Blender Vs. Open World Engines

Blender Vs. Open World Engines

Hey guys, recently there has been an explosion of the uses and abilities of open world engines from gaming to now creating cinematic short films…(Ex. Unreal Engine 4, Unity 5, etc)

Now my questions Is what are the theories behind why people would use…

-The original modeling and animating softwares
(Blender/maya/3dsmax)
(which are standards in creating cinematic shorts)

Vs.

-An open world builder software
(Unreal engine 4)

…In creating a cinematic short film?
(Ex.Realistic game trailers.
AC Black Flag, Witcher 3, Tomb Raider(2015), World of Warcraft, etc)

From what I have seen, both have shown the ability to do cinematic short films…

-UE4- with the release of their cinematic the Boy and his Kite.

And…

-Blender,Maya,3ds Max- with the new films by Blender Foundation
and Maya and 3ds being industry standards.


But…

-UE4, seems to have the upper hand
because it has the ability to have moving scenery.
Ex. Moving grass and trees in the wind, snow, Sky,etc(open world)

Vs.

-Blender, maya, and 3ds Max, on the other hand, have static environments

(not only that but in UE4 with the new environment tools, creating fields of grasses, hills, custom trees, etc. can be done fairly quickly and very creatively)

So my question is…

-Why use one over the other…What are the pros and cons?

Answer: Learning curve

It takes time to learn new software.

I use Unity3d as a game engine and I use Blender for animation.

UE4 sounds AWESOME.

Would I want to invest months in learning a new software like UE4?

No, not particularly.

My understanding is they just released a free version.

That tells me that their paid version is not making money thus they released the free version in hopes that new users will take up their software and promote it.

If you want to choose UE4 over Blender then go for it.

Good luck.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

The pros of using a static rendering method like in Blender is that you can render every frame with full quality, which means global illumination and stuff, you can spend hours on every frame to make the lighting perfect. For animation you can also use rigs which use blender specific stuff like tons of constraints, for example the fancy new Blenrig 5.

The cons of this method is that it can take a long time to render. If you’ve got a fast GPU it can be faster but you’re still probably looking at several minutes per frame. Very simple scenes can maybe have frame renders in seconds but then you’re not getting the benefit of the realistic aspect anyway.

If you were to use UE4 the obvious cons would be that you would have to use rigs that work with the engine, which means no fancy Blender Blenrig (or similar) stuff. If you scale a parent bone all child bones will scale with it, so no disabling “inherit scale” or anything. The other con is that scenes will perhaps look less realistic than static render methods, but UE4 will probably look pretty good when the settings are cranked.

The pros of using something like UE4 is that it’s super fast. If you’ve got a beefy machine you can easily reach 60 fps (or more), and then you can render your animation at more than realtime speeds. I remember doing some tests in UE4 rendering small resolution animations and I got 200 fps or something, it was hilarious. This realtime feedback is also in place when you set up your scene, so it’s much more intuitive when setting up lighting and so on since you don’t have to wait for renders, you can just change parameters on the fly which is pretty mindblowing when you try it out. For the final animation you can crank the settings when rendering, so even if your machine can’t handle it in realtime, it will render much faster (at least several FPS compared to minutes/hours) than a similar scene in Blender.

Another pro is that you can use engine specific stuff in realtime too, like ragdoll physics, various simulations (like APEX for clothes or the new dynamic animation thing), particle effects and so on. I forgot about this but UE4 is based on a PBR shading model which means that materials will look very realistic, and you can also use free materials called substances (with a plugin) which are materials made in Substance Designer or Substance Painter. Or make a fancy shader by yourself if you want to, you make those with nodes as with cycles.

The UE4 devs are right now working on a new system for cinematic animation called Sequencer which is pretty much what you’re looking for. It’s a work in progress but can be used already and should be even better in the next release. I’m pretty interested in this myself and think it’s certainly viable for certain types of animations. The best thing is that even though UE4 has a royalty model where you pay them 5% of your revenue this is only true for games. Movies/videos are completely free.

An example of what Sequencer can do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OCJCZJWA68

Edit: Worth pointing out, you don’t only use UE4, you would use Blender to make your models, animations and stuff, then bring that into the engine.

Also, all the cool things that UE4 can do that other softwares can’t do have to have someone to not only do it but whatever it does it has to either make money or at the very least “wow” the socks off of everyone to the point that people are saying “I wish I could do that”.

Animated shorts isn’t about how cool it would be to watch the grass wave back and forth in a non-static environment.

Animated shorts is about “Awe, that was a really inspiring story that was told with (coincidentally) 3d animation software”.

No one who watches movies cares how you did it, they only care about what you did.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

That last bit depends on the audience, I think. A general viewing audience for sure would agree with that. But those on the design/artist/developer side are also looking at lighting, materials, movement, and what-not. Maybe not down to the specifics of what engine is used, but certainly along the lines of “I think I’ll try that with what I’m using now” or “I know I can’t do that with ____, maybe I’ll give _____ a try…”.