Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that modern renderers render in a "physically accurate" way. However, cameras throughout history has never captured images in a "physically accurate" way but rather through a set of imperfect techniques (lenses, film etc) which produces a certain look. When rendering, it's hard to make things seem realistic as they often look too perfect but something like this gets closer to how a photo would loo…
Path tracing isn’t really physically accurate, as it also models how cameras work. Path tracing is considered “photorealistic “. I’ll have to dig into this project more, but all pathtracing algorithms start with the fundamental principles of optics in the lens, and changing the field of view of that lens affects the image and the perspective distortion, and you also have effects like the depth of field, and other asp…
The Virtual Blender Camera
21–26 of 26 posts
Re: The Virtual Blender Camera
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Path tracing isn’t really physically accurate, as it also models how cameras work. Path tracing is considered “photorealistic “. I’ll have to dig into this project more, but all pathtracing algorithms start with the fundamental principles of optics in the lens, and changing the field of view of that lens affects the image and the perspective distortion, and you also have effects like the depth of field, and other asp…
Depth of field also exists in eyeballs too
Re: The Virtual Blender Camera
#23See also previous discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36562757 Unbelievably creative and impressive project, it's so much fun to see :) It's just cool that raytracing is accurate enough to make this possible.
I thought the virtual handles to control the aperture and focus were a nice touch
Re: The Virtual Blender Camera
#24Very cool, now I just need to learn blender.
Re: The Virtual Blender Camera
#25Phenomenal work It makes me wonder though: what's missing here that still puts it in the uncanny valley? Do you need to deliberately deform these stock 3D models with small defects/"entropy"? Or is it simply not enough detail for the base models?
Film is kind of interesting because the process of getting the information isn't done there. We also have to re-broadcast the film out, but honestly, that part is kind of boring: shine light through the developed film and it attenuates some parts of the light more than others, reproducing the information encoded on developed film quite directly & without loss.
So far, this has all been modelled pretty well by this project. We have fancy lens optics, reproducing the light-capture system of a camera. What's missing / un-canny valley so far is that the virtual world is usually a fairly poor facimile of the real world. The modelling straight up isn't as good. How things animate and move lack a subtlty of complex motion that real bodies in motion carry. There's a host of small issues around how light interacts/bounces off subjects that we don't model well in Blender or most systems: subsurface scattering effects aren't as fancy as they could be, the physical based rendering models aren't complex enough, the air itself as as a medium isn't well modelled. There's a huge combo of things the virtual worlds aren't as good at as the real world, and there's so many behaviors and nuances of things in the real world that virtual worlds usually don't capture as well. This largely defines the uncanny valley.
But, just to throw a little more fuel on the fire: this project also is missing another step in cinema that I skipped above. I don't think this is where the uncanny valley problem is, but I think it's a pretty sizable difference between film and digital cinema. Film has another tranmission process that I didn't describe above!
So, we've shot our movie. Now what? Well, we develop the film. What is developing? Well, we emerse the film in an activation bath to develop the exposed silver-halide crystals better known as film grains. There's information trapped in these crystals, they're at a certain state, and we have a chemical process which sends this information out, through a medium. The medium is the chemical developer, which turns the exposure into developed film grain, which is the received information from this system.
One of the really crazy things to me is that developing film is not at all like reading exposure values off a digital sensor. Because the process happens over time chemically, and the process itself is actively consuming the film developer as it works, which creates little local pockets where there's less developer. The process is non-linear. A heavily exposed scene will consume the developer and reduce further development speed not just for that film grain, but for the area around it.
Again, this isn't the uncanny valley problem. But it's still something missing from digital cinema, from this effort, that makes it substantially different from film cinema. There's projects like Filmulator https://filmulator.org/ that I love and adore which can simulate chemical development of film from RAW images.
I'd love to see Virtual Blender Camera team up with efforts like these, to create a more genuine film-cinema feel, that models more than just the optical capture systems. That way we can accurately model both of the Shannon Information Theory processes of information transmission that make up cinema. But we'll still need much better virtual worlds & much more believable & nuanced virtual actors within these virtual worlds to overcome uncanny valley problems.
Re: The Virtual Blender Camera
#26I'm not a 3D modeler (aside from CAD), photographer, or artist but that must be one of the most impressive things I've seen lately. Can anyone comment on how CPU and/or GPU intensive this is.