Mind blown.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, February 15th, 2011 9:49pm PST - promote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

...this guy's an asshole....

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by chicchorea.

Right on, Arvana. Right on.

wth? I want to see it from the side!

fake

It's a simple trick actually. You just build a ramp that goes up normally and then use magic.

That's a mighty fine optical erection.

DEVIL WATER!!

My *brain hurts now...

Adding video to channels (Brain) - requested by Norsuelefantti.

I like the fake turning on/off of the camera at the start / end, and how he laboriously mixes and pours the blue liquid in the container before putting it on the machine in an "oh yes this is really a real liquid" sort of way. This guy knows how to sell an illusion...

Are we in someone's dream?

"There's no trick to it! It's just a simple trick!"

>> ^blankfist:

It's a simple trick actually. You just build a ramp that goes up normally and then use magic.

Yeah, but only the first level so it's ok.

>> ^lucky760:

Are we in someone's dream?

It's just CGI guys. Pretty simple trick.

Very well done though.

It's just magnetofluid controlled by nanorobots. Pretty simple trick.

CGI water? I think you could pull something like this off with a hidden pump. I'd be disappointed if it were just CGI. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

It's just CGI guys. Pretty simple trick.
Very well done though.

Solved: The trick is in the second left-hand turn. You can see the water run backwards for a moment and pool up at that corner before it all of a sudden shoots forward across the bridge. It looks like that last bridge does not go straight across; it's at almost a 45 degree angle upward and rotated back toward the wheel. There must be a pump or other similar mechanism forcing the water up.

Yeah, you can see it in the shadow-interaction if you look closely. The whole structure also stands out as a bit 'off' to me, but I work with CGI so I guess I have a trained eye.

The giveaway is the shadows though. Freeze frame it when his shadow is half on the structure. The edge of the shadow is blurred on the waterfall, but it's crisp on the floor.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

CGI water? I think you could pull something like this off with a hidden pump. I'd be disappointed if it were just CGI. >> ^Drachen_Jager:
It's just CGI guys. Pretty simple trick.
Very well done though.

Don't you DARE force my perspective, jerk!

-Water trails away from camera on a trough that gets bigger to fool perspective.
-Vertical poles everywhere lining up from camera's perspective.
-Water gets to "the top" which is actually 6 ft behind waterwheel, on floor.
-Water at "the top" gets sucked into pump inlet.
-Hidden pump and hoses move water, within the structure, to "the spout".
-"The spout" is directly over the waterwheel, and is perspectively in line with "the top" and camera, giving the illusion they are attached.

A really poor sketch: http://media11.dropshots.com/photos/256336/20110216/174500.jpg

I think Payback pretty much has it. Except, IMHO, I think some of the columns (vertical) were cropped/created using AFX/Maya type programs.
I work in Maya , Max , CAD , AFX etc... Drach's comments about shadows and 'his eye' were as vague as him saying "I work in CGI". Sorry, but 'bollocks mate'. The only shadow (raytraced) inconsistencies are on 'some' of the columns, and their corresponding shadows. Dystopian, I'll bet money that the water is real, as well as the channels it runs in. However some of the columns do not receive or create shadows as they should. If he did create the water in a 3D program, he should be working for one of the major animation houses as a fluid dynamics animator, but I don't think he did. I could be wrong though, because this was NOT a simple trick.

I love the sift, mostly because of the level of intelligence often displayed in the comments. But "CGI" is a vague term that could be used by anyone who's seen Lord of the Rings. If you know what you're talking about, be more specific please. You don't need to 'dumb it down', this isn't YouTube. >> ^Drachen_Jager:

Yeah, you can see it in the shadow-interaction if you look closely. The whole structure also stands out as a bit 'off' to me, but I work with CGI so I guess I have a trained eye.
The giveaway is the shadows though. Freeze frame it when his shadow is half on the structure. The edge of the shadow is blurred on the waterfall, but it's crisp on the floor.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
CGI water? I think you could pull something like this off with a hidden pump. I'd be disappointed if it were just CGI. >> ^Drachen_Jager:
It's just CGI guys. Pretty simple trick.
Very well done though.

if only it where true, then we wouldn't have to worry about energy anymore!

If any of that were true, his shadow would not interact with the machine the way it does. Pause around :04 to :05 the shadow on the floor is crisp but the one on the edge of the machine nearest the guy is fuzzy.

JestJokin, you have no clue.

Other problems. There is no spray when the water falls. It does not hit the floor all around as it would hitting a fast spinning water wheel. The liquid does not flow naturally. Should I go on? It's CGI, end of story.

>> ^Payback:

-Water trails away from camera on a trough that gets bigger to fool perspective.
-Vertical poles everywhere lining up from camera's perspective.
-Water gets to "the top" which is actually 6 ft behind waterwheel, on floor.
-Water at "the top" gets sucked into pump inlet.
-Hidden pump and hoses move water, within the structure, to "the spout".
-"The spout" is directly over the waterwheel, and is perspectively in line with "the top" and camera, giving the illusion they are attached.
A really poor sketch: http://media11.dropshots.com/photos/256336/20110216/174500.jpg

^I think there is trickery with the lights. Perhaps the blur you mention is actually because of some kind of deceptive lighting?

This post has been removed from the Brain channel by channel owner jonny. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I think there is trickery with the lights. Perhaps the blur you mention is actually because of some kind of deceptive lighting?


He definitely put a lot of effort into the lighting in order to sell the illusion and camouflage any tells, but there are still some giveaways he couldn't conceal.

I won't even entertain the notion that the illusion is accomplished with CGI because it's totally doable and most likely done with practical effects.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

If any of that were true, his shadow would not interact with the machine the way it does. Pause around :04 to :05 the shadow on the floor is crisp but the one on the edge of the machine nearest the guy is fuzzy.
JestJokin, you have no clue.
Other problems. There is no spray when the water falls. It does not hit the floor all around as it would hitting a fast spinning water wheel. The liquid does not flow naturally. Should I go on? It's CGI, end of story.
>> ^Payback:
-Water trails away from camera on a trough that gets bigger to fool perspective.
-Vertical poles everywhere lining up from camera's perspective.
-Water gets to "the top" which is actually 6 ft behind waterwheel, on floor.
-Water at "the top" gets sucked into pump inlet.
-Hidden pump and hoses move water, within the structure, to "the spout".
-"The spout" is directly over the waterwheel, and is perspectively in line with "the top" and camera, giving the illusion they are attached.
A really poor sketch:



1> The floor is already soaked, the "dry spots" are paint stains or something. You can see reflections on the floor to the right side.
2> He has quite a few spot lights set up to get shadows the way he wants.

3> I'm not saying it ISN'T CGI, just that it's possible (and far more impressive) to do it live.

I'm not going to debate it any further. It's CGI. He said on his YouTube account he'd probably reveal his secrets in a few days. You'll find out then.

>> ^Payback:
1> The floor is already soaked, the "dry spots" are paint stains or something. You can see reflections on the floor to the right side.
2> He has quite a few spot lights set up to get shadows the way he wants.
3> I'm not saying it ISN'T CGI, just that it's possible (and far more impressive) to do it live.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by arvana.

Hey Drach, sorry if I offended with the 'bollocks' comment, (I was chillin with Mary J last night) and like you said we'll find out in a couple of days. I think you may have missed my point though.

Either:

.A. Channels and water are real, some columns MAY be added/removed in post-production. (My explanation.)

OR

.B. He created whole 'machine' entirely in a 3D program. (Your explanation, I think?) He would have had set up the same 3-point lighting in the program for the shadows to match. In addition he also had to have either an animated alpha map of himself, or a 3D model (animated to match his movement) to create the shadow that travels across the structure. He also did a pretty good job with the dynamic animation of the fluid flowing up the channel. There would also be several smaller additional scripts for the water as it falls, and splashes off the wheel.

So to conclude, as I said before, it COULD be entirely 'CGI',(not my personal belief, but I'll certainly accept that) but to describe the process as 'a simple trick' does not give the creator the credit he deserves.

.A. = Several hours of carpentry + 2-3 hours on the computer + Setup and planning time.

.B. = At least a week in 3D program (That's being conservative, that alpha mapped shadow animation would be a bitch, no?) + Compositing + Setup and planning.

HOW IS .B. 'A SIMPLE TRICK'. If you can elaborate on this for me, I'd really like to learn the process you would use. Again no offense meant. I have only worked in the field for 10 years and I really only know Maya expertly, so I might learn a thing or two off you if you could explain how you would do it. Cheers J.

First of all, let me say this illusion is wonderfully done. He sells it with his acting. However, it's _definitely_ CG. It's clear if you look at the waterwheel. It's simply not 'textured' enough, both in a 3D-rendering sense and a real sense, to be real. Plus it spins way faster than that amount of water would make it spin, the motion blur on it doesn't look real, etc. As well, the water doesn't really look perfectly real. It's close, though. Very close. The 'debate' is a testament to the level of illusion, though, so I don't think people who thought it real should feel bad.

What I would really have loved to see would be him picking up the camera and walking around the structure. It could sort of fold in upon itself as the perspective shifts so that it always keeps it's basic 'perpetual motion' structure but looks as if it's an actual thing that he's made instead of a single perspective render. Of course, while looking like a 'real' thing that would confirm that it wasn't real because it would be obvious that it could only look like that if it were actually magic. Of course, he could just make it out of magic, then it would be real.

(;

Edit: Actually, having re-watched it just now it's clear to say that if the waterwheel was spinning as fast as it looks like it's spinning water would clearly be going everywhere, and there isn't but a drop falling on the floor. (Still love the idea! (: )

Can't we all just agree it was magic, and that he clearly needs to be burned at the stake...after we steal his technology for power generation? =)

The water seems to make small zigzag in the canals as he pours it in. I give up.

I am also thinking its CG. At first I thought the wood structure was a faithful remake of the drawing, but the path of the water falling wasn't making much sense (Payback had an explanation, but failed to account for the spout and water falling needing to be in the foreground, and yet we clearly don't see an alternative source for the water fall) and the shadows... the contraption would need to be large and long in the back end, yet I couldn't spot any shadows for it. In that respect I give him props for doing a well textured and lighted cg prop, and convincing water effects, although as iaui noticed, he really messed with the physics to get it to work.

>> ^jmd:

I am also thinking its CG. At first I thought the wood structure was a faithful remake of the drawing, but the path of the water falling wasn't making much sense (Payback had an explanation, but failed to account for the spout and water falling needing to be in the foreground, and yet we clearly don't see an alternative source for the water fall) and the shadows... the contraption would need to be large and long in the back end, yet I couldn't spot any shadows for it. In that respect I give him props for doing a well textured and lighted cg prop, and convincing water effects, although as iaui noticed, he really messed with the physics to get it to work.


Yes, I did.

The pump and hoses bring the water from the far-away "top" to the directly-over-the-wheel "spout". The spout and the "top" would be about 6 ft away from each other, and at different heights, but because of the camera angle, look to be one piece.

Boing Boing has a nice post up about how it could have been done without CGI.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.