>> ^westy:

the viscosity of the material seemed wrong. I think liquid texture seemed to have to much of a defuse reflection.
other than that pritty nice .


Agreed; this is one thing I've always noticed with nearly all liquid rendering... the surface is almost always reflects too much light. Perhaps the surface tension simulations just aren't up to par yet? In natural liquid movement I think it tends to be much more disrupted and light absorbing...

Edit: I should also say that I'm not trying to say this isn't still great.

nice comment buddy!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Heh clicked through now to look for some more stuff like this, and found a lengthy description.

"This is a half-scale, all CG simulation of the 'elevator of blood' from The Shining that I did just for amusement in spare hours. I never expected it to look exactly like the real thing. The RealFlow fluid sim uses only about 1.6 million particles and therefore appears thicker and 'blobbyer' than an actual water-like liquid at this scale. I think at least ten million particles would begin to look convincing, but since this took about a month to calculate and render on on I-7, 3.2gh quad core, it isnt practical to attempt more particles without a far more powerful and prohibitively expensive computer.

I rendered, and modeled the hallway and furniture in Lightwave 9.6. Post processing was applied in Fusion 6.

In my work as a CG artist, I am often expected to integrate CG into photographic plates without any practical information from set such as what lens was used, the camera height and inclination, or the location and type of lights used. I have become rather proficient at 'eyeballing' these things. To come up with the dimensions of the set, I studied each shot in The Shining of the various hallways and fixtures. I settled on a 50mm lens, and my guess is that it was a half scale miniature since Kubrick was a perfectionist and smaller scale liquids look progressively less realistic and blobby (it is also more RealFlow friendly). The angles of the wall panels and lines on the floor indicated that the camera is not centered but was placed a few feet to the right and panned left to appear centered. Most viewers do not notice there are actually 3 different angles of this scene shown in the movie. This leads me to suspect there may have been another camera centered on the miniature set but the footage was not used.

I arrived at the 140fps frame speed by using Fusion to speed up the slow motion shot from the film until it appeared to move at a realistic speed which was x6. Six times 24fps is 140. To save time, I began RealFlow simulations at 24fps. When I sped up the resulting render x6, the CG blood turned out to hit the walls and run out of frame on close to the same frames as in the real shot, so this affirmed the rate of 140fps and the dimensions of the set as being somewhat accurate. When they shot the miniature scene, the actual event would have taken place in about four seconds.

The overhead render was an afterthought where some flaws are more apparent.

I started thinking about rendering this after viewing a YT video titled 'THE SHINING - SOMETHING IN THE RIVER OF BLOOD' where the author presents a lengthy assertion that there are some obscure shapes viewable within the blood near the elevator that Kubrick intended as a sublminal representation of a corpse or something suggesting 'Tony' inside Danny's mouth. The seemingly mysterious shapes present a Rorschach image for commentors' to offer up a myriad of odd things they believe 'it' to be. It was apparent to me that the shapes are merely reflections of the set and I emailed a simple CG still to the author demonstrating that fact but he defends the presence of mysterious objects.

I thought it would be interesting to see what ReaFlow might do, and was surprised to find that no one else had attempted a Shining-blood-elevator sim that I could find. Oddly enough, very similar 'shapes' turn up in this CG render as in the movie since they are simply distorted reflections of the elevator door itself and surrounding frame and wall. But people prefer a mystery."

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by thegrimsleeper.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by KnivesOut. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Sorry Jesse,

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kitten-1968-Russian-computer-animation

Why is this Titled "Mac" truck ? Looks more like a Western Star to me, BUT that is my point, you cant tell unless you personally know a lot about Tractors. Do you know a lot about tractors like that or is this "mac" truck just a generic stereotypical word for a " big rig" its like calling a sled a ski-doo. Wicked computer animation in the video though, I thought it was really neat with the windows/wipers

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by thegrimsleeper.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by thegrimsleeper.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kitten-1968-Russian-computer-animation

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kitten-1968-Russian-computer-animation

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Kitten-1968-Russian-computer-animation

All of these shows are made with a target audience in mind. That's where the fanbase springs up from and why the same show can be described as rubbish, utter drivel and dull on the one hand, and interesting, entertaining and well-acted on the other.

Personally, I can stand neither Firefly nor BSG with their fraction-of-a-second cutting of scenes, overuse of computer animations, the majority of characters' juggling back and forth with convictions and feelings towards each other and general behaviour between episodes, and soap opera-esque storyline. Now, I'm obviously not the target audience they were going for, which most likely is why I feel this way about them. However, that doesn't mean I can't recognize they're made well enough for what they're trying to accomplish, which is something recommended for you to think about as well.

What I did enjoy thoroughly in TOS and TNG was the acting, the pacing, the fictive future presented and that most of the sets and takes were done with real props and not made up whole cloth in a set of computers. They weren't necessarily good props, and the acting wasn't necessarily world class, but it gave me a better sense of immersion than the show Enterprise. Being unable to properly express the main concern I have with the characters portrayed in Enterprise in English is frustrating, and running the risk of being interpreted as saying something but meaning another, let's just say they felt somewhat generic compared to a lot of other shows.

But again, me finding a show appalingly lacking doesn't mean it's objectively bad, and I'm trying very hard not to make it sound like that's what I'm saying. This is blatantly obvious to some, but it can never be stressed enough for others.

>> ^shole:
i know that!
but everything else in the universe is a physical representation of data
a rock has absolutely no place being there
if there was a 'rock' - as in a 'rock obstacle' - it should appear blue and polygonal
you know, like the decaying data sectors in the original
it's not supposed to be like 'the matrix' for simulating reality, but a naive framework for conveying structure for program interaction
but this is a vfx test anyway.. so it is probable that some things will change
and i claim to be an even bigger geek!
a normal person would be embarrassed to get a rash over such a tiny detail


Nice

I don't think we're gonna get that 'pure' of a rendering of the tron universe however. One could argue either way over which is right.. I mean they WHERE trying to render canyons and such in the original, especially near the end of the movie. Yeah, they didn't have the detail you see here, but they where blending and artistic basic look using mainly primitives, while pushing computer animation as far as they could take it for the time.

Should the Tron universe upgrade as the real world capabilities have? Is that "accurate" to do? Or should it remain as primitive looking as it did because that's what the Tron universe *is* (And yes, I completely see the logic to it looking as primitive as possible... but VERY GLOWY!)? Personally, I think it should fall into an artistic balance of the two (like what I believe they where trying to achieve with the original, it is partly fantasy after all). And with this scene taking place within a video game map also gives it a bit more leeway as modern games DO render such things.

Think I'll just stop here. >.>

Am i the only one tho thinks that mechanically it seems hard to do all the motions that are so easily shown using computer animation.

In the real world, it requires some hinge mechanisms, all of which take up room.

Great computer animation on those pictures, but at those flows are not lahars. They are pyroclastic flows.

*edit
It appears the creator of the video has corrected his mistake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbD_VL7rn0

Ignore any Star Trek name in this sci-fi and pretend that it's its own movie. That way, it might be this year's "Independence day" instead of a huge, computer animated and digitally enhanced middle finger to Gene Roddenberry.