CGI vs Real - Can you tell the difference?

Download premium textures, models and HDRIs at Poliigon: www.poliigon.com/

I have to disagree on the "we don't know if shelly hallucinated" line. The blending of hallucination and reality, losing the ability to determine what is real and imaginary, is a very powerful part of good psychological horror.

The one issue with the 3d recreation is that the particles of blood just bounce off the wall. In the film version they leave splatters of "blood" on the walls which makes it even creepier. But as both a fledgling Blender user as well as a massive Shining fan, I really enjoyed this video! Absolutely fantastic job with the end result!

The CGI version probably looks less realistic because of the blood stains and the mist like effect, the blood leaves behind in the original, being omitted. This just goes to show how much effort goes into creating such scenes which is absolutely praise worthy. the results are just wonderful

The fact that real liquid sticks to the walls makes the biggest difference for me. It's like when people's hands don't clip through solid objects. Really helps sell it.

The main problem with your and ILM's recreation is that the CGI recreations are just making globs of fluid, whereas, as you can see in the original, the "real" blood (whatever fluid they were using for fake blood) also created a mist where the blood was aerosolizing. That would have probably added another few days, but it's one of the things that makes these fluid sims stand out as fake.

One thing you forgot (which may not be possible with flip fluids) is wet maps on the walls. Your walls stay perfectly white even as they get splattered with blood.

I think an often overlooked con of CG is often touted as a pro (including in this video): it lets filmmakers do whatever they want. On the surface, this seems like a good thing, but limitations are one of the most important aspects of the artistic process. They give shape and grounding to the work. The shining feels real. You can picture being there. And it’s not just because practical sets/effects are real, it’s because of what happens. It’s like the infamous crystal skulls jungle chase. That scene would still be unbelievable if the CG was indistinguishable from reality.

One glaring thing I saw overlooked was the staining on the walls. The CGI kinda makes the water looks bouncy...as apposed to sticky.

8:56 "because we don't know if this is real or if she hallucinated it." I feel like this is actually important for the film in question. Having Shelly get swept away by a CG tsunami of blood might be more impressive on a technical level, it would of actually detracted from the story that was being presented. All FX whether practical or digital should be there to support the story being told, not just for the sake of looking good IMO.

I love how this is both a tutorial and an essay on the film industry. You get to learn how to make it and the meaning behind it. Love it!

He forgot the stains on the walls

As a kid I was obsessed with Cinema 4D but I was always limited by my computing resources and eventually I gave up on any 3D production. Now that I can afford whatever I need I've been wanting to get into Blender production but I keep telling myself I wouldn't be able to make the things I want to. The way you described everything and provided timeframes for certain parts showed me that I still understand everything I need to and I'm really only limited by how much time I'm willing to put in. It makes me so hyped to know that the ideas I've had lately are actually doable with time, I'm glad I found this video/channel! I will definitely check out your beginner series soon. Thanks 🙏

I've always felt that the ambiguity whether what Shelley's character sees is real or not, was awesome and it always felt intended. Like the lady in the room, is she actually there or not? Is she old or young? Are the three girls real or just in the kid's head? Not knowing makes it all so much more eerie.

Nice recreation! One thing that could be improved, is the sprayed particles should be lighter in color. As the liquid is sprayed and grouped back together, air bubbles are introduced which lighten the fluid color

The biggest problem is that blood in your CGI doesn’t stain walls and furnitures

but why no stains on the walls ?

I've made an error at 10:39. Apparently the practical blood effect is actually a 1:3 scale miniature not 1:1, and it was 12 takes not one! Maybe it's the Mandela effect, but Leon Vitali (Kubrick's assistant) remembers it as a real one-take shot (and said so in Yahoo interview). But I've since found two other sources (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD0V_hd-Kwk & www.shiningsets.nl/) which state otherwise. So I'll be cross referencing my sources next time! Also, apparently my suggestion at 8:58 caused quite a stir! It was supposed to be tongue in cheek but I trimmed so much script that it just sounds like the worst take of all time 😂Sorry about that. And answering a few other common questions: 1. I tried to make the blood stain the walls but dynamic paint in Blender kept crashing. Even low-res fluid. Defeated, I gave up and hoped nobody would notice. 2. The reason the original looks more red is actually quite fascinating. Unlike CG, real world fluid can get so small it turns to mist which appears more colorful because there's less absorption in smaller particles compared to big ones. CG fluid can't make particles that small (without even longer bake times or faking it) so it looks darker but is actually the same color! 3. The furniture moving was just manual keyframing. Nothing fancy

For me, while the actual CGI quality has absolutely gone up, the one thing that always gives it away is the acting. Especially if it's something that the actor is supposed to be looking at or reacting to. I remember that behind the scenes with Treebeard in LotR and I just imagine how it would be if it was completely done in CGI

Ahhh, you make it sound so easy to replicate the scene. I am glad I am "only" retouching and creating photorealistic pictures. And the same rules apply there. Working with Photoshop since 1992 I can say I am pretty proud of myself that after years I figured out by myself that graining and blurring a picture makes it often more realistic than even the correct lighting. Imperfect artefacts I call them. Sadly I don't have the ressources or the time to go into 3D modelling though it twitches me everytime I see your work. But a day has only but 24 hours. Keep up the good work!