PDA

View Full Version : Rendering to 35mm resolution?


Lunatique
09-19-2002, 06:50 AM
I need to find out what is an acceptable resolution to render at for 35mm. The aspect ratio is 1.85.

Basically, I'm working on a 10 minute animated short, and have set aside about 2~3 years of my life to work on it.

I don't have a renderfarm. All I have is my computer, and will purchase another one just for rendering. I'm worried that I'll spend forever rendering, EVEN if I render out in passes for compositing.

I'm asking about 35mm because I'm assuming most animation festivals/film competitions accept 35mm. They probably take 16 mm, but I'm not sure how good the quality will be on 16mm.

Mauritius
09-20-2002, 02:05 PM
The usual resolution is 2k = 2048 pixels horizontally.
But 'Toy Story' was rendered at 1,5k = 1536 pixels and the upsampled to 2k which blurs the image a bit but usually this doesn't matter. Just be sure to add any fance film look stuff like grain after scaling up.

At the aspect you want this would mean to render at 2048x1108 for 2k resp 1536x830 at 1,5 k.

I wouldn't worry about rendertimes but rather about storage.
One uncompressed image at 2k is about 12 megs. At 24fps that's 288 mb per second of film. Now imagine you could save 30% by using LZW or ZIP compressed TIFs. That still means about 200 mb per second.
Now think of layers. Lets assume you have 10 layers which isn't very much -- makes 2 gb per second. Of course you can buy two 80 gb drives and a tape for backup and delete everything after you're done with a shot but even with this config you can't work on more than ~60 seconds of comp footage at once.

.mm

juntao
09-23-2002, 01:59 AM
i dont know about anyone else but those numbers scare the hell outta me..........

RealThing
09-23-2002, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by juntao
i dont know about anyone else but those numbers scare the hell outta me..........
Well these types of numbers are a fact of life for alot of people here. Mauritius is right about the layers. They can really add up quickly. Where I work we do full dome high definition video and our frames are around 3200x3200 and can be in the neighborhood of 25 megs a frame with LZW compressed tga's. And most of our projects are between 20 and 25 mins in length. So space can quickly become a problem. Even with the 5TB or so we have. As far as rendering times go they can become an issue but for the most part if the job is bid and managed correctly you should have enough time to get the rendering done with your resources...whatever they may be.

Lunatique
09-23-2002, 11:29 AM
*sigh*

WHAT did I get myself into????

Yeah, I'm pretty ****ing scared myself. I gotta do all this ALONE.

Time to stock up some some big ass hard drives.

BTW, when people turn to render farms provided by companies, and then pay by the hour, HOW do they get ALL that data back at once and work with them? I mean, lets say you have 10 minutes rendered by a render farm company, do they just give it all to you on a big ass tape backup and then YOU have to figure out what to do with all that data?

CapnPanic
09-23-2002, 02:38 PM
i realize you have set a large chunk of time aside for yourself to do this project in, but it seems to me, that since you are going it alone, that it might make alot more sense to just keep it at a lower resolution. you mentioned film festivals as a goal, and from my own experience, the vast majority of festivals want submissions on video tapes of some sort. sooo, it seems like it would make more sense to just work at broadcast res instead...because then you could actually consider outputting it yourself (to mini dv if you wanted, although i would recommend finding a nearby studio with an uncompressed editing system and digibeta capability for a final product), at least for working drafts if nothing else, just using a firewire card. plus, at 720x486 (NTSC D1) each uncompressed tga is only about 1.33MB (with alpha channel) which only works out to about 40MB per second, per layer, which is a little more managable on a personal budget. not to mention the reduction in render time. just something to consider =)

Lunatique
09-23-2002, 04:02 PM
The reason why I'm researching 35mm output is because I read somewhere on the Academy Award's website that they only accept as low as 16mm. I'm assuming 3D on 16mm just wouldn't look very good. So, 35mm is the next step up.

But, I COULD render lower for other competitions, since I'd have to win at least one big competition to qualify for the Oscar anyway.

ilasolomon
09-24-2002, 01:01 AM
for compositing, use PNG format (lower size, better compression
more features)
after compositng, you don't have to stick to uncompressed format
since there is a format named JPEG! just use JPG (%90 or %100
Quality) in 1.5k or 2k with a little grain, it will be okay & no eye in
the world could say difference between the JPG & TIFF, even in a
IMAX movie screen! & i also suggest you buy a DVD burner to
store/backup your files into (Data DVD, not video)
& you don't need to render seperatly in PAL or NTSC, convert from
film 2k res & 24fps to video by yourself, & it will be nice.
if i were you i didn't render 1.5k & upsample to 2k cause the
pixar guys wrote a special filter to do that & i have a doubt it is
available for public! but 2k is good enough for 35mm (T2 cg
footages rendered in 2k res & printed on wide 35mm film)

Lunatique
09-24-2002, 02:58 AM
ila_solomon- Wow, I didn't know that rendering to jpeg was even an option! I've never heard anyone doing that, since jpegs were always considered the worst option for compression because of the artifacts. If what you say is true, then it would definitely save a lot of space!

The DVD burner is a great idea, except that I'm a bit worried if I need to take the data to another location to do work on it, and tha facility might not have a DVD ROM. Does regular DVD ROMs read the data burned as DVD data?

Good tip on the stuff about Pixar using a special filter. I need to take that into consideration. Thanks!

magnoborgo
09-24-2002, 02:49 PM
Dont think using jpeg to final output is a good option.
if it would, all the folks in cg world wold be using it (me too :D)

ila_salomon have you used this? and have you made digital to film transfer? please tell us.

Well some groups that i know have made short films to 16mm and the result was fine. You can after kynescope the 16mm to 32mm if you choose but i dont know how the results will look.
(and the costs to do this are high).

Dont know your plans, but have you notion on how much will cost to do this digital to film transfer?


:rolleyes:

Lunatique
09-24-2002, 04:34 PM
No idea yet. I'll be meeting some folks tomorrow for dinner to discuss the cost. I might need investors or grants to do this. Either that, or go rob a bank. . ..

ilasolomon
09-24-2002, 10:47 PM
be sure, jpeg with %100 quality will be fine, when i was working
in an animation company we printed the jpeg sequence on 35mm
& it was fine. theoriticaly & practicaly there is no problem.
the problem comes when we have sharp edge with very saturated colors around that edges, but it could be ignored.
(btw jpeg is not good for field rendering in video formats)

magnoborgo
09-25-2002, 08:17 PM
Very interesting. :lightbulb

Thanx.

egz
09-30-2002, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by ila_solomon
(btw jpeg is not good for field rendering in video formats) [/B]

Unless you use a MJPEG codec (motion JPEG), which can compete with DV quality wise but at a slightly higher data rate.

Lunatique
09-30-2002, 04:46 AM
Does anyone have an example of this jpeg compression used in production? I'd love to see how it looks.

Mauritius
10-04-2002, 04:27 AM
The problem with JPG is that color is more compressed than luminance. Once you start doing heavy color correction, artifacts previously invisible may show up. Depending on how you use a certain layer in comp, even these circumstances may be enought to see st.

Here, we never use JPGs for that reason. Another reason is that we often render stuff in 16bits if the target is film -- there's no 16bit JPG format ...

.mm

danylyon
10-16-2002, 04:39 PM
Another problem with jpeg compressed sequences is the computing & memory power it needs to decompress / compress it. (Esp. annoying in compositing)

I'd say (although I have no experience). 1.5k is far enough for CG stuff, because CG is normally too sharp anyway. (I've heard you can blow up CG up to 400% for print).

On a side note.. I would recommend anyone very much to make an animatic (a very rough version) of your short first. So you can test different shots and finetune your story. Especially if you have few experience with editing.

good luck!!! :thumbsup:

dany

Gentle Fury
10-17-2002, 05:35 AM
are you really serious???? JPG???? ummmmmmmmmm, no. First off jpgs quality is crap, even at its most fabulous! This would also mean that you would have to render everything in one pass as jpg's dont support alpha channels (NOT RECOMMENDED!) You should never use a nasty lossy compression for a final output, especially if you intend to go to film!!! The other thing i never heard mentioned was the 24 bit problem! Most cg that is output to film is 24bit color images. You def cant get that deffinition in a jpg or png for that matter. And of course not a lot of low end composite programs can handle higher then 16 bit. I think your best bet is to work in NTSC 720x486 and output to video.....if it is a wonderful project and you actually are able to get it nominated for an oscar THEN go ahead and go the extra mile and pay someone else to render it ;) Hang onto your compositing scripts and putting it back together will be a breeze. Course the other thing is, you would have to render it at a low res when you are working on it anyway as you would never be able to actually work on the footage at such a high res ;)

The other thing i noticed was, you said this was going to be a 10 min animation done all by yourself...........i hope you are prepared for that.....and i hope you have more then 2 years.....as you are going to need about half that to render it on one comp.

EXTRA EXTRA GOOD LUCK on this one!!

Keep us posted on progress and one more word of advice.......dont do it all yourself.....find some friends, or even people on this forum to do lil stuff....like bg models and such, unless this is going to be like 50% Grey (very minimalistic) you are going to need the help :)


Happy Rendering!!!!!!

derelict
10-17-2002, 06:23 AM
If your planning to layer your elements, FORGET about JPEG. I think alpha is not included. 2ndly, most major festival take betacam sp or digibeta. So, why the 35mm thingy be your drawback? Might as well render it at 1024 or whatever (for focus and panning) and clip it at NTSC D1. Trust me.... it is gooooood enough i tell you. Because at the end of the day u still need grading for your work, that usually enhances your quality oneway or another.;)

Edit: Drats! I forgot to read my above post....sorry for repeating. hehe.

ilasolomon
10-17-2002, 08:17 AM
hey! seems everyone here got confused!!!
JPG ONLY FOR FINAL OUTPUT... & final output doesn't need any
ALPHA, COLOR CORRECTION, RESIZING, or ny post process coz
it is FINAL! it is the final footage that you need
to copy on CD & going somewhere for composing & printing on film (not video ...jpg is not suitable for video fields)

for compositing & adjusment process the best format is: PNG, with no doubt.

derelict
10-17-2002, 10:16 AM
hey! seems everyone here got confused!!!

No, we're not!;) u see... u seem to forget the matter of post work and the matter of post work and the matter of post work and the matter of post work. Did i miss anything?

The issue is not so much the final stage but the stage we get BEFORE we reach the final stage....unless you are content with whatever your 3D apps churn out? Frankly, if your work reaaaallly matters, one do not just print without grading. Period.

Just look at the second post by Mauritius to see the big picture. Now thats a guy who appreciate fine work.

Remember grading IS the real final stage (not that it matters to some). Go ask a post guy...say that ME! Hehe.

rollmops
10-17-2002, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by ila_solomon
for compositing & adjusment process the best format is: PNG, with no doubt. [/B]

PNG?:surprised

Is this beter than maya.iff or maya16.iff?
Tell me where I can find more information about png!

Gentle Fury
10-17-2002, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by rollmops
PNG?:surprised

Is this beter than maya.iff or maya16.iff?
Tell me where I can find more information about png!

PNG is yet another crappy format that was developed for use on the internet when 28.8 modems were all the rage and noone could even consider dling a high res image!

This is almost as bad a format to use as jpg. The only advantage to it is it has alpha....so it would be ok for games and your lil avatar pic next to your name on this board :)

What are you going to say next........If your going to film ALWAYS use GIF!!!!! Hell its a lossless 256 color format what could be better!!!!!!

Happy Rendering!!!!!

ilasolomon
10-17-2002, 11:26 PM
derelict, i didn't get what you mean, sorry!

dear Gentle Fury, are you JOKING!?

PNG supports:

- 256 color
- RGB 24bit (16.7 Million)
- RGB 48 bit (281 Trillion)
- Grayscale 8 bit (256)
- Grayscale 16 bit (65,536)
- Alpha (like PSD alpha not TGA or TIF, do you know the difference? it's like tga's pre-multiplied alpha)
- Interlaced
- LZW (or RLE, i'm not sure) compression

& the compositing apps supports PNG as well, like Combustion & afterFX, very nice.

what else a regular compositing format needs? (if you don't want G-buffer's data)

Mauritius
10-17-2002, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Gentle Fury
are you really serious???? JPG???? ummmmmmmmmm, no. First off jpgs quality is crap, even at its most fabulous!

This is nonsense. SW Episode II was shot on 24P which has a heavy JPG compression, more heavy than even DV!. Of course you have about 15% more chroma information than DV (as with Beta SP) but this doesn't make up a point. Did the life action footage in EP II look like "crap"? -- I don't think so.

There is nothing wrong with going out as JPGs as the final step before going to film -- if the sole reason is only that you don't have a SCSI HD to get the stufff over to the company that does the print on film and you need to burn everything on CDs.
But while you're compositing, try as much as possible to keep everything in a format that uses lossless compression.

PNG is yet another crappy format that was developed for use on the internet when 28.8 modems were all the rage and noone could even consider dling a high res image!

PNG is not at all a "crappy" format either. It has gamma correction, alpha and supports 16bit per channel depth and 124 (lossless) compression methods. It even beats a ZIP TIF in size anytime at the same bit-depth. It was developed for the web and that is where it shines.

We sometimes use PNGs here too, because After Effects doesn't understand ZIP-compressed TIFs.
There's nothing wrong with that.

Many of the TIF formats we use today are extensions which where created by third parties and became "standards" by broad use. Floating point TIF is, the radiance log-luv TIF is and many other are.
Similar openness is found in the Amiga IFF format that was adopted by e.g. a|w for Maya. But what they really did was create new sections to store their data. You could also use an IFF or a TIF to store an Excel sheet -- only that no one would be able to open this file w/o a description of the extension to the file format you created.

From that pov, you can take any format (e.g. JPG or PNG), add stuff to it and make it a 'perfect' format for your task. However, the only common point left would be the file's extension, which is no point at all, really.

Image file formats are developed with certain purposes and output devices in mind -- sometimes with additional constraints like bandwidth to consider.
JPG and PNG are examples of well done formats in that respect.
You'll always find an application that doesn't fit.
A car is the wrong choice if you want to fly to the moon and a spaceship is, if you want to go to the supermarket to buy food for the next week. Swearing doesn't change this.

Now you tell me what is bad about PNG. And check your language if you do.

Btw and in response your "blatent advertising": I wonder who somene that calls everything "crap" so quickly, can stand to use the Maya renderer. Using RMan compliant renderers for the last nine years, I can assure you that if I was to express my honest opinion on that piece of software -- an opinion btw, which I can back up and reason in great detail at any time -- at the same verbal level your posts show, I'd have to call it "übercrap".
Note, however, that I don't.


.mm

ilasolomon
10-18-2002, 12:03 AM
thanx Mauritius, you describe things better than me! :)

Mauritius
10-18-2002, 12:31 AM
- Alpha (like PSD alpha not TGA or TIF, do you know the difference? it's like tga's pre-multiplied alpha)


What is pre-multiplied is the color information, not the alpha. While this is advantageous (namely of saving one multiplication per pixel), if all you do is good old compositing, as soon as color correction comes into play, the compositing application has to divide by alpha again to get the true values w/o black mixed in before it can perform the lookup. This means one division per pixel. As divisions are more expensive than multiplications, pre-multiplication is a disadvantage under sudden circumstances.

Any format that supports an alpha supports pre-multiplication. It's up to the user to tell the target app what kind the stored color information is.
PNG is special as it always assumes the color was pre-multiplied if an alpha is present. Now with stuff like e.g. SVG that does allow color correction to be performed on an image before or while displaying it on a website, this is disadvantageous speed wise (though unless it's zillions of images you display at once, that impact shouldn't be noticeable). But when PNG was created, it was the right decision -- if there's no color correction involved, pre-multiplied images comp faster.

.mm

derelict
10-18-2002, 01:29 AM
This is nonsense. SW Episode II was shot on 24P which has a heavy JPG compression, more heavy than even DV!. Of course you have about 15% more chroma information than DV (as with Beta SP) but this doesn't make up a point. Did the life action footage in EP II look like "crap"? -- I don't think so.

The key word here is before output, what do you do?
The issue here is size and at the end what format for the easiest compo and quality issue.

The movie where the people walking and talking is starwars is ...yes did in a customized 24 frames DV format BUT the cg elements WAS not shot but churnout by software.

The DV which lucas ranch used is something that is a very unique DV. DV as it stands means NTSC D1 or PAL D1 constaints yes? But what lucas gang came out with is a higher then HDTV resolution DV! So, the DV here is just that a term used to discribe a Digitally encoded footage.

In starwars movies. the cg elements was layered than post grading to achieve a similar look to the rest of the DV.

Why would anyone wants to churn out jpg from a cg software which is of questionable output when you can have many other format with multi alpha to ease ones work?

But how sure and confident are you that your singular output from Maya, MAX, SXI is good enough for precomposition? what if one of the object inside your out put needs to be tone down...what if you want to change the set colour
We are talking about cg here and not how to shoot a movie! Just like LOTR and many more where it is done with alpha channeled layers apon layers apon layers of elements.

At the end of the day it is not so much the space constraint but satisfaction of the highest quality work attainable and the ease of use to achieve it.

Gentle Fury
10-18-2002, 01:50 AM
well its great to have an "expert" on the forum!!!

Sorry, just because i dont like certain image formats is not a reason to start attacking me or my work. Because i used the term crappy means that i am uninformed and unprofessional i suppose.

Very sad.......but im glad you know everything.....ill know where to come if i ever need any question answered!

ilasolomon
10-18-2002, 08:50 AM
indeed, that was "Expert" !

but in 3ds max we can only export pre-multi alpha via PNG & TGA format, the TIF & others don't support that.

Gentle Fury, try PNG once, you will love it! ;)

derelict, one term here was the huge "amount of data"! &
the ways for solving that! just that, no war...& i think JPG for
final output (film or non-interlaced video) has no problem, you can
kill yourself or me, but you can't prove that jpg is not good for
that purpose! ;)

Mauritius
10-18-2002, 11:08 AM
Sorry, just because i dont like certain image formats is not a reason to start attacking me or my work. Because i used the term crappy means that i am uninformed and unprofessional i suppose.


Calm down. I did with no word attack your work -- in fact I like it but this is ot here.
Since I'm not native speaker, the sarcasm in my latest sentence regarding the use of the Maya renderer by a person appreciating quality so much as you perhaps do may have been blurred a bit.

But "don't like" is a bold understatement; if someone reads your last posts about JPG and PNG. Decrying something is ok, as long as you can reason your pov.


well its great to have an "expert" on the forum!!!

I could back up my pov that the Maya renderer was "übercrap", if I said so.
I backed up my commendation why to not use JPG in comp and why I think that calling it plain "crap" is a bit perfunctory -- see the difference?
Besides, you may have noticed that I put "expert" quotation marks -- many people belive they're experts. I certainly don't. My particular interest is in Lighting & Rendering but I know that even nine years of industry experience will only have taught me a fraction of what there is to know.

Regarding PNG, I'm really looking forward to be explained by you why this is "yet another crappy format".
This is what would benefit this thread -- not plain saying something is good or bad but reasoning why, in a serious manner.

.mm

Mauritius
10-18-2002, 11:41 AM
The key word here is before output, what do you do?
The issue here is size and at the end what format for the easiest compo and quality issue.


If your read my posts to this thread carfully (and all of them), you may have noticed that I did not advise anyone to use JPG. In fact, I did the opposite (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21587&pagenumber=2, first post at top of page).
I was plain commenting on someone who termed everything plain "crap" and gave an example of people using this "crap" to produce great images. The fact that all material in EP II was graded, doesn't change the fact that the life action stuff had heavy motion-JPG compression artifacts in its chroma information. You must pre-process this before you can grade, or these artifacts will show up. I know as I shot two commercials on 24P this year and supervised their post production.
And I stand to my statement that putting out to (100% Quality) JPG as the final step that is printed on film is no problem. I did so sereval times in my life, back in the old days when HDDs where still small in storage space and expensive. No one could ever tell the difference.

There are always exceptions, of course. If you material contains smooth ramps filling a considerable amount of the frame, consider a 16bit format. Even if both your rendering and comp app did dither from 16bit/32bit float down to 8bit, this may still not be enough.
The rule of thumb certainly is that if you can afford it, always render your stuff out as 16bit or 32bit float TIFs.


The DV which lucas ranch used is something that is a very unique DV. DV as it stands means NTSC D1 or PAL D1 constaints yes? But what lucas gang came out with is a higher then HDTV resolution DV! So, the DV here is just that a term used to discribe a Digitally encoded footage.


Err, no. The Sony HD camera supports several formats. The PAL version e.g. does 50I, 25P, 24P frames etc. The camera also supports several resolutions. Typically used is the highest resultion which is just below 2k, namely 1920x1080, which is indeed a HDTV format.
The fact that the camera supports high resolution doesn't make up for anything I said.
In fact, when projected in an average cinema, the resoltion in pixels per cm of the image is much lower that DV material watched on an average TV. But as you watch it from a certain distance in both cases, it doesn't matter. Your fov is filled by more pixels than on TV, provided you have the right distance from the screen.

This is why JPG works well at the end btw, even if you only use 50% quality. You only shouldn't look to close, hehe.

.mm

derelict
10-18-2002, 11:58 AM
Spoken like a pro...Mauritius.

I like your style.:)

beaker
10-29-2002, 12:40 AM
>>Similar openness is found in the Amiga IFF format that was adopted by e.g. a|w for Maya. But what they really did was create new sections to store their data.

Mauritius:

You sure maya iff comes from amiga? A/w licensed the iff from Nothing Real for maya. Arnaud Hervas(one of NR's founder) used to work at TDI. TDI used iff as their image file format for Explore. I guess Arnaud somehow got ahold of the license for iff after Explore was nuked. TDI iff files are the same as Maya iff. I don't know the history of iff before the TDI days. Did TDI aquire iff from Amiga or is it just happen that they use the same file extention as the amiga iff?

ilasolomon
10-29-2002, 05:56 AM
i think Mauritius is right:

http://www.rice.edu/Computer/Tutorials/ravl/pshop/fileformats.html
".IFF : Amiga Interchange File Format - ..."

http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/graphics/irfantut/suppform.html#iff

http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?Interchange+File+Format
"Microsoft WAV and AVI are all based around an almost identical scheme to IFF called RIFF. The main difference is that, in RIFF files, numbers are little-endian as on Intel processors, whereas in IFF files they are big-endian, as on the Motorola 68000 processors in the Amiga where IFF files were first used.

ErickG
10-31-2002, 05:47 AM
Not to take sides but I have been shooting jpeg on final film work for the past 5 years on my film recorder. I have shot over 500,000 frames to 35mm and these shots have been used in blockbuster features.

Just for the record, i did run extensive tests with uncompressed 4K 16bit images all the way down to jpeg 2k images.

I can cut from 16bit cineon fromat to jpeg of the same footage and you can't tell the difference.

I have a friend who used to run digital film for PDI and ILM and he used jpeg there too. Films like T2, Jurrassic Park to name a few.

As long as you use it for your final output it will work great.

But I have one question, I'm sure "50% grey" was not shot out to film and that was nominated for an oscar.

Food for thought.


-Erick

beaker
10-31-2002, 05:55 AM
>>But I have one question, I'm sure "50% grey" was not shot out to film and that was nominated for an oscar.

Actually it was outputted to film. Many film festivals for qualifying for a nomination for an academy award require you to print it to film for submission. Hence the name "film festival". Though some are more lax on that term now with HD and DV getting big.

Lunatique
11-01-2002, 08:44 AM
Does anyone know what resolution 50% Grey was rendered at?

The Academy only accepts film formats(16/35/70mm), but other festivals aren't as strict.

ilasolomon
11-01-2002, 08:56 AM
2k

s2a-adamk
11-03-2002, 07:38 AM
wow, what a thread! I think I got a headache from all that knowledge. So in summary what is the final preferred format?

24bit TGA? Or the PNGs? Just tested here - PNG was almost 1/3 the size of 24bit TGA. Plus 24bit PNG has alpha channel, TGA does not, correct?

Storage.... cdr's are cheap. Plus if you make 2 copies - they "crash" less than those 5 partitions I lost on 2 drives(seperate machines even!) this year.

Good luck with the production!
Thanks again for the post.
a

beaker
11-03-2002, 04:12 PM
>>Plus 24bit PNG has alpha channel, TGA does not, correct?

32 bit TGA does include an alpha.

>>Storage.... cdr's are cheap.

Trouble is when your rendering for film the size of the files add up really fast. The 1080p film I worked on was 40 gigs for all the final output files(11 minute animation), and the were JPG! Thats like 60 cd's. I would more look at dvd-r/rw since it is so cheap these days.

s2a-adamk
11-03-2002, 05:24 PM
Yes - 32 bit - but I thought we concluded that was out of the question? 24 bit TGA does not.

Whatever you do - don't depend on HD storage for 3 years of work.

a

ErickG
11-03-2002, 09:03 PM
You might want to consider a 160 gig firewire drive. You can buy these now for $300-$400 and store lots of frames. That is how I most of my clients give me frames for film-out these days.

-Erick

Lunatique
11-04-2002, 01:27 AM
It's unacceptable that in today's technology, we still have harddrives that drop dead without a warning. What good are super fast CPU's and huge RAM sizes if we can't trust our harddrives?

Man, I don't even want to think about the size of the files I'm about to deal with for the next 2~3 years.

derelict
11-05-2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Lunatique
It's unacceptable that in today's technology, we still have harddrives that drop dead without a warning. What good are super fast CPU's and huge RAM sizes if we can't trust our harddrives?

Man, I don't even want to think about the size of the files I'm about to deal with for the next 2~3 years.

However you look at it, you still have to face the music one way or another.:) Might as well start now and don't worry so much about all the details. Things are very funny sometimes, it always work out somehow. Like there is a CG angel looking over our work on a weekly basis!:)

Lunatique
11-05-2002, 12:46 AM
CG Angel. I like that. :)

Hahaha. My animated short happens to be ABOUT an angel fulfilling a promise to a mortal. So, it's funny you said CG angel.

CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 04:00 PM
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.