[QUOTE=cqbcat;46524507](...) Whereas in a film like Despicable Me, the textures and polycount are great, but they don't have to be that great cause it's cartoony style, a cartoon for kids to young too care.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you have a full understanding of the target audience.
[QUOTE=Trekintosh;46524771]At our studio, we've just started producing all our content at 4096x2160 @ 60fps, up from 1080@60. Our poor little 16TB NAS is now 80% full, when before we made the switch it was 20%. I can confirm that storage space is getting out of hand with the new resolution.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but what is a studio doing with such a small NAS?
To be honest, I think 48 fps would be a lot better than 4k. especially since only a few people could watch it at that resolution. Also you'd quickly find issues with space on bluerays and such.
[QUOTE=Dromlexer;46524829]If the video game industry faces the same challenge. the size issue will be a concern, but not big as the concern about rendering all the graphics on-screen a 4K. It will impact GPU and RAM depending on driver.[/QUOTE]
Video game graphic has absolutely nothing to do with CGI animation. There's so many different aspects
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;46532748]To be honest, I think 48 fps would be a lot better than 4k. especially since only a few people could watch it at that resolution. Also you'd quickly find issues with space on bluerays and such.[/QUOTE]
It will look a lot better in the cinema though, frankly I'm quite surprised it's only been 2K thus far
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;46532748]To be honest, I think 48 fps would be a lot better than 4k. especially since only a few people could watch it at that resolution. Also you'd quickly find issues with space on bluerays and such.[/QUOTE]
The Blu-ray standard would need to be updated for 48fps anyways.
I think they actually did that as part of moving to support 4K content, I can't find the actual spec (Probably behind a paywall) but some sources are saying they went for 4k @ 60fps as the max.
[url=http://www.tested.com/art/movies/449542-finding-nemo-3d-interview/]Wow[/url], Finding Nemo was rendered at 1600x900. When we saw that film in the cinema it wasn't even 1080p
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;46532748]To be honest, I think 48 fps would be a lot better than 4k. especially since only a few people could watch it at that resolution. Also you'd quickly find issues with space on bluerays and such.[/QUOTE]
Older films can be digitally remastered and still look good on Blu Ray thanks to negatives whereas on the other hand, animated films afaik are just limited to whatever resolution it's rendered. So if you go limiting your current movie to 1080p, it'll suck in the future when a new format comes out that makes 1080p look like a poorly compressed DVD.
So personally, I'd be inclined to believe that it would be better to have a master with a high resolution rather than a master with a higher frame rate - at the very least, from a business perspective.
[QUOTE=smurfy;46522847]I'd be interested to see a CGI movie in HFR, I imagine it wouldn't suffer the 'soap opera effect' and could look pretty good[/QUOTE]
You mean like The Hobbit :v:
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46540528]The movie industry should try to embrace Path Tracing instead of traditional Raytracing methods for rendering their movies, there are Path Tracing algorythms that run exponentially faster than traditional rendering methods and it doesn't sacrifice quality at all (It can even improve quality since motion blur and other effects like DoF, Global Illumination and AO in this method are basically "free" since it simulates photons)[/QUOTE]
Gravity, Pacific Rim, Guardians of the Galaxy, Minuscule, Edge of Tomorrow, Robocop and Thor: The Dark World are all movies off the top of my head done with a path tracing rendering engine.
You realise the film industry is essentially the industry developing all this stuff right? Every big animation studio and post house have in house programmer teams that work on this kind of stuff, it's how they keep competitive.
Sometimes they throw money at universities themselves to develop new stuff; a non-linear non deterministic render system was developed for Interstellar's space porn and now a couple papers are being written about it.
I hope they aren't using Arnold, it's good but slow.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;46524888]Who's gonna be the idiot who suggests they just tween everything to increase framerate?
I know you're out there.[/QUOTE]
Why don't they just tween everything to increase the framerate?
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46540860]They mostly have their own in-house renderer, Pixar only uses their own Renderman exclusively and Dreamworks has their whole propietary toolset called Apollo[/QUOTE]ILM was using Arnold last I heard, even though they get free Renderman licences.
[QUOTE=redBadger;46522607]Jesus fucking christ
I'm assuming that's all RAM type memory?[/QUOTE]
Are you surprised? Avatar by Cameron allegedly had more than 1 petabyte of data.
Not surprised. I assume Avatar was rendered in 1080P as it was shot with 1080P cameras.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;46532062]I'm sorry, but what is a studio doing with such a small NAS?[/QUOTE]
We never needed anything more. An average project took up at most 2TB at a time, and once it was done it got archived and deleted from the NAS. With the new resolution we're going to be moving to LTO-5 or 6 backup and at least 4x as much live storage.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46540860]They mostly have their own in-house renderer, Pixar only uses their own Renderman exclusively and Dreamworks has their whole propietary toolset called Apollo[/QUOTE]
I thought they used VUE for a lot of their stuff.
Heh, Bugs Life used less than a terabyte of storage and was rendered at 2048x872
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/19990424170628/http://www.pixar.com/feature/feature.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46540528]The movie industry should try to embrace Path Tracing instead of traditional Raytracing methods for rendering their movies, there are Path Tracing algorythms that run exponentially faster than traditional rendering methods and it doesn't sacrifice quality at all (It can even improve quality since motion blur and other effects like DoF, Global Illumination and AO in this method are basically "free" since it simulates photons)
...[/QUOTE]
Sure you don't mean exponentially slower? At a simple level it fires many times more rays than ray tracing, and even ray tracing is slower than other methods used.
[QUOTE=WaLLy3K;46540307]Older films can be digitally remastered and still look good on Blu Ray thanks to negatives whereas on the other hand, animated films afaik are just limited to whatever resolution it's rendered. So if you go limiting your current movie to 1080p, it'll suck in the future when a new format comes out that makes 1080p look like a poorly compressed DVD.
So personally, I'd be inclined to believe that it would be better to have a master with a high resolution rather than a master with a higher frame rate - at the very least, from a business perspective.[/QUOTE]
You can always re-render an animated movie!
[QUOTE=paul simon;46556520]You can always re-render an animated movie![/QUOTE]
But could you make it run at a higher frame-rate than what it originally ran at? Thats what I'm wondering.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;46556823]But could you make it run at a higher frame-rate than what it originally ran at? Thats what I'm wondering.[/QUOTE]
Depends on how it was animated. If it was animated using keyframes, then I imagine it would be quite easy since it just has to render the frames "in between". If it's motion capture animation, it's probably a bit more difficult.
But on the other hand, if the original render has motion blur then there should in theory be little work to do since motion blur requires all the motion in between frames to exist anyway...
I don't know anything about animation though, so these are just guesses.
[QUOTE=smurfy;46539112][url=http://www.tested.com/art/movies/449542-finding-nemo-3d-interview/]Wow[/url], Finding Nemo was rendered at 1600x900. When we saw that film in the cinema it wasn't even 1080p[/QUOTE]
Yeah, at even at that resolution it took like 4 days per frame with their underwater lighting scenes
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46556936]There are incredibly efficient path tracing methods coming up that deliver an exponentially higher quality in a much faster time than standard raytracing methods if you are aiming to use the same complexity[/QUOTE]
Like? Any speed ups for path tracing should be applicable to ray tracing (Since path tracing is ray tracing but with a different way of calculating lighting)
Sure, the biased rendering methods are faster than unbiased, but they're all slower than plain ray tracing (A single ray for ray tracing will give you full lighting information, not the case with path tracing)
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;46556823]But could you make it run at a higher frame-rate than what it originally ran at? Thats what I'm wondering.[/QUOTE]
Unlike recorded video, animations can actually be tweened with good to perfect results since they are polygon motion data and not pixel data.
With such enormous complexity that current animated movies are it's not going to be a straight forward task, but it's very possible.
[QUOTE=smurfy;46539112][url=http://www.tested.com/art/movies/449542-finding-nemo-3d-interview/]Wow[/url], Finding Nemo was rendered at 1600x900. When we saw that film in the cinema it wasn't even 1080p[/QUOTE]
Hey, that's the resolution I'm somehow using now! Neat.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;46540528]The movie industry should try to embrace Path Tracing instead of traditional Raytracing methods for rendering their movies, there are Path Tracing algorythms that run exponentially faster than traditional rendering methods and it doesn't sacrifice quality at all (It can even improve quality since motion blur and other effects like DoF, Global Illumination and AO in this method are basically "free" since it simulates photons)
[video=youtube;J5W8W1lWD0E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5W8W1lWD0E[/video]
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3N5XhKzyZmA/UqfDD690NLI/AAAAAAAAD3U/wx2OqM3k8G0/s1600/vistest1.png[/img][/QUOTE]Love Octane, just wish it could give me render passes.
[editline]24th November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=smurfy;46539112][url=http://www.tested.com/art/movies/449542-finding-nemo-3d-interview/]Wow[/url], Finding Nemo was rendered at 1600x900. When we saw that film in the cinema it wasn't even 1080p[/QUOTE]Not surprising, I don't think many people would notice the difference in detail. Heaps of movies were shot on HDCam with F900 in the early 2000s which is 1440x1080 with a stretch.
[QUOTE=Warship;46556868]Depends on how it was animated. If it was animated using keyframes, then I imagine it would be quite easy since it just has to render the frames "in between". If it's motion capture animation, it's probably a bit more difficult.
But on the other hand, if the original render has motion blur then there should in theory be little work to do since motion blur requires all the motion in between frames to exist anyway...
I don't know anything about animation though, so these are just guesses.[/QUOTE]
Even so, re-rendering entire movie at higher resoltuion and fps would take a long time and a lot of power compared to just downscaling and cutting frames if movie was recorded at high fps. But a movie made at 24fps will never see fps increase unlike animated one.
Octane and renderman are pretty fast, the last one is free.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.