This belongs in the off-topic section.
And even there this thread serves no other purpose than to annoy and insult the blender community. He could’ve picked any random CG production just to accompany it with his standard blender user bashing.
Then I shall not treat it as one. You could’ve also helped by ommitting the last 3 sentences from your original post.
On the subject of the video: If ‘9’ is any indication of the quality of his work, this looks to be another extended animation showreel.
The amount of clichéd characters is nothing short of amazing:
The “space marine” grunt as the protagonist.
The girl with the supernatural abilities.
Some other stereotype muscled military type dude.
It also has this overall generic unappealing look. Just a showcase for the source engine.
Realtime rendering can offer a lot of benefits in the field of previz and storyboarding. With DirectX11 you have realtime render features approaching production renderers, though it also suffers from the same pitfalls of GPU rendering with CUDA and OpenCL such as memory constraints. I believe mitsuba has an OpenGL preview mode for Global Illumination, which is practically realtime. Works rather well.
why use source rather than unreal 4 (not out quite yet) or cryengine 3 (has been out for a while)? source is from halflife2. i was playing unreal tournament 99 back then more than everything else put together. true hl2 looked better than ut 99 but with the 1 year+ delay i didn;t even follow up on getting my free copy for buying an ati allinwonder 9600. but 10 years later source is a good physics engine but sub par for graphics. thats why 2 portals have been made already and not even a whiff of episode 3 smelled or seen.
At 0:28, it states “FROM THE VISIONARY DIRECTOR OF 9.”
Sorry guys, I lost interest immediately, regretting every penny of the $1 I spent to rent that terrible film.
More importantly, however, I don’t yet understand the advantages of creating a film with a game engine. Procedural solutions to animation already exist (see Houdini). True, video game logic offers dynamic, procedural behavior in the environment, but visually? Audience: if you want your movie to look like a video game, just play a video game. Most modern video games are already “cinematized,” to invent a word, meaning that video games have their own story and cutscenes that the player has to endure. Such backstories are usually very generic and cliche, serving only to interrupt the player from otherwise enjoyable gameplay.
It sounds like I need to read more into this. I don’t yet see what video game engines have to offer visually to filmmaking. Certainly it means that the caliber of storytelling and characterization in modern filmmaking is worse than ever.
I also think what Endi’s trying to say is “Here’s some people making a film using a freaking Game Engine, and many people who complain about Blender can’t even make a film using Blender’s more visually attractive capabilities.”
At least I hope that’s what he’s trying to say, because the game-engine-esque graphics in that trailer look sub-par even to the unfinished scenes of Mango (forgive me, I didn’t watch in HD because of internet constraints). Oh well, Endian interpretation is subjective.
Two words, Render Time… I am in the long stages of planning an animated short. Personally if a frame takes more than 1 hour to render than I am screwed. Now if I can use something like cry engine for cinema than great, cry engine has things like tessellation, SSS and a whole bunch of faked stuff real-time stuff.
I can imagine something with the look and feel of a Jetsons cartoon been very possible. And you should try watch the short version of 9 its way better than the movie, I guess somethings just don’t translate well to feature length movies.
And Unreal 4 is looking even better… Although I don’t think that Unreal has a hobbyist version available. You have to shell out thousands of dollars to get it. Cryengine lets anyone play with it, but you can’t use it professionally without buying it.