Octane is anything but fast if you want a production quality amount of noise(none)
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46566166]Octane is anything but fast if you want a production quality amount of noise(none)[/QUOTE]
Noise in inherent to path tracing, only real solution is to either render the frame thousands of times, or use something unbiased methods that sacrifice accuracy for speed.
[QUOTE=GameDev;46557206]Yeah, at even at that resolution it took like 4 days per frame with their underwater lighting scenes[/QUOTE]
Holy crap.
Now I feel bad for whining because my little 1024x768 animation project is taking about 30 minutes per frame :v:
I've always thought it would be cool to do animated movies shown in real-time rendering engines. Like, you go to a theater, and the animated movie is projected onto the screen from a real-time engine at 60 fps or more. It would essentially be playing a scripted "demo" of the movie, in real-time. I've always thought that in game cut scenes look much nicer than rasterized image sequences.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;46571634]I've always thought it would be cool to do animated movies shown in real-time rendering engines. Like, you go to a theater, and the animated movie is projected onto the screen from a real-time engine at 60 fps or more. It would essentially be playing a scripted "demo" of the movie, in real-time. I've always thought that in game cut scenes look much nicer than rasterized image sequences.[/QUOTE]
But what would be the benefit of that?
[QUOTE=ThePanther;46571634]I've always thought it would be cool to do animated movies shown in real-time rendering engines. Like, you go to a theater, and the animated movie is projected onto the screen from a real-time engine at 60 fps or more. It would essentially be playing a scripted "demo" of the movie, in real-time. I've always thought that in game cut scenes look much nicer than rasterized image sequences.[/QUOTE]
That takes a lot more performance for no gain.
[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]
funny thing though, and i have no idea what i'm talking about, but does far cry 3 has raytracing? if you zoom in with a sniper some models kind of get noisy
[QUOTE=Brt5470;46573023]But what would be the benefit of that?[/QUOTE]
You could mod a movie? That would be cool. Substitute any actor for any other actor. Make them wear funny hats. C'mon admit it, that would be fun.
[QUOTE=smurfy;46545611]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]
It's likely they were using 8 bit images, which is not acceptable practice these days.
Looking back at a bugs life, it's actually pretty ugly and washed out. Compared to newer movies which have gloriously rich lighting and post-effects that are a product of painstaking tonemapping, pp and color grading using 16 bit and 32 bit images.
With how long it takes to render shit you always get a lot more bang for your buck if you render out to 16 or 32 bit, because you can color/exposure correct them to an incredible degree after the rendering is done.
[QUOTE=Xmeagol;46573986]funny thing though, and i have no idea what i'm talking about, but does far cry 3 has raytracing? if you zoom in with a sniper some models kind of get noisy[/QUOTE]
There aren't many real time ray-tracers that are fast enough to do that. It's just how the engine handles LOD. When you suddenly get up close to something (so, scoping a rifle for example), the engine seems to load the terrain and models almost like they were voxels or something.
But I doubt it's ray-traced, that's hella intensive for real time and my shitbox computer can run it pretty damn well.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46575380]There aren't many real time ray-tracers that are fast enough to do that. It's just how the engine handles LOD. When you suddenly get up close to something (so, scoping a rifle for example), the engine seems to load the terrain and models almost like they were voxels or something.
But I doubt it's ray-traced, that's hella intensive for real time and my shitbox computer can run it pretty damn well.[/QUOTE]
I think it's just a poor fade effect to reduce element pop so instead they get noisy before being replaced completely.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46575603]I think it's just a poor fade effect to reduce element pop so instead they get noisy before being replaced completely.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they're fading in the models, but they're using some filter for partially transparent objects to make the edges seem less rough (Great for things like plants, bad when the entire model is translucent)
[QUOTE=Ehmmett;46575778]As said above, finding neemo took 4 days to render per frame, and it wasn't even at 1080p.
and you want a theater to do this in real time?[/QUOTE]
Patrons will need to return to the theater every 4 days to see the next frame. It builds suspense you see.
[QUOTE=Ehmmett;46575778]As said above, finding neemo took 4 days to render per frame, and it wasn't even at 1080p.[/QUOTE]
Then again that was 2003.
My desktop is like 50x faster than mine in 2003.
[QUOTE=Ehmmett;46576287]and standards have still gone up.
[editline]25th November 2014[/editline]
that was also 4 days per frame, from a [I]render farm[/I].
cool ur gpu can max crysis now, but that's still asking a ton out of a cinema to do just so you can.. change actors and put silly hats on them..[/QUOTE]
Look, I think the idea is retarded as you do.
But in 2003, the best we had was some netburst shit. And those standards are apart of this entire debate.
[QUOTE=Ehmmett;46576287]and standards have still gone up.
[editline]25th November 2014[/editline]
that was also 4 days per frame, from a [I]render farm[/I].
cool ur gpu can max crysis now, but that's still asking a ton out of a cinema to do just so you can.. change actors and put silly hats on them..[/QUOTE]
That 4 days per frame figure would have to be from one machine, not the whole farm, as if it was actually that slow it would've taken some 1500 years to render the entire movie.
It may have been for the farm if four days was just a maximum for some really intensive scenes but the majority was much lower
Still seems like a crazy high amount though so I'd assume it was per machine
[QUOTE=ThePanther;46574295]You could mod a movie? That would be cool. Substitute any actor for any other actor. Make them wear funny hats. C'mon admit it, that would be fun.[/QUOTE]
You couldn't simply because no one would release the source. You can mod 3d files but they are never getting released for current movies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.