeisn't this their real-time thing? if so, that's definitely not what was used here
>>675366They had the same problem in the Laundromat short. I don't think it's because the hair system isn't up to the task but rather the artists having no idea how to make attach it to a human character without it looking like glued on pubes.
>>675371>glued on pubescannot unsee
>>675373gaze into the abyss
>>675374the main problem is that you still have to find a compromise and cannot use as many hair as there are usually on a human head. hence animators make them thicker and less of them which turns into the usual pubes look.
>>675376The main issue is that they're relying on the particle system to do the entire job of making hair look good without painting smaller hair/stubble detail where it penetrates into the skin on the albedo.
>LOL IT"S NOT PIXARImagine getting butthurt at a free software foundation producing an entertaining proof of concept as a way to test, debug and improve the free software they're producing
>>675366>they don't even seem to be round?If you try to make her eyes perfect spheres, they'd clip out the side of her head because they'd have to be so huge. Poor character design when accounting for 3D honestly. >>675371>>675376>>675377Looks like Blender artists just don't know how eyebrow hairs work. You can achieve passable eyebrows by indicating some sort of flow, you don't even have to make them as dense as real eyebrows. Most games still bake eyebrows into face textures and those look fine despite being constrained to such a small space on a texture map. I wish there were closeups so I could say for sure, but it just looks like the artists here just clumped as many small hairs as they could resulting in those pube-like caterpillars.
>>675342>EeveeNo it isn't.
>>675410>entertaining proof of concept as a way to test, debug and improve the softwareWhile they improved the software itself, nothing got improved in terms of the quality of short films. And if they want to get more people to use their software, they should try to show how good it can actually be. But when they show clipping animation, lifeless skin shader and poor environments, you end up with 90% of your userbase being Blendies who will eat up anything you throw at them, since no professional is going to take that software seriously.>>675414>eyes would clip out the side of her head because they'd have to be so huge>he doesn't know about the lattice modifierAlso if you wanted to make the eyes more round, you would have to make the initial sphere smaller, not larger. Poor common knowledge when accounting for 3D honestly.
>>675323I dont get it,Does she do this every year? If so, does she not age and nether does the dog?Why does she seem so surprised if its something that is done every year?If others do it too why is she alone?I mean making cool shorts is one thing, but i like my shorts to make a little bit of sense.
>>675423I guess it's some sort of ritual that's being done every year, by her people. And now it's her duty to do this.As for why she goes there alone? idk but the answer is probably "muh tradition of doing it on your own" or something like that.
>they should try to show how good it can actually be>no professional is going to take that software seriouslyit's all about established pipelines and workflows (which funnily you don't see), and not final renders (which you do see)you can easily change the look of of the film by swapping the renderer and artists. but you will probably never change industry standards though. not much reason too, anyhow.
>>675426>implying pipelines, workflows and industry standards don't change over timeshiggy diggy
>>675426>you will probably never change industry standards thoughIndustry standards change. Old software gets replaced by new, better software, once the benefits are clear enough and make the money talk.
>>>675323ECH HEM>2012 was 7 years ago>the absolute state of blend cultists
>>675437Are you seriously putting this at the level of Brave?
>>675437>>675438Btw, that's the perfect excuse for a tech post.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeYW8TIWLG8
>>675438>>675438>don't compare it to old movies >its not fair we need more time to develop it>7 years isn't enough time >in 70 years it will be great just wait>when you think about it, its actually better than those old movies because its open source>those movies cost more money than ours so it doesn't count>we broke our everything with our update so its understandable>yeah blender sucks therefore you should donate to the blender foundation to make it better
>>675431>implying pipelines, workflows and industry standards don't change over timethey don't really>get some verts>move them between frames somehow>shade the faces>composite the image>>675433>make the money talkwell the linux ecosystem is cost free, but businesses have an existing infrastructure and culture that will be difficult to switch from
>>675446>2090>Blender 2.8 hasn't come out of beta yet>the comments section for the release video of Maya 2091 has hundreds of Blender users shitposting about how Autodesk is going to die>someone brings up how you still can't do precision modeling or group objects together in Blender>"w-well there might be an addon for that..."
>>675449Since it's so hard for you to understand, let me give you some rough examples.Before 2014 texturing was done among others inside 3D-Coat and Mari. Then Substance Painter gets released and within 5 years the entire video games industry uses it to texture most of the assets, due to smart materials and automation it provides.Marvelous Designer, first released in 2011. Before, people would mainly sculpt wrinkles from the scratch inside Zbrush. These days, the workflow is "Simulate wrinkles in MD" > "Refine in Zbrush".
>>675456Hi, those are caused by major technological advances that allow artists to work more quickly and effectively. Note that at least MD moves things in the direction of paying more money for more pro software, and anyone who moves from Photoshop to Substance is also adding additional $$$ that they didn't used to. So clearly what's happening is that artists and studios are happy to pay and integrate the best, most effective new tools into their pipelines, while cheap/free alternatives that are worse are going nowhere.
>>675449>well the linux ecosystem is cost free, but businesses have an existing infrastructure and culture that will be difficult to switch fromWhat point are you trying to make? First of all, Linux-based infrastructure is not cost-free: you still have to pay for all the specialists needed to operate it. And, secondly, Linux is the undisputed tech leader in many IT areas, so there's no reason for businesses to switch away from it.
>>675414>eyes would clip out the side of her headdude no...
>>675446what the fuck is "yo frankie" and who the fuck would produce such nightmare fuel
>>675449>implying pipelines, workflows and industry standards don't change over time>they don't reallyholy fuck, stop scooping in the chromosomes bucket m8
>>675376>cannot use as many hair as there are usually on a human headOf course we can. What year do you hail from, 2009?
>>675491Yeah have fun rendering 5 hours per frame when your animation hundreds of thousands of frames
>>675492>SSS>displacements>volume fog>entire clouds of particles>complete terrain with pebbles, grass, and bushes>OH NO, PROPER HAIR WOULD BLOW UP RENDER TIME>mfw
Anyone thought the rocks looked really bad? Like ripped out of someones Warhammer table. Looked more like painted cardboard than actual stone.
>>675360Okay, my mistake. Definitely less impressive but I still enjoyed it.
>>675456>>675483>we use photoshop now instead of mspaint woah calm down there with the paradigm shifts lol
>assets availableoh shit, any blender loli lewds yet?Will I have to make them myself?
>>675482It was Ton's attempt at making the Blender game engine worth something and failed spectacularly. It was a tie in with that rabbit movie and not only did it make the game engine even more of a joke, they planned for a standalone version by trying to tie Blender with the Crystal Space engine which was already on its last legs years before the deal. The CS guys took the money and ran, the project got canned, a single buggy level for the BE version got released, pushed under the carpet and no one talked about it ever again.
>>675524dear god, that's a hilarious drama
>>675524>>675531that's actually pretty sad
>>675342>327 was Cycles, this is Eevee.>>675355>Is it really Eevee? It doesn't look like it. Blender Cloud doesn't mention it as well.it was Cycles>>675332The big improvement was workflow. Making the movies helps them figure out what workflow changes would be an improvement, since a lot of developers will just tack on features with no concept of how they will be used.On the cycles side not much has changed. Mostly benefits for speed, GPU rendering is a lot faster and you can now mix CPU and GPU rendering.There's also post processing improvements to help filtering. You can also now add more samples to an image after it's already been rendered. It's console atm but it's a neat feature.
>>675456Mari still shits all over SP when you paint assets for VFX
>>675546>You can also now add more samples to an image after it's already been rendered.Aren't samples just averaged into the values of their origin pixel? Couldn't the same effect be achieved by rendering the added samples and then blending those samples with the original image? You'd just need to bias the blend towards the higher sample image, no? (i.e. if the original had 3000 samples and the added image has 1000 samples then the original should make up 75% of the final image)Is my understand of how samples work fundamentally flawed?
>>675549>Is my understand of how samples work fundamentally flawed?No, you described the process they use, the bias is encoded in the meta data of the images, recording how many samples for each image.
>>675549Your understanding is correct. As long as the new render uses a different seed than the previous one, that'll work.
>>675547Yes, that's why I said "video game industry", and not "video games and VFX industry".
I liked it, nothing really jumped out to me in terms of bad quality. The volumetrics, especially the clouds at the end could have benefited from more resolution but I guess they didn't have years of computing time to render it.>>675422>And if they want to get more people to use their software, they should try to show how good it can actually be. But when they show clipping animation, lifeless skin shader and poor environments, you end up with 90% of your userbase being Blendies who will eat up anything you throw at them, since no professional is going to take that software seriously.I'm sure they'd be able to do much better if they had the budget to hire more artists but look at the credits, they're a tiny team. And the software is free. >>675368Pros love free software, look at the IT industry for example. Being able to modify existing software and getting updates from the community for free is a huge advantage for professionals. And it looks like we're about to reach a tipping point in that regard with blender. The best example would be Tangent Animation, they ditched maya and spent the money saved on licensing fees to hire blender developers to work on the features they needed to produce Next Gen, and now some of these features are merged back into blender's trunk. If I were a studio owner I'd start paying attention to these developments since the potential benefits are quite huge.
>>675564>I guess they didn't have years of computing time to render itI would love to see them make their next short entirely in Eevee, just to force them to fix the shadows.
>>675584>just to force them to fix the shadowsThere are inherent limitations to shadows using rasterizer. Or is there something particular not working?
>>675564I get what you're saying, but loving something free doesn't make it better, nor the ability to develop tools for it *if* it has issues at it's core. To be fair, movie studios that use Maya also develop their own tools to transform it into their own custom 3D package. 3dsmax and C4D probably aren't as flexible in that regard, but Blender isn't unique, though I'll admit it is an advantage.I still stand by my previous statement that for rendering in general (animation, archviz, etc.), Blender is one of the worst choices out there, though I'm not gonna be a total ass and claim it's not good for anything.
>>675592They work, they're just rather bad in terms of visual quality and bias issues. While they'll never be as good as a ray traced version, there are better methods of doing realtime shadows than what they're using now.
>>675564>>675596I'm pretty sure the ability to develop plugins or scripts using the API is sufficient for small studios who need a couple of in-house tools. I'm not saying it doesn't have its uses, but "muh open source" is often a meme that gets parroted by people who have never worked in a studio or tried to develop a feature for a project with the size of Blender's codebase. Tangent for instance didn't just switch to Blender because they wanted to add something to Maya but couldn't, they did it because they wanted to use Blender to make a statement and effectively got employed as developers to fix some of the shit wrong with it that nobody bothered with before. Next Gen being made with Blender was good for BLENDER, not the other way around.If you need full source code access with everything autistically fine tuned to the exact tech you just invented last week based on your own whitepaper, and the API/scripting system of the tool you're using is too limited for it, you might as well write your own DCC tool/physics engine/renderer at that point because the effort involved is going to be on the same order of magnitude, and you get the added benefit of having full control over the codebase instead of having to spend time maintaining it and making sure it's compatible with the changes in Blender 2.81. Or heaven forbid, release it as a standalone project like OpenVDB so it can get adopted by the industry as a whole instead of being a Blender-only feature.
>>675493kek underrated post
>>675599>they did it because they wanted to use Blender to make a statement and effectively got employed as developers to fix some of the shit wrong with it that nobody bothered with before. Next Gen being made with Blender was good for BLENDER, not the other way around.I'm not entirely sure about that, I think that it's the right strategy to adopt for long-term gains. I'm probably a naive and overly optimistic free software enthusiast but since blender is the only viable FOSS and "complete" 3D package I do have high hopes for its future. Imagine if another "big" studio decides to adopt blender for their next project and adds or optimize some features, from the POV of Tangent and everyone else using blender it's a net advantage they'll be able to profit from and for free.
>>675597I'm not actually aware of anything significantly better than VSM. Shadow Volumes would be completely impractical. I know theres been some work on the SVO front, but is there any other more practical shadow technique?
>>675603And I'll fully admit I'm a jaded piece of shit, but I've seen too many FOSS projects over the years get praised to the high heavens because of "the community" finally taking on the big bad Adobe/Autodesk/Microsoft to then get absolutely sidelined by a proprietary competitor made by two guys from scratch over the course of a few months.On the other hand though I won't dispute that more studios using Blender for large scale projects would be a benefit, not only for performance/workflow fixes and bringing Blender up to par with other tools, but actual innovations which could become exclusive to it and drive competition. Something like Eevee is definitely a step in the right direction. Or studios like Pixar/Sony/Dreamworks open sourcing their tools, which is starting to happen increasingly more frequently.
>>675564>>675596> Thinking Blender is more customizable than Maya"Muh free software" motherfuckers like you have clearly never tried to customize either of these programs before. Blender doesn't even OFFER a binary API. There's no way to create a .dll plugin for Blender. More importantly, there is no way to sell a binary plugin without being forced to release the source code. This is why render engines like Renderman for Blender will always be inferior, you will never have muscle plugins like Ziva, and you will never have crowd plugins like Golaem. >>675599If you want to write your own software with custom everything, you write it on top of Maya, Max or Houdini. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel with basic things like matrix transforms and parallel processing. Any custom functionality you want you can write yourself and plug into your DCC, unless you're using Blender, in which case you're limited to shitty cheap Python modules, and you can't even hook anything into the user interface since it's not based in Qt.Blendlets continue to yammer on endlessly about "modifying the source code," meanwhile no professional CG developer in their right minds would ever want to touch that steaming pile of shit. With Maya the process of starting a new custom C++ plugin using their custom Visual Studio toolkit takes literally 2 minutes.https://www.autodesk.com/developer-network/platform-technologies/maya
>>675607Let me summarize this. The SDKs for Maya, Max and Houdini are top notch, pleasant to use and deeply integrated in all major studio pipelines.There is *no such thing* as a Blender SDK. It doesn't even exist.
>>675607>>675608holy based and redpilled. blendlets BTFO
>>675607>There's no reason to reinvent the wheel with basic things like matrix transforms and parallel processingThere is if you're Pixar.
>>675337do you know where we are
>>675616God tier: Write your own proprietary DCC from scratch (Pixar, Weta)Patrician tier: Use commercial DCCs, customize heavily (SPI, Dreamworks, gamedev studios)Pleb tier: Use commercial DCCs off-the-shelf, don't do much customization (Indie gamedev, freelancers)Meme tier: Use meme software, fix a few of its nasty bugs on your own dime, make meme CG, say you "contributed"
>>675624Dreamworks have their own custom proprietary thing as well, although I think it's mostly for historical reasonshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N16Qsj6kAhwHowever Disney does just use a custom build of Maya (with their own renderer)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z-0EskUcDs
>>675625I'd even take the default Maya + Hyperion any fucking day..Though custom Maya + Renderman is top tier af
>>675625That doesn't look like a "custom build" of Maya, just Maya with custom additions.
>>675607>There's no way to create a .dll plugin for Blender.That's simply misinformation.>More importantly, there is no way to sell a binary plugin without being forced to release the source code.This is also wrong. If you don't import GPL, you don't actually have to publish your source code. Everything in a Blender addon is GPL, but that is only the machine code part of what you release.Why no big paid addons? Simply because GPL means people can just copy & paste without any reprecussion. It's currently all based on a honor system / Patreon model.
>>675715>Why no big paid addons?Pretty sure Flip Fluids is distributed as a standalone binary and communicates with a blender add-on. In this case their binary doesn't need to be GPL.
>>675713The version string literally has "Disney" in it. I wouldn't be surprised if they have their own branch with Autodesk developers on site. They can afford to buy out the company outright if they wanted to.
I liked the short. It looked preety good and it is amazing these movies are made with free software.
>>675333hnnnnggggghfucking cutefucking funny
>>675718that's the point though - its not amazing, its amazing for free software
>>675834>A first scene before an old Spring goes to sleep (before getting reborn).It's fine guys, she's actually 1000 years old.
>>675839OLD ENOUGH TO BREED
>>675839No, you got it backwards. She's always a few months old at most.
>>675346I mean if Illumination can pull the stunt, why not the Blender Foundation?Come to think of it, I'm kind of surprised Illumination isn't connected to BF.
>>675376Artists using real-time render engines in the games industry have been making good hair since the PS2 days, hair that looks better than this Blender effort.