PDA

View Full Version : question about cg movies


evulness
01-22-2005, 09:11 AM
heres a stupid question and i'm sure i know the answer already, but with shrek/shrek2 and finding nemo.... did they compose those in realtime, or is it rendered frame by frame?

curious because in spots in all 3 movies i can see some places where it looks realtime (blurred textures, and un-antialiased.... but in other spots i can see the good bump mapping (normal maps?)

oh yea, one other thing i've been trying to figure out.... how the hell did they do their Global ilumination in shrek2? i've tried making something close to that but mine is like newb quality compared to theirs lol....

jussing
01-22-2005, 11:49 PM
I betcha all film graphics you see is non-realtime.

evulness
01-23-2005, 04:28 AM
That would take forever to render 1.5-2 hour long movies frame by frame.... holy crap

it takes me 10 minutes at the very least to render most of the stuff i make with brazil...

but then again they probably use super computers with uber ram/processors and the best video cards available lol....

-Vormav-
01-23-2005, 06:29 AM
Frame by frame by frame. You couldn't possibly do it in realtime, especially considering the way everything has to be passed through the pipeline, from the 3d designers to the compositors, and whatnot.

Of course, they have access to expensive render farms, but even then i think I recall hearing some single frames from CG films like The Incredibles taking up to 2 days to render.

Yossarian!
01-23-2005, 11:33 PM
I read somewhere that 80 hours was the longest render for a single frame in The Incredibles and yeah, thats with a render farm.

Dusan
01-24-2005, 06:02 AM
I read that a single frame of Treebeard in Lord of the Rings took 48 hours to render and that Treebeard was actually more demanding in this respect than Gollum.

evulness
01-24-2005, 09:20 AM
holy shit, thats just friggin' crazy....i'd pull my hair out waiting that damn long lol

i could see trrbeard taking longer than gollum, only because he has a more detailed mesh and texture...

XanderFX
02-01-2005, 04:49 AM
from: http://www.cgtalk.com/showpost.php?p=1073762&postcount=1

8. Tell us about the ILM renderfarm : )

ILM renderfarm has over 2500 processors, approx 4 million mflops
Storage capacity over 80 terabytes - This is enough to store the ENTIRE printed collection of the US Library of Congress
in 2003, over 13.7 million frames passed through our pipeline (equivalent to 79 movies)
in 2003, approx 9 petabytes of data passed through our network

Number of shots completed in 2003: 2,063
Average number of takes per shot: 20
Computer Graphics Department: 460 Artists
Number of computer Rooms: 4
Average nightly data transfer render servers & file servers: 90 Terabytes
Total data backed up annually: 300 Petabytes
Main computer room uses 450kVA; enough for 500-800 suburban homes
Number of Linux based desktop machines for production: 800 +

I recall reading somewher that the ILM render farm can render in one night what it would take the average desktop 65 years

and if you go here :
http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2004&M=11

You can see the list of the top 500 upercomputers Weta Digital is 101 and 104

Shoot my measly 20 processor farm at work renders in half an hour stuff that would take my dual 3Ghz workstation all night.

shadowMaster
02-13-2005, 07:44 AM
heres a stupid question and i'm sure i know the answer already, but with shrek/shrek2 and finding nemo.... did they compose those in realtime, or is it rendered frame by frame?

definitely rendered frame by frame... average render times run from 4-8 hours per frame. yea sometimes the longest frames are crazy long as mentioned above, but it's uncommon for renders to take longer than 12 hours (overnight).

*but* when you ask if these are 'composed' in realtime, maybe you're asking about animating? ...which is not real time, but very close (seconds per frame, not hours).


curious because in spots in all 3 movies i can see some places where it looks realtime (blurred textures, and un-antialiased.... but in other spots i can see the good bump mapping (normal maps?)

depends, do you have any specific shots in mind? texture and antialiasing quality are never lowered intentionally. but there were some tricky shots in all three of these shows that would be hard to render with any software. (i'm thinking of a few castle shots in shrek 1 for example). funny thing is, chances are the problem shots you're thinking of were obvious to the directors and the lighters, and they probably had raised the antialiasing level above normal to try to fix the shot, with limited success.

i don't know if normal maps were used on any of these films, but bump mapping was and quite often full displacement mapping as well.


oh yea, one other thing i've been trying to figure out.... how the hell did they do their Global ilumination in shrek2? i've tried making something close to that but mine is like newb quality compared to theirs lol....

Keep in mind that there are a lot of experienced lighting people doing only lighting, all day, every day.

Here's the technical description of their GI:
http://www.tabellion.org/et/paper/index.html

CGTalk Moderation
02-13-2006, 08:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.