Відео

Makes sense!

I'm glad it's useful to you!

Makes sense, yup. Still, 10 clicks vs one. But yeah it can be done in both ways :)

We have updated it recently, so yeah, should work just fine. If anything goes wrong, please let us know though :)

Hi Ridit, feel free to post your lighting question in our Discord community: discord.com/invite/nNReRkzWsh

@@GlebAlexandrov Thanks.I was too shy to ask you if you had discord or not anyways.

Thank you for watching!

You're too kind! ❤

yeah :)

Yea, an interesting technique that should be used with caution as it can generate negative pixel values thus potentially breaking the whole color management pipeline.

Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad to hear that the cinematic lighting course has helped improve your renders! Keep up the great work! :)

@@GlebAlexandrov My bad i had a typo and wrote light i meant likes...

@@GlebAlexandrov Yea love your videos.Keep it up!!

@@riditmukhopadhyay9708 Haha, no worries, I got it :)

Actually I haven't tested Reality Scan yet, but now I'll have to :) What are your impressions so far?

Upd: I've just checked Reality Scan app on my Iphone. Essentially it's a very (very) light introductory photogrammetry app, compared to Reality Capture (which is a professional tool).

@@GlebAlexandrov I dont know. I was actually on Blendermarket looking ... I dont even remember why I was there but I fell down a rabbit hole and all of a sudden wanted to learn photogrammetry. In this video you mention using Reality capture so I googled that and saw that they also do reality scan so I wondered what the difference was...

@@fullyleaded Basically Reality Capture is better :) If you want to keep falling down that rabbit hole, I recommend trying Reality Capture in other words, it's the fastest/highest quality photogrammetry software available up to date.

@@GlebAlexandrov Ha ha. thank you. thats the answer I was looking for. :) Im actually trying to get out of this rabbit hole so being armed with this info I dont need to keep digging. :)

haha, fair enough! thank you! :)

I take this as a complement, Soufiane! thank you so much, that sounds really encouraging (although it looking *so real* is a little bit creepy as well, I admit).

it's never too late. the time is a relative construct anyway, in my multiverse.

@@GlebAlexandrov LETSSSS GOOOO

@@_casg Haha)

@@GlebAlexandrov wow bro i was playing around with your workflow and it made my scene look from pastel dog water to vintage gold

So true!

Totally agree. But where does good cinematography come from? It actually comes from photography. Historically and practically. It's about creating beautiful, thought provoking images with lighting, composition and subject matter. People who understand photography don't need this explained to them. People need to learn to 'think' in a cinematic way, and the best starting point for that is learn photography, with a proper camera and lenses. By that I mean DSLR or SLR, if you really want to work with film. Looking at films critically is also essential as gleb touched on.

@@richardconway6425 Yeah, you've restated my point

Yes, Corona is good, but the differences between render engines tend to be quite marginal, unless your criteria is very specific (fur or caustics, just to give an example). I sometimes read people complaining about cycles, saying it's not as good as x or y, or sometimes saying they think it's flat out cr*p, which I personally find ridiculous. Before you write off cycles completely, there are two very important things you need to consider: 1. Your materials. Are you using really good, high resolution, high quality pbr materials? 2. Your lighting. One thing I realised immediately when using cycles, is that your lighting has to be *really* good. If the lighting setup is mediocre, the end result will look cr#p. Lighting is what breathes life into your materials, and every aspect has to be considered. Direction, spread, intensity, colour pallette. If you watch really experienced artists work, it's actually surprising how much time and effort they spend on their lighting set up, and they can seem quite complex, using many light sources, of different types. If you are confident that you have excelled in this area, but you're still not getting the results you want, then by all means, go ahead and use corona. It is, after all, highly reputed, and used by archviz professionals. But, for me, I am constantly amazed by what can be achieved with cycles. I personally think that it can give stunning results.

@@richardconway6425 I am basing my opinion as a professional in the industry for 20 years. You can’t even compare cycles to something like Corona shading, they aren’t marginally different, there is a huge difference. Professional studios don’t use cycles for rendering. And yah lighting is the main thing, but lighting is also dependent on how good your shading is and cycles is just mediocre at best in terms of realistic shading. Don’t get me wrong, I think the speed of cycles has many use cases but I wouldn’t use it for final shots when there are so many better options out there

@@Mandance that's interesting. I must defer to your experience here, because I am not a professional, and I have never used corona. I have watched videos of people discussing the performance of various render engines, and showing still images of various parts of a scene, to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses. It is true that you can see differences in specific places, but in terms of the 'overall' look, I was surprised at how similar they were. It wasn't a case of one looking better, more of just being slightly different. And of course, which ever engine we use, if we're not happy with the end result, we can do all sorts of things to improve the situation. Tweaking light settings, colour grading in 3rd party editors etc. I have honestly never heard anyone state so categorically that there was such a big difference between corona and cycles. Andrew Price (Blender Guru) did a render engine comparison test a while back, and whilst he did think that corona gave the best results, it wasn't by a huge margin. If I remember correctly, he noted that it performed particularly well with transparent and translucent objects in the scene, like glass statues and ornaments. But elsewhere, I wouldn't exactly say it was overwhelmingly better, and nor did he. In fact, I remember thinking at the time how good the cycles render looked, very close to the corona render, in overall look. Considering that cycles is a free render engine built on top of a really good, free, 3d modeller, then I would say that's quite an achievement, although I realise that's not what we're really discussing here. But, I have to say, Corona is quite expensive, so it should be good. You mentioned that professional studios don't use cycles, but that's surely because most professional studios don't use blender. If they don't use blender, then they would have no reason to use cycles, preferring instead to use Arnold, or Octane or indeed Corona. Whatever fits into their pipeline. But, as far as I know, Andrew Price and his team use blender and cycles in their professional archviz work. The beauty of cycles, is that it is native to blender, so understands whatever you do in blender, and works with adds on too. It can, for example, quite happily render a mesh with loads of open modifiers running, which is definitely not the case when exporting to a different render engine. How could a proprietary, 3rd party render engine like corona be integrated to work with blender? It uses its own shaders, so wouldn't understand blender's implementation of subdivision surfaces, nor running modifiers, nor many addons. So, it's a nice idea, but I wonder if it's even possible. Perhaps it's possible, but might not be viable, from a cost/benefit point of view. Although, I have to acknowledge, that Renderman now has an official plug in for blender, but I imagine that they spent some time working with the Blender team to get it working properly. Also, that they would have good reason to do this, whereas the corona team might not have anything like the same motivation. I wonder, do you have any views on renderman? And do you specialise in any particular type of content creation?

@@Mandance that's interesting. I must defer to your experience here, because I am not a professional, and I have never used corona. I have watched videos of people discussing the performance of various render engines, and showing still images of various parts of a scene, to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses. It is true that you can see differences in specific places, but in terms of the 'overall' look, I was surprised at how similar they were. It wasn't a case of one looking better, more of just being slightly different. And of course, which ever engine we use, if we're not happy with the end result, we can do all sorts of things to improve the situation. Tweaking light settings, colour grading in 3rd party editors etc. I have honestly never heard anyone state so categorically that there was such a big difference between corona and cycles. Andrew Price (Blender Guru) did a render engine comparison test a while back, and whilst he did think that corona gave the best results, it wasn't by a huge margin. If I remember correctly, he noted that it performed particularly well with transparent and translucent objects in the scene, like glass statues and ornaments. But elsewhere, I wouldn't exactly say it was overwhelmingly better, and nor did he. In fact, I remember thinking at the time how good the cycles render looked, very close to the corona render, in overall look. Considering that cycles is a free render engine built on top of a really good, free, 3d modeller, then I would say that's quite an achievement, although I realise that's not what we're really discussing here. But, I have to say, Corona is quite expensive, so it should be good. You mentioned that professional studios don't use cycles, but that's surely because most professional studios don't use blender. If they don't use blender, then they would have no reason to use cycles, preferring instead to use Arnold, or Octane or indeed Corona. Whatever fits into their pipeline. But, as far as I know, Andrew Price and his team use blender and cycles in their professional archviz work. The beauty of cycles, is that it is native to blender, so understands whatever you do in blender, and works with adds on too. It can, for example, quite happily render a mesh with loads of open modifiers running, which is definitely not the case when exporting to a different render engine. How could a proprietary, 3rd party render engine like corona be integrated to work with blender? It uses its own shaders, so wouldn't understand blender's implementation of subdivision surfaces, nor running modifiers, nor many addons. So, it's a nice idea, but I wonder if it's even possible. Perhaps it's possible, but might not be viable, from a cost/benefit point of view. Although, I have to acknowledge, that Renderman now has an official plug in for blender, but I imagine that they spent some time working with the Blender team to get it working properly. Also, that they would have good reason to do this, whereas the corona team might not have anything like the same motivation. I wonder, do you have any views on renderman? And do you specialise in any particular type of content creation?

@@Mandance that's interesting. I must defer to your experience here, because I am not a professional, and I have never used corona. I have watched videos of people discussing the performance of various render engines, and showing still images of various parts of a scene, to illustrate their strengths and weaknesses. It is true that you can see differences in specific places, but in terms of the 'overall' look, I was surprised at how similar they were. It wasn't a case of one looking better, more of just being slightly different. And of course, which ever engine we use, if we're not happy with the end result, we can do all sorts of things to improve the situation. Tweaking light settings, colour grading in 3rd party editors etc. I have honestly never heard anyone state so categorically that there was such a big difference between corona and cycles. Andrew Price (Blender Guru) did a render engine comparison test a while back, and whilst he did think that corona gave the best results, it wasn't by a huge margin. If I remember correctly, he noted that it performed particularly well with transparent and translucent objects in the scene, like glass statues and ornaments. But elsewhere, I wouldn't exactly say it was overwhelmingly better, and nor did he. In fact, I remember thinking at the time how good the cycles render looked, very close to the corona render, in overall look. Considering that cycles is a free render engine built on top of a really good, free, 3d modeller, then I would say that's quite an achievement, although I realise that's not what we're really discussing here. But, I have to say, Corona is quite expensive, so it should be good. You mentioned that professional studios don't use cycles, but that's surely because most professional studios don't use blender. If they don't use blender, then they would have no reason to use cycles, preferring instead to use Arnold, or Octane or indeed Corona. Whatever fits into their pipeline. But, as far as I know, Andrew Price and his team use blender and cycles in their professional archviz work. The beauty of cycles, is that it is native to blender, so understands whatever you do in blender, and works with adds on too. It can, for example, quite happily render a mesh with loads of open modifiers running, which is definitely not the case when exporting to a different render engine. How could a proprietary, 3rd party render engine like corona be integrated to work with blender? It uses its own shaders, so wouldn't understand blender's implementation of subdivision surfaces, nor running modifiers, nor many addons. So, it's a nice idea, but I wonder if it's even possible. Perhaps it's possible, but might not be viable, from a cost/benefit point of view. Although, I have to acknowledge, that Renderman now has an official plug in for blender, but I imagine that they spent some time working with the Blender team to get it working properly. Also, that they would have good reason to do this, whereas the corona team might not have anything like the same motivation. I wonder, do you have any views on renderman? And do you specialise in any particular type of content creation?

you're welcome! :)

I haven't targeted that precise niche yet. Have you seen my exterior lighting video though? ua-cam.com/video/meeS7yuCaJs/v-deo.html

As the basic modeling principles haven't changed, my answer is yes :)

@@GlebAlexandrov okay thanks man. will take the course in few days

@@nurnberger588 no worries! let me know if you run into any issues. and just in case, there's a money back guarantee in the first 30 days.

Hi Thomas, can you drop us an email? :) www.creativeshrimp.com/contact

The weighted bevel? Did you check the Bevel method in the modifier (set to Weight).

That's definitely a good timing to try it out! Thanks for supporting us :)

@@GlebAlexandrovJust ordered my GPU now, so I HAD to purchase this course along with it! I've always wanted to learn how to make nebulaes in Blender but there weren't any good tutorials on it on YT. So this course will be perfect for me! Thank you so much for making this course!

@@m.sharif_3d Thank you so much, I hope you'll love it! :)

Thanks. Yeah it's possible to go deeper than that, yet the notion of spatial fidelity gives at least some sort of reference frame within which different capturing devices can be evaluated.

Blender makes this very easy. In the 'collections' workspace/editor (top right) every object has some options to the right of it. 'Show in viewport', 'show in render" being two of them. Make sure these options are visible by looking at the 'filter' button at the top of the editor. I think there are at least 4 or 5 options you can toggle to show or not. 'Show in render' has a little camera icon.

Lighting can be tricky, I can relate. If you'd like, feel free to share some screenshots, and perhaps I can offer some guidance or point you in the right direction.

I will do JUST that. THANK YOU ! It would mean a lot. P.S. - Its 12 pm here (Bangladesh) I''ll be watching your video again and working / experimenting on a scene.

I was thinking of exactly that just before you got to it!

Hah, nice! that's a classic movie I refer to from time to time :)