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.

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!

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.

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

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!

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 (ukposts.info/have/v-deo/i3RhipWfm2N82J8.html & 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.

One major thing I see missing in the simulated shot is the blood actually coloring the walls, in the practical shot wherever the blood hits the environment turns red, in the sim it just kind off stops and slides down the wall. Maybe some dynamic paint would improve it

but why no stains on the walls ?

I am pro practical effects in almost every scenario and hope the industry re-ups on its importance. CG is actually not cheaper in most circumstances, it just costs more time and that's what Hollywood cares more about. That said, I can appreciate CG for hiding the seams and making the truly impossible, possible. I appreciate your tutorials, and the work many do. Thank you for this video!

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

Mixture of CGI and practical is always the best option. You get natural reactions from actors, some reference for CGI, and possible problems with practical effects can be corrected by CGI. I always glorify "The Boys" for a nice balance of the two

seriously im a newbie of blender watching this got me blown like how many settings you can have in blender! it has a lot every single method! it would take me 1 year to learn or master it

I love watching these videos to fall asleep to. I've never used blender but I've never felt more relaxed lol

It's an absolute pleasure to see you again Andrew

The fact that you’re a one man band and create this shot at such a high level in a little over a week without even having the crazy fast computers that professional VFX studios use is extremely impressive. If that price tag of $14K-$20K is accurate I hope that you’re making a very good living doing this.

Incredible work done here man. You are able to put together such incredible detail into your script because you know what you're talking about. That might sound kinda weird to say but I can tell you are incredibly knowledgeable about cgi. I'm inspired.

incredibly interesting. I've never seen anything like this before and find it very exciting and well explained. craziness

"We never see Shelly and the blood in the same shot so we don't know if this is real, or if she hallucinated it." That's. The. Point.

This is a wildly impressive video to me. Not only is the finished render wonderful but you managed to give so much insight to someone who knows little to nothing about cg vfx work in such a concise manner in such a short vid. Bravo.

I love how I just noticed this If you go to 0:34 and wait till he says subscribe if you put your phone in portrait position and watch the subscribe button it shines rainbow on its sides when he says subscribe Pretty cool haha

That was a very interesting video. Thank you for taking the time to render all of that despite knowing that the practical effect would still look better.

In the original scene, there was mist coming from the blood splashing. Adding that element to your CGI could make it closer to the source material.

Everything was just so awesome except I differ on the observation that Shelley's perception feels confusing. I believe it feels exactly what it should feel like. We see things from her point of view and are immersed in that shot. And it could not have been better any other way because the ambiguity whether it's real or not. I think it's pretty clear that the hotel is playing mind tricks on everyone so it becomes all about how maddening can these visions get.

Just found your channel via algorithms I guess, and it's interesting of course, but my main comment is "Thank you for keeping things concise and (as much as possible) brief, without all the extra padding that many UKpostsrs insert." Subscribed.

Love how you put this together! Super insightful stuff :)

9:01 Really you thought it would be an "improvement" to put Shelley in the frame when the blood floods in? That's hilarious

I think the tiny droplets forming a light red mist around the splashing areas is missing from the both CGI shots. The lack of the mist highlights the CGI fluid motion and also makes the fluid look darker and sharper. This is one of the more clearly visible reasons why the CGI version feels somehow off.

Really liked the video- i always had interest in blender but i dont have the knowledge and tools for that so this was very enriching! You just earned a subscribe:) Btw on a side note, i cant agree more with you about cgi having less thrill. Even if the cgi of the blood recreates the practical version fully by 100 percent, the thought of having actual blood flowing out(even taller than an average human! Imagine blood falling on top of you like an avalanche) onto a hotel corridor and splashing onto the fabric furnitures hits different. Gotta love realistic shots for that

A very surprisingly informative and entertaining video from beginning to end Thank you for making such valuable content!!

8:45 That's the Point

One thing to note about the scene in The Shining, is that it is a miniature. Meaning, the reset time and cost were not close to what it would be with a full size set. And it also dictated that Shelley could not be in it, nor a well payed stunt double. And, I think the distancing of having them separated do help conveying how unreal the vision is for the character. And while I am a proponent for CGI for safety. I also think that rarely do the virtual camerawork convey the the realism that real cameras conveyed back in the day when CGI was not an option. Even in cases like in the Extraction 2 helicopter on train. It might be real. But they shot it like they would with a virtual camera. The homogenizing of the color grade also contribute to it looking like safe CGI. Looking at another example of train and helicopter action, like. Jackie Chan's Police Story 3: Supercop. We have very different style of camerawork. Camerawork that conveys how they barely got things to work. Some mistakes and telltale fakery are there. Same thing with the Shining recreation in Ready Player One. The camera swings about in a way that I would never buy if they wanted me to think it was real. It looks like a CG camera, so I think it is one. If they made it with cameras that would simulate real cameras, it would keep my immersion so much more. Even if they reduced the character animation to essentially a rag doll puppet, or even better, a Phil Tippet miniature. This is my main problem (at least, one of the main ones) with modern anything possible action scenes. When I see a camera fly about the scene perfectly, I assume the whole shot is CG. When everything looks perfect. Nothing looks perfect. Or it may be my age showing. Them youngling whippersnappers with them tickitocks and zooms probably don't mind at all.

Thank you for mentioning the average time it takes to do modelling, texturing, and simulations! Sometimes I feel like I have to do all of those things within a day which makes me burn out fast.

Really really loved the essay part of the video! You hit gold when you compared CG to a magic illusion! It's the suspension of disbelief after all

In a sane society, suggesting that READY PLAYER ONE did anything better than The Shining would get you a life sentence. Have some fucking shame.

Have you even seen the movie? That scene and most of the movie is supposed to be ambiguous.

I am far from a blender, even though I am a 3d artist, but I really like your lessons, how amazing it is, thank you! 😊

seeing this progress is amazing !! thanks for the video

The idea of Shelley getting swept away by the blood is the stupidest thing I've ever heard

here's a tip, when simulating liquids, they stick to objects and drip or stain or soak into the object, colorizing it, or darkening the surface, as well, droplets that are disturbed enough can split way smaller

Amazing! Shows, how far we have come in visual realism. At the same time, it shows the limitations of physical realism. In the practical shot we see the _impact_ the blood makes on other objects (like moving the chairs slightly). All missing from the simulation.

to be honest, i started watching video only to see result, but in "why is cgi so common" part you mentioned true facts about watching cgi vs real captured projects. thanks for making this video.

Great result! Big issue that you seemed to have missed 10:40 : simulation could have used some extra geometry to the right, a wall not visible, perpendicular to the elevators walls. In the original shot, just after the flow begins, we can see a lot of blood boucing on a wall not visible on the right. You got no wall there, eyes follow the first movements of blood, waiting for them to come back, but they never do. Other than that it's a really impressive work.

This is the first of your videos I've watched and it was fantastic. The Shining is one of my favourite movies. What a brilliant job you did on recreating this scene. Great job.

very interesting content, I like how you discuss the pros and cons of cgi. But I think that when the camera doesn't show Shelly in the middle of the bloodbath is part of the film's magic, you stay until the end without knowing how much of that was her hallucination and that gives you the feeling of going crazy along with it.

I'd have to say the largest give-away is that in the CGI models the floating or secondary physics are moving "slower" than the floor level effects. Globs of fluid hang time without gravity sucking them down as fast as a natural fluid. CGI fire effects tend to suffer from a similar issue.

the guru has returned from his meditation

Few notes about Flip Fluids: you usually don't need to wait 10 min to know its all wrong: enable "auto-load" at bottom of FF panel, it will load frames as they are simulated, a few frames in should know if you need to stop and change anything. The same way use "save states" for every X frames, don't need need to start from scratch every time, just choose the saved state right before the frame you wanna tweak settings/obstacles.

Fascinating stuff 👌🏻

I love how he explains everything and I am not even talking about how well he does it. Wish he was my teacher.

I love how he went from wonderful tutorials to recreating the biggest and scariest horror of all time. Great!

That take on us not knowing if the blood is real or not being bad is going to live in my head rent free for days

I never understand how impressive the CGI Animation on the Transformers after watching this video. guess you learn something everyday

I think the only problem with the realism here is the blood simulation . Apart from that, it was fun to watch and you did a great job!

"The Shining would've been improved by a digital Shelley double" is definitely a take

AMAZING!!

I thoroughly enjoyed this video even though I’m not into 3D model. Thank you for making it.

I’m here from the beginner doughnut tutorial and this whole process of animating realism using Blender is just astonishing to me. Maybe because I’m a beginner, but this took so much work, a lot of time, effort, and skill. And then another surprising thing I find is that most of the comments are only pointing out how it could be better. This is amazing work in my opinion, and it doesn’t seem that that’s a common enough opinion on this!

Very nice! Good to see some more in-depth videos again. I think the only thing missing from the render was the micro spray from the furniture as it was hit by the blood but I imagine that would have increased the render times quite a lot, oh also they could have built miniatures for the shots as an option to save costs.

This confirms and clarified allot, why i feel mostly unfazed by movies today, maybe me being a kid versus a adult can also be a big one but still i find old movies so magical and more interesting than now.

You did an amazing job! Looked incredible!

Always a pleasure to hear Andrew talk about CG in the film industry , you learn something and get entrained at the same time very slick. Thank you Blender Guru

Great video! More of these! Kind of like Corridor, but one person and Blender-specific. Scene comparisons etc. Great to see you again!

This is awesome, dude.

Incredible, Incredible, INCREDIBLE video. Eleven minutes that I definitely did not see it pass.

Hi Andrew, I really like the format of this video. You're giving us a tutorial, a benchmark (a competent artist should be able to model it in 2 days, texture in in 2 days), and feedback from artists/studio. Very informative. The way you've incorporated the ad for Poliigon is smooth as well. Thank you!

Whatttt, the fact we dont know for sure she is or she is not in the scene is great for the movie. Even more, its not actually real but it feels just like it

Interesting, insightful and excellently exposed. I really enjoyed watching your video, thank you.

Oh i missed you donut lord 🙌. I learned blender in my initial days of my career and now I'm working as a design manager. Thank you 🍻

I usually don't watch Blender tutorials, because I do VFX for my channel in Maya but I truly enjoyed watching your thoughts on why CGI perform better than practical effects and totally agree with your point of view! :) Thank you for interesting video :)

Another really great video, one thing about the CG version (the film and BG's) is the lack of staining on the walls, once you see that, you can't 'unsee' it, otherwise it looked pretty good in my opinion.

Wow. Alright so I’m a bit if a Kubrick die-hard and while I can see the difference, this is such a solid recreation that I honestly couldn’t believe it on my first watch. It makes me really wish CG artists weren’t so rushed on modern studio projects

I appreciate that you, as a CG guru, are still recognizing and promoting how much more powerful / better practical effects can look in comparison to CG! Also, I appreciate that you disclose your position on Poliigon during the ad read, since it's an obvious conflict of interest if you didn't disclose that.

7:30 - I believe they didn't just get one part of the shot, because the camera got jammed. The team told Tarkovsky, that they can splice it together from what they already have, but he said without that one shot the film WOULDN'T be complete. In the docu (which you can find on ytb btw) they mention this to show how determined director he was and the only director in CCCP that did and got exactly what he wanted. Which wasn't normal.

Imo when you mix both practical and cg elements it gets so unbelievably real even more than either of them alone. For example, The Mandalorian, mixes an LED screen for the background and CG for the rest of the effects making such mesmerizing shots, even Mando's armor shines reflecting the surroundings without having to do too much editing. I love the world of effects, I watch some movies literally for the purpose of having amazing cg/effects sometimes. Great video tho; I loved it man.

I still remember the time one of my friends from school came back after watching the Fellowship of the Ring and he wasn't the kind of kid to nerd out about anything but he was jumping up and down in the playground about how incredible The Siege of Barad-Dur was and how all they had those massive armies move around. It might be ironic that there are so many mind boggling practical effects in that movie, like the incredible little details in Bag End. But at the end of the day the means are insignificant if at the end of the day you show your audience something that leaves them in disbelief, then you did good.

I got to say I was waiting for you to say the practical effects are worse, I’m very happy you admitted practical is king. Thank you for this video. Very eye opening.

"we don't know if this was real" is the point!

It's amazingAndrew! Good job! Would it be possible to add some dynamic paint interactions between the fluid simulation and the walls to make all the splatter parts stay red instead of white? It would add an extra bit of realism, but I don't know if it could be possible.

All I can say is, Kubrick was a master of his art. He just was on another level.

This is very interesting thank you for showing this process.

I worked on Ready Player One and the Shining sequence, though assets not FX, so we did the model and shading. The guy who did all that blood sim was Thibault Gauriau. It was a great show to work on and we won a VES award for the Shining environment build.

8:44 You can't be serious here, dude, like is this satire?? Have you ever considered that that was done on purpose by Kubrick??

I love the backgroud music its calming lol.. and your voice is so coooooll... u got yourself a new subs❤

It's the mist, when you have a lot of water rushing around like that it creates a nice fine mist everywhere. It seems that this is always missing in CGI remakes, on top of that the droplets are chunky.

Finally a high budget video from Andrew Price. Great quality as usual.

I think the cost estimate for the CG version is absolutly miles off. A studio is going to be charging the client closer to $1500 per artist, per day. Not counting supe, lead, and production. A prestige studio like ILM will be even more. $400 per day is the lowest a freelance FX TD would be charging for a day on feature work. So the $15k esitmate is how much the FX TD might make from the shot, not how much the studio will pay for it.

Great post! Thank you!

You cannot surpass practical effects. It's always more satisfying. It's one of many reasons why The Thing is the greatest horror movie of all time, in my opinion. It's so satisfying to see passionate, talented people at work creating these models and scenes and events.