Here is an animation I have made in Blender. The goal of this project was to become better at photorealism.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElLv76u6MDs&feature=youtu.be
>>681562Fucking christ Lego stop motion animation is more fluid than this garbage. What the fuck does blender not have basic animation and rigging tools? Fucking trash.
Bullets shouldn't go through the camera. Without breaking it, that is.
>>681579Yes Autoshitter, it's definitely the tools and not the craftsman.
I thought this was sick dude, nice work. Don't listen to pointless criticism. One thing I would work on is camera direction and saturation. This reminded me of the old YouTube days where EVERYONE made lego films.
>>681579Mate, even if this were Maya I doubt it'd look any better. The timing is wrong on so many accounts. It's a lack of fundamentals, not the tool.
>>681579It was intentional, bro, you just posted cringe
>>681600>hahahaaha it was SUPPOSED to be shit lmaoLeave the fucking board nigger.
>>681562Nice>>681579press D to dab on this shitter
>>681562Good.Use more samples. You have a lot of shimmering in your footage.
>>681562I feel like the environment scale could have been bigger. Would have made it less claustrophobic and opened the scene up a bit more. I get what you're going for with it, but it overall would be better if you treated the minifigs as human scale, and then built the environment around that. You also look like you're missing a lot of that "green filter" on the dudes. The environment has it, but it's really lacking on the characters, it's probably just because it's so yellow, but I would have probably dropped the saturation a bit on the faces just to let the green show through a bit more.There's also a ton of shimmering in the scene from low samples or something. Other than that I guess it's alright. Comes off a bit too much like those stop motion Lego animations though for my taste. I get that's the point, but if you're doing it in 3d, at least have some more fun with it than you could have had if you had done it irl. As some other anons said, the characters' animations could be a bit better. Then again, you're probably long gone, and just posted this here for views and dipped out like a bunch of other people.
>>681562Hahahahaha holy shit, the classic blender noisefestStill dogshit when it comes to lighting/rendering
>>681646>focusing on the toolFailed artist detected.
>>681652sure mate, you need to pick the right tools for the job, and rendering is generally atrocious with blenderOP's post proves it once again
>>681653Maybe his computer is also shit. That's a tool right?
>>681653Don't be "that guy." There are plenty of examples of Cycles with good results.
>>681716Like Next Gen? Oh wait, it is still a noisy mess. >>681652You can't build a good house with shit tools.
>>681717>still a noisy messu wot m8
>>681562Ignoring the rendering issues, the animation is good, it had the jerky feel of a real stop-motion project.The set is too tight, though. You have to employ the same cheats they use in movies. The slow-motion spinning shot was actually done in a round green-screen space with a fuckton of cameras rigged to snap single shots at high speed in ordered succession. In your case, you just need to reposition the camera and "hide" or don't render the parts of the subway that would block the camera's view. These are cheats you would actually be able to do in the real world with Lego bricks because you can instantly change a Lego set to remove and add pieces as necessary.Now, for the rendering: too much chromatic aberration. Need to reel that in. Also, you can use depth of field to simulate the feel of how small the Lego pieces are: look up "macro lens photography" to get an idea of how to make it look right. And as stated above, you need to bump samples up dramatically to fix the flickering of all the specular shine.Just because older fan films used 8mm home movie cameras to shoot doesn't mean you need to match that quality.
>>681724You prove my point. Look at the building on the right, or at the girl's face. Typical cycles grainy mess.
>>681751You're right. I tried to defend Blender, and failed, again.It's not only the noise. There are plenty of issues with that image. Assembly, posing, composition, lighting. I hope it's a preview and not a still from the final product.But, regardless, I give up. Blender, I don't love you anymore. Goodbye and good luck.
>>681751Let's see your work!
>>681724this looks awful
>>681773Anon, that has nothing to do with the argument.That other anon's ability to make a noiseless image does not suddenly refute the fact that those people making the show can't. It's noisy, and nothing will change that.Unless this is bait, and in that case, I fell for it.
>>681562keep working
>>681724alright this aint too noisy, but it aint great rendering eithercompositing might be at fault here tho
>>681815In actual release a some scenes don't wgot a problem with compositing, but this problem also appears in their previous work "9".
>>681787Let's see your work!
>>681830what do I get out of it
>>681830friendly reminder that whatever this other anon's work looks like, >>681724 is still awfulone does not negate the other
>>681831Exposure.
>>681834>Exposure>/3/pick one
>>681834On a dead board like this? Don't make me laugh.
>>681826Wasn't 9 done in a different program though? If anything, it's the people who run the rendering department not doing their jobs properly.
>>681898Still waiting for that work. All I see is excuses.
>>681756>I hope it's a preview and not a still from the final product.Uhhhh. Would it be wrong to lie and say maybe? Because I don't think you'd like the truth.
>>681959Again, dying board, people would rather bitch and moan over every fucking thing- programs, hardware, other board members/boards entirely, politics, the list goes on... You'd be better off asking a proper message board than here.
>>681899Yes, that's what I'm telling about.
>>681970https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excuse
>>681970It seems you're saying you would rather be looked on as a loser and a pussy ass bitch, than someone who can back up their worth by posting what they are working on. I got it man. Thanks for your input!
>>682063That's because I'm not working on anything, I'm bitching on an image board with other pussy-ass bitches who'll never get into the industry and would rather take all their frustrations out in either making porn or harping at people who do so much as breathe.
>>682776Where I live? Please.
>>682776No u have sex
>>681562Pretty cool but the shimmering from the reflections was distracting.
bruh moment
