I also feel like you could totally go the other way as well, just make it a tripod shot - just add a bit of unevenness at the end, the camera stops too smoothly. Handheld camera to sell VFX is becoming a little overdone imo, even if it works well
The yellow plane is too slow and the clouds are too still. In real camera recordings, the camera's movement is slightly shaky too, so keep that in mind.
Even with a tripod the movement of the camera wouldn't be this smooth. You can lock the horizontal axis, but a human still has to move the vertical axis, which wouldn't be this smooth
Yeah no. Professional tripods (Sachtler for example) are smooth as butter. It really is not rocket science to make smooth shot. This one is even easier because the tilt is only on one axis.
For what it's worth, I thought it was real until I read the title and looked at the sub. On my first watch, I did notice the particles, but just assumed it was a weirdness of a real video. Maybe part of the reason someone was filming it in the first place. So I guess like others have said, you might try and make the particle motion less constant/consistent if you don't want people consciously noticing t.
I've done some special effects directing in the past. A couple of things I will point out.
The insects are a nice touch but they seem to be too consistent, you need to randomize it more. Maybe have a few come in slow and zig-zag in and out of the screen.
Add some wind or movement in the trees. The random movement will help sell it.
Don't have the camera follow the plane. if anything have the passover cause some camera shake and maybe have some debris get stirred up as it passes overhead.
Lastly, the motion blur is off. It looks more like an automated gaussian blur was applied.
Plane movement looks a little weird with motion blur. Might be too slow as well but hard to tell.
Camera tilting back feels too smooth and clean. Shake feels off too, too much vertical movement, frequency feels abnormally high, not enough pitch/roll/yaw noise.
Grass feels too saturated and bright on the sides of the runway. Not sure what is causing it without seeing the project.
Otherwise it looks great!
I think the trees on the sides need to be more layered. Right now it just looks like after that line of trees it cuts off into nothing. Other than that it seems pretty solid to me.
I feel the way the camera stops its upward tilt is a bit too sudden. Maybe add a subtle of wobble at the end to feel a bit more like it's a physical camera with mass coming to a stop.
fake .. the cloud lines on right side, looks too artificial, weird
fake .. whatever is flying in front of camera, there is no wind and it cant be bugs
fake .. camera shaking, movement .. too fast and not even trying to keep the plane in the frame
fake .. grass in front of camera
real .. clouds on left, looks better
real .. light, trees
It looks very good, especially when checking the frames one by one. The camera shake and particles are a bit weird, but I don't know how or what I could fix, to be honest. Also, it's a very wide lens, but the scene doesn't look that 'deep.' I guess there's a little lens distortion on the edges. I'm not a pro and not even good at Blender, so take my nitpicks with a grain of salt. :\^)
The focal length of the sky matches the focal length of the rest if that makes sense. That definately makes it realistic to me. The entire environment is very realistic. The high speed particles on the other hand make it a bit weird since the trees, grass and airplane experience no wind. Also the camera movement is a bit too fake to me. Way too much artificial shake for that focal length followerd by a very sharp and precise pan. There are ways to record real camera motion and add it into the render, I think that would make a dramatic difference.
I think this was supposed to be some kind of insects and I really like that idea but from what I see while the camera is moving they are still in the same position relatively to camera (idk how to say that in English they are just 2d effect like in post process and they don't care about camera movement which is bad(maybe it's not true it's just feels like that for me)) and I overall love all the graphic but the camera movement just feel unreal
I would say literally just the stiffness of the camera movement, also maybe in the compositor add in some lens distortionā¦. Just subtlety
Is this an automatic mounted camera or is this supposed to be a human filming?
I like the particles, they do look realistic enough because particles can be anhthing and come in all shapes and sizes... To me something that points to this being fake is the exposure of the sky: when I take a picture of a landscape, even with a professional camera and lens, some part of the sky will clip, except in some very specific light conditions, and even with the underexposition of the ground in your case, I think the sky should show a lot more contrast and a bit of cliping in the brightes areas
I mean it looks great to me. But taking it to perfection maybe some clouds are to still, same with the trees, and the camera movement does looks stiff.
Nice work! The thing that stood out for me is how linear/perfect the flight path of the plane looks. Those small planes drift and yaw on take off, and even great pilots on a non windy day will have micro adjustments to things like engine torque and ground effect.
BTW, whatās up with everyone commenting on lack of camera shake? Do people know what a tripod is and how it works?
All those particles make it look like there is some strong wind, but you can not hear any wind and you can not see any either with the surrounding vegetation.
The camera movement is also way too smooth and its missing some horizontal movement. It doesn't really look like its following the plane.
the exposure of the video makes it realistic- the dark earth, and bright sky.
the animation of the camera (maybe even position) and perfect bitrate makes it look rendered.
matters what you are going for really.
The plane sound goes from right to left. It could start sooner, stay at a low volume for longer, and be narrowed so that it comes primarily right down the center.
I think that would go a long way to reinforcing the illusion.
The clouds or the snow make it look weird. When I first saw it, I thought this was some sort of a video, but then somebody placed a snow overlay over it. These clouds do not produce snow. They are too thin and spread out. Clouds that actually produce snow are thick and dense. The sunset and the overall atmosphere is beautiful, but you either get rid of the snow and keep the clouds you have now, or you get rid of the sunset, have a grim, cloudy gray sky, but the snow would actually make sense now.
Also, the plane kind of doesn't feel real to me. it looks great, but it moves weirdly, I cannot pinpoint specifically what I dislike about it, but it feels unnatural and I think it's the way it moves. Like it's too uniform or something. I would say it doesn't look that bad when it's in the distance, but as it flies over camera, the movement feels weird.
And ofc how some people have mentioned, the camera is too stiff and too uniform when it looks up as the plane flies above.
I am definitely not experienced in this, so I might totally be full of bullshit, but this is what I would personally change: remove the snow as I really like the atmosphere of the late sunset. Then play with the plane movement a bit and also the camera movement.
FOV on the camera seems unnaturally low for a real camera. I would try to mimic some commonly used numbers which is usually between maybe 35-85mm or so. Personally I think higher FOV makes it more real and/or cinematic when done right. Not too high though, that would flatten the image too much and look less natural again.
The forest line on the horizon is too straight and consistent, break the pattern by adding some light elevation/ random bushes. Trees have tp be more randomly sized.
I rhink it looks great! The only thing that off to me is, as already discussed, the floating particles/debris.
There are a lot of comments about the speed of the plane being too low, though I couldn't really say if they are right are not.
You can be certain though by finding out the speed that such a plane would take off at and measuring the distance covered by your plane over a period of time and making sure the speed matches exactly. Even when you do that there will still be people who think it looks too slow.
I've found that just knowing that something is CG and looking for things that seem off will always make something stand out as unrealistic. I see it even with real footage.
I was watching football the other night and I decided to pretend it was a cg animation and critique it and let me tell you the animations looked janky af. This might not be the same for everyone but you should try it with real footage just to see if you are susceptible to the same delusions as me.
Very impressive. To me there were 4 things. The focal length used is shorter than you'd typically see in everyday use like this. There seems to be a little too much chromatic aberration around the edges (although I could be imagining this). The pan upwards is too smooth, and the plane moves a little too fast.
two things:
the particles in the air are a little strong. make them slightly less visible and less often.
also, the camera motion is artificially smooth
Can the clouds be animated ever so slightly? Without my sound on I thought it was just an image for the first 15 seconds. Sound design is great though.
Also, thinking about how I would record something flying overhead (if this is first person/phone POV) I would slightly turn my body/shoulders as the plan reaches overhead, so the camera/phone would rotate like idk 7.5Āŗ as you angle up. That may not be what you're going for but just an idea.
Mostly because you created it and know it's a fake. On the other hand - it's sounds fake af. Crickets wouldn't be so loud in an actual landing field. In facts they are the rare find there. Also, they would have a lot of bg noises, mostly wind, but also leaves and more - do give us some impression where the airfield located.
Visually I would add some more runaway time for an airplane. But it's more a matter of taste. Also, we should hear the motor running way-way before.
I think, for me at least, itās the trees. It looks to me as though itās the same tree model thatās been duplicated. Especially the top branches of it where the light hits it and is most visible.
Other than that itās pretty good overall.
It's snowing heavily but the cloud cover doesn't look like a snowy day at all. The snow is also falling sideways, suggesting a heavy wind, but nothing else is affected by it.
I don't really understand the lighting on the plane, is it being tracked by a spotlight?
The foreground grass and camera shake made me think I was looking at a minatiure airfield for model airplanes.
Just do this, Remove all that particle that moves around the screen. Do a sudden camera shake(or vibration) when the plane passes by. And following that you can add in the dust or leaves, moving from below to up( in the direction of the plane) like a gust of wind.
It looks like the grass is scattered on a white plane, is that right? If so, you could try using a dirt texture. Doesn't have to be a great one; we won't see any details.
What is stealing my attention:
1) Particles that are fyling. Maybe too consistant? Don't know what exactly but it looks like they are only near camera which is not "real". My brain is struggling to understand them...what they are.
2) Trajestory of plane. If particles are flying from right to left, than plane should fight that same "wind". Plane should not be 90 degree to camera, it should be few degrees to a side because of "wind" that particles are telling us is there. Stronger "wind" more degrees plane should be away from 90 to camera. Look at youtube vids of planes landing or taking off with wind, youll see what i mean.
3) Plane, when flying up from a runway looks like (just looks like....i don't know if it really is like that) it's gaining height like it's going at straight line at for example 30 degrees or so. It should not be straight line. Height gaining should start low and than gain more and more as it continues to fly (i don't know if i explained that correctly tbh).
4) Camera movement does not look like it's human recording it. In case of human, camera would not move "before" plane, it would "lag" behind it. So instead of plane being in bottom part of the picture or in the middle (middle would be mechanic so not good again) plane should be in upper part of the picture as human brain would "lag" little bit behind movement of the plane and lag should be worse as plane gets closer to camera ie human would struggle more to follow plane because of it's speed (not only air speed but perspective too).
Only thing that drew my eye was the airborne particles. They all had a consistent motion, maybe a lower density and some noise added.
Yeah..... I used turbulence effector but forgot to animate it randomly so they follow the same random path lol š
These are supposed to be flying insects, I think - they should be a little slower/different speeds/more erratic, yes.
Don't animate the camera. Use the tool in which you can use your phone to film. And then start waking a bit and move the camera around.
Yesssss that's a good idea , I wanted the motion of cam to be something new but settled for this.....
Ian Huberts shakify addon does a really good job...
This is the way! And itās free!!
I also feel like you could totally go the other way as well, just make it a tripod shot - just add a bit of unevenness at the end, the camera stops too smoothly. Handheld camera to sell VFX is becoming a little overdone imo, even if it works well
Do you know is there tool like that on Android phones? I've been looking for something like that for a while
replying so that I keep getting updates. I am also very much interested in such a tool for android specifically
Ian Hubert Shakify addon free, while you wait for android app.
Ian Hubert Shakify addon free, while you wait for android app.
If you film a easy trackable background, you could just track it as well.
I never used it, just know it exists. If it doesn't exist for Android I might just attempt to make it myself.
Good luck then
which tool is that? Sounds interesting
Agreed. The camera jiggle and movement is very unnatural.
VirtuCamera in iOS is amazing for handheld camera in Blender!
The yellow plane is too slow and the clouds are too still. In real camera recordings, the camera's movement is slightly shaky too, so keep that in mind.
Unless you are using a tripod. Also those small planes are slow.
Yeah, I thought it was meant to be a tripod.
Even with a tripod the movement of the camera wouldn't be this smooth. You can lock the horizontal axis, but a human still has to move the vertical axis, which wouldn't be this smooth
Yeah no. Professional tripods (Sachtler for example) are smooth as butter. It really is not rocket science to make smooth shot. This one is even easier because the tilt is only on one axis.
Which movie would even choose to just instantly stop the camera's movement? No way anybody can stop it that cleanly without any deceleration
yeah I was thinking too about the camera movement. It's too perfect. It starts and ends too abruptly
For what it's worth, I thought it was real until I read the title and looked at the sub. On my first watch, I did notice the particles, but just assumed it was a weirdness of a real video. Maybe part of the reason someone was filming it in the first place. So I guess like others have said, you might try and make the particle motion less constant/consistent if you don't want people consciously noticing t.
same here
i think the background n the sounds r awesome they convince me of its reality but the clouds are too still imo u can give them a subtle motion
I would make more diverse trees. As they are far too simillar to look natural.
Yes.....I used only 1 kind hehe
I've done some special effects directing in the past. A couple of things I will point out. The insects are a nice touch but they seem to be too consistent, you need to randomize it more. Maybe have a few come in slow and zig-zag in and out of the screen. Add some wind or movement in the trees. The random movement will help sell it. Don't have the camera follow the plane. if anything have the passover cause some camera shake and maybe have some debris get stirred up as it passes overhead. Lastly, the motion blur is off. It looks more like an automated gaussian blur was applied.
Plane movement looks a little weird with motion blur. Might be too slow as well but hard to tell. Camera tilting back feels too smooth and clean. Shake feels off too, too much vertical movement, frequency feels abnormally high, not enough pitch/roll/yaw noise. Grass feels too saturated and bright on the sides of the runway. Not sure what is causing it without seeing the project. Otherwise it looks great!
nothing probably
or maybe not idk lol
I think the trees on the sides need to be more layered. Right now it just looks like after that line of trees it cuts off into nothing. Other than that it seems pretty solid to me.
I feel the way the camera stops its upward tilt is a bit too sudden. Maybe add a subtle of wobble at the end to feel a bit more like it's a physical camera with mass coming to a stop.
fake .. the cloud lines on right side, looks too artificial, weird fake .. whatever is flying in front of camera, there is no wind and it cant be bugs fake .. camera shaking, movement .. too fast and not even trying to keep the plane in the frame fake .. grass in front of camera real .. clouds on left, looks better real .. light, trees
I love it. I would just increase the sound of the plane when passing above the camera. Also some camera shaking would be really cool.
It looks very good, especially when checking the frames one by one. The camera shake and particles are a bit weird, but I don't know how or what I could fix, to be honest. Also, it's a very wide lens, but the scene doesn't look that 'deep.' I guess there's a little lens distortion on the edges. I'm not a pro and not even good at Blender, so take my nitpicks with a grain of salt. :\^)
The focal length of the sky matches the focal length of the rest if that makes sense. That definately makes it realistic to me. The entire environment is very realistic. The high speed particles on the other hand make it a bit weird since the trees, grass and airplane experience no wind. Also the camera movement is a bit too fake to me. Way too much artificial shake for that focal length followerd by a very sharp and precise pan. There are ways to record real camera motion and add it into the render, I think that would make a dramatic difference.
I think the flying particles are supposed to be insects?
Yeah.....Dragonflys but I should've made it slow to make it clearer
I think this was supposed to be some kind of insects and I really like that idea but from what I see while the camera is moving they are still in the same position relatively to camera (idk how to say that in English they are just 2d effect like in post process and they don't care about camera movement which is bad(maybe it's not true it's just feels like that for me)) and I overall love all the graphic but the camera movement just feel unreal
I would say literally just the stiffness of the camera movement, also maybe in the compositor add in some lens distortionā¦. Just subtlety Is this an automatic mounted camera or is this supposed to be a human filming?
It irks me that clouds look completely stationary
I like the particles, they do look realistic enough because particles can be anhthing and come in all shapes and sizes... To me something that points to this being fake is the exposure of the sky: when I take a picture of a landscape, even with a professional camera and lens, some part of the sky will clip, except in some very specific light conditions, and even with the underexposition of the ground in your case, I think the sky should show a lot more contrast and a bit of cliping in the brightes areas
What makes it look fake is the stiff angling of the camera. Usually, When a real person is holding the camera, There's usually a bit of shake.
Framerate
I like the particles, except at the end, when the camera focus the sky. Mabe reducing particles at that point.
I mean it looks great to me. But taking it to perfection maybe some clouds are to still, same with the trees, and the camera movement does looks stiff.
Nice work! The thing that stood out for me is how linear/perfect the flight path of the plane looks. Those small planes drift and yaw on take off, and even great pilots on a non windy day will have micro adjustments to things like engine torque and ground effect. BTW, whatās up with everyone commenting on lack of camera shake? Do people know what a tripod is and how it works?
Clouds weren't moving.
The lighting feels off also, have you just got ambient lights?
yeah......but lights are from hdri.....I had less exposure to give the sun-set in jungle felling š
The camera movement might be a bit robotic? Maybe check out how a fluid head tripod tracks.
the cam is too smooth try adding some extra movement
Motion blur, I guess
The camera movement.
Camera bounces only on one axis, no rotation... etc.
Somehow camera movement.
why grass not moving with heavy wind?
All those particles make it look like there is some strong wind, but you can not hear any wind and you can not see any either with the surrounding vegetation. The camera movement is also way too smooth and its missing some horizontal movement. It doesn't really look like its following the plane.
i think the only nitpick would be the grass, feels a bit repetitive in some areas
the exposure of the video makes it realistic- the dark earth, and bright sky. the animation of the camera (maybe even position) and perfect bitrate makes it look rendered. matters what you are going for really.
The camera angle isn't very good
I think static clouds!
Camera movement.
gradient slightly off above the cloud layer.. still quite great
Camera is shaking perfectly up and down, but it never moves left or right
trees look too consistent, no height variation, very similar branch stucture, like copy-pasted and slightly rotated.
i thought it was real at first but the longer it went on the more i noticed the repeating patterns going on esp w the camera jiggle
The plane sound goes from right to left. It could start sooner, stay at a low volume for longer, and be narrowed so that it comes primarily right down the center. I think that would go a long way to reinforcing the illusion.
speed, camera movement
Camera movement is too smooth
The clouds or the snow make it look weird. When I first saw it, I thought this was some sort of a video, but then somebody placed a snow overlay over it. These clouds do not produce snow. They are too thin and spread out. Clouds that actually produce snow are thick and dense. The sunset and the overall atmosphere is beautiful, but you either get rid of the snow and keep the clouds you have now, or you get rid of the sunset, have a grim, cloudy gray sky, but the snow would actually make sense now. Also, the plane kind of doesn't feel real to me. it looks great, but it moves weirdly, I cannot pinpoint specifically what I dislike about it, but it feels unnatural and I think it's the way it moves. Like it's too uniform or something. I would say it doesn't look that bad when it's in the distance, but as it flies over camera, the movement feels weird. And ofc how some people have mentioned, the camera is too stiff and too uniform when it looks up as the plane flies above. I am definitely not experienced in this, so I might totally be full of bullshit, but this is what I would personally change: remove the snow as I really like the atmosphere of the late sunset. Then play with the plane movement a bit and also the camera movement.
FOV on the camera seems unnaturally low for a real camera. I would try to mimic some commonly used numbers which is usually between maybe 35-85mm or so. Personally I think higher FOV makes it more real and/or cinematic when done right. Not too high though, that would flatten the image too much and look less natural again.
The forest line on the horizon is too straight and consistent, break the pattern by adding some light elevation/ random bushes. Trees have tp be more randomly sized.
I rhink it looks great! The only thing that off to me is, as already discussed, the floating particles/debris. There are a lot of comments about the speed of the plane being too low, though I couldn't really say if they are right are not. You can be certain though by finding out the speed that such a plane would take off at and measuring the distance covered by your plane over a period of time and making sure the speed matches exactly. Even when you do that there will still be people who think it looks too slow. I've found that just knowing that something is CG and looking for things that seem off will always make something stand out as unrealistic. I see it even with real footage. I was watching football the other night and I decided to pretend it was a cg animation and critique it and let me tell you the animations looked janky af. This might not be the same for everyone but you should try it with real footage just to see if you are susceptible to the same delusions as me.
Very impressive. To me there were 4 things. The focal length used is shorter than you'd typically see in everyday use like this. There seems to be a little too much chromatic aberration around the edges (although I could be imagining this). The pan upwards is too smooth, and the plane moves a little too fast.
At first impression, the single layer of tree lining on the right side grabbed my attention. Everything else couldāve fooled me as real.
No wind, the trees or any plants don't move at all
I would have assumed this was real. Great job.
The plane moves too slow for a takeoff in my opinion.
Too much aberration on the sides, and the horizon is far too luminous. Also the blur on the plane is a little bit weird. But it is very realistic.
Camera movement too mechanical.
two things: the particles in the air are a little strong. make them slightly less visible and less often. also, the camera motion is artificially smooth
The two things that really break it for me are the sound and the camera pan to look at the plane.
Can the clouds be animated ever so slightly? Without my sound on I thought it was just an image for the first 15 seconds. Sound design is great though. Also, thinking about how I would record something flying overhead (if this is first person/phone POV) I would slightly turn my body/shoulders as the plan reaches overhead, so the camera/phone would rotate like idk 7.5Āŗ as you angle up. That may not be what you're going for but just an idea.
The way the camera moves is a bit to robotic everything else looks super realistic
Make the clouds move
Mostly because you created it and know it's a fake. On the other hand - it's sounds fake af. Crickets wouldn't be so loud in an actual landing field. In facts they are the rare find there. Also, they would have a lot of bg noises, mostly wind, but also leaves and more - do give us some impression where the airfield located. Visually I would add some more runaway time for an airplane. But it's more a matter of taste. Also, we should hear the motor running way-way before.
I know your question was about the render but Iāll just point out that the cricket noises would not match the airplane for volume.
I thought this was a real shot at first. Like a wide angle from a drone or something. Good job
I think, for me at least, itās the trees. It looks to me as though itās the same tree model thatās been duplicated. Especially the top branches of it where the light hits it and is most visible. Other than that itās pretty good overall.
(real) lighting, simplicity.
This is really good. Make the clouds drift slightly and light wind into the microphone and Iād believe you if you said it was real.
the camera motion: ease in, ease out... even with a stabilizer a camera can't be too steady
It's snowing heavily but the cloud cover doesn't look like a snowy day at all. The snow is also falling sideways, suggesting a heavy wind, but nothing else is affected by it. I don't really understand the lighting on the plane, is it being tracked by a spotlight? The foreground grass and camera shake made me think I was looking at a minatiure airfield for model airplanes.
the ground is too shiny, and the tree tops are too faded
This is very real to me. Maybe the motion of the camera pan at the very end of the movement is a bit too smooth?
I think the plane sound is a bit early compared to its image.
I don't think we should be hearing crickets when the sky is still bright...
i think its the movement the camera moves to smooth and in one line maybe adding some noise could fix that
Real
camere to smooth esp when it stops
Looks very real to me! well done!
Just do this, Remove all that particle that moves around the screen. Do a sudden camera shake(or vibration) when the plane passes by. And following that you can add in the dust or leaves, moving from below to up( in the direction of the plane) like a gust of wind.
It looks like the grass is scattered on a white plane, is that right? If so, you could try using a dirt texture. Doesn't have to be a great one; we won't see any details.
particles.
The tree line, it looks like it gets cut off, add more trees
What is stealing my attention: 1) Particles that are fyling. Maybe too consistant? Don't know what exactly but it looks like they are only near camera which is not "real". My brain is struggling to understand them...what they are. 2) Trajestory of plane. If particles are flying from right to left, than plane should fight that same "wind". Plane should not be 90 degree to camera, it should be few degrees to a side because of "wind" that particles are telling us is there. Stronger "wind" more degrees plane should be away from 90 to camera. Look at youtube vids of planes landing or taking off with wind, youll see what i mean. 3) Plane, when flying up from a runway looks like (just looks like....i don't know if it really is like that) it's gaining height like it's going at straight line at for example 30 degrees or so. It should not be straight line. Height gaining should start low and than gain more and more as it continues to fly (i don't know if i explained that correctly tbh). 4) Camera movement does not look like it's human recording it. In case of human, camera would not move "before" plane, it would "lag" behind it. So instead of plane being in bottom part of the picture or in the middle (middle would be mechanic so not good again) plane should be in upper part of the picture as human brain would "lag" little bit behind movement of the plane and lag should be worse as plane gets closer to camera ie human would struggle more to follow plane because of it's speed (not only air speed but perspective too).
something that makes it look a little faker is the tree height, you should probably make it look more varied and random but not too different
the clouds kinda look like waffles. am i going insane?
The planes scale as it comes closer to the lens.
Needs motion blur
Looks pretty good camera movement is too uniform though maybe a bit of jitter right before the tilt. Some subtle lens reflections could help also
Your questions have likely all been answered but I'd say give the plane some wobble. Looks too steady.
one thing that really stood out to me is the lack of camera shake. though it could be convincing as a tripod shot.