Are game engines the future of rendering?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by spurcell: -did I mention the quality is extremely poor compared to prerendered images?


Did you still think the quality is extremely poor compared to let's say this 2010 unfinished picture ?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aPaggnRB4..._effects_v2.jpg

But don't get me wrong. I think the features offered by current game rendering engines can't get you that typical Vray accurate unbiased interior lighting. If that's what needed for your project I would recommend Vray.

But you can get so much more with a game engine than "Call of Duty" quality as I pointed out in my previous posts.
I will paste here as well the tests posted in the other thread. Notice how the color and lighting on the real person will change if the environment is also changed




Last edited by sebastian___ : 03 March 2013 at 06:44 PM.
 
  03 March 2013
I don't think the quality is that much of an issue anymore. The realtime engines have a very presentable quality these days. The areas they lack in, I very much doubt clients are visually trained enough to notice the differences between a realtime and Vray render without putting the two renders side by side.

What is an issue is royalties and hardware

Cryengine wants a 20% cut of your total profits for the project if you use their engine for commercial purposes...or $1.4million to outright license it for a single product. Sure it's 100% free for non-commercial or educational use, which is great, but we live in a commercial world. 20% per project is a LOT more expensive than a one-time cost for buying a license of vray and a few render machines.

The other huge issue is expecting the client to have a modern PC running one of the latest graphics cards, a compatible OS, having enough memory, and being tech savvy enough to install it.

You just know a client is going to download your 2.3 gig install file and call you because their fat32 Windows XP won't finish writing the file to disk because it's beyond the 2 gig limit for fat32. Or they'll try to install it on their 7 year old mac and call you about why they can't get it to play. Or they'll get it running on their $400 laptop and complain how slow it is and how terrible it looks compared to how nice and smooth it looked on your high end PC. Or they'll email you from their ipad saying they can't find the app after they downloaded it.

Last edited by sentry66 : 03 March 2013 at 07:49 PM.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by sentry66: The other huge issue is expecting the client to have a modern PC running one of the latest graphics cards, a compatible OS, having enough memory, and being tech savvy enough to install it.

You just know a client is going to download your 2.3 gig install file and call you because their fat32 Windows XP won't finish writing the file to disk because it's beyond the 2 gig limit for fat32. Or they'll try to install it on their 7 year old mac and call you about why they can't get it to play. Or they'll get it running on their $400 laptop and complain how slow it is and how terrible it looks compared to how nice and smooth it looked on your high end PC. Or they'll email you from their ipad saying they can't find the app after they downloaded it.

The final output would still probably be a frame dump or video file. You may not even use the engine for final image, but instead output elements and comp it traditionally. Either way, it'd be crazy to have hardware requirements for a client, unless they specifically wanted a realtime demo you could roam around in. In that case, you are basically back to being a game or simulation and there would be no other option in the first place.
__________________
.brett
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by sebastian___: Notice how the color and lighting on the real person will change if the environment is also changed

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're doing a green screen mask around the whole actor. So if the director says "Now let's do a close up from the front", the lighting won't wrap round the actor's face from dark one side to a lighter shade on the other, with a self-shadow under the nose? To get really pedantic about it, would the actor's eyes have a glint of the environment lighting, would light bounce off him to contribute to the scene and shadows fall off him to the ground?

I believe in the hobbit, they have real trees on set so you'd get all those details for free, and then use virtual cg trees in the background to fill gaps and make it look more dense. Or in Avatar where the actors are also cg.

Jules
 
  03 March 2013
I thought all sebastian's shots were 100% digitally rendered in cryengine. The digital actors would receive and cast shadows and basic GI bounce light as well as blurry reflections
 
  03 March 2013
The gap is closing, but the hardware becomes more powerful and there's less need to switch to any game engine. Redshift for example does what Vray but I guess faster by using GPU. 1 minute for an HD interior frame run on Titan is quite enough for me. And it's super-noise free (this render is not mine).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjCg...player_embedded

If I can render 1 minute of animation in 2 hours, this is very good for 1 videocard. It's 3 minutes in 5 hours, and 5 minutes if you leave it rendering overnight.
I remember my estimations for SD rendering 5 years ago, and it would take me several months of constant rendering on my single machine for 5 minutes animation of a similar quality. I'd be more than happy with this result.

Last edited by mister3d : 03 March 2013 at 08:40 AM.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan: Why? Who is behind it? I can understand though if it is tied to an NDA.
But somebody is putting money behind realtime game engines to make a movie?

It seems weird that someone would push this hard for something that has, as everybody has pointed out, predefined disadvantages that are innate to its design.


Not a movie, just architectural visualization work.
 
  03 March 2013
Game engines can produce amazing pictures already and it is fantastic how much they get out of the resources available.

But achieving absolute photo realism... I don't mean good looking stuff, I mean stuff that looks like it was shot for real? Long way to go. But once they are there, wheee

Cheers
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by sebastian___:
So what's the benefit then with a cryengine render ? The benefit is the-what-you-see-is-what-you-get workflow. The fact that the lower quality preview in viewport in 98 % similar to the final image you get with a 1 minute render per frame.



This is true, but also Autodesk, Blender, and other 3D apps are going into GPU-based realtime rendering. So what would the advantages of CryEngine be when those technologies reach maturity?

@Jules123: Any chance we can see video of what this greenscreen work with CryEngine looked like?
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
  03 March 2013
Something I miss in these software&GPU render discussions is the fact that you can focus on elemental features in a software renderer like renderman and thus get massive output and crank up the quality if needed. Many of those "realtime" renderers give you a quick preview, but the actual frame calculation takes a lot longer. BTW I find this type of feature not very useful whether we are talking software or GPU rendering since because it helps me only for a small part of the actual work which is tuning materials, textures and light properties on a finer level. So while I definitely can see huge improvements on the GPU end of things I still prefer the quality of software renderers/raytracers. Maybe it is because I work mostly on digital characters where I would say that hair is still a big issue even for software renderers/raytracers.
__________________
Digital Characters R&D - Suntoucher Labs
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Buexe: Many of those "realtime" renderers give you a quick preview, but the actual frame calculation takes a lot longer

Probably very useful for animation. I haven't used Octane Render or Redshift but I can imagine you can control the number of samples to render per pixel per frame. So if you can want a quick noisy render of the animation sequence to check things etc, you'd set a small number of samples.

CGIPadawan, sorry, I've washed my hands of Crytek. They treated me very poorly with the whole NDA affair.

Jules
 
  03 March 2013
Studios working in vfx and animation are already looking at game technologies for inspiration, and not just the real-time render aspect of it - but how they deal with things like physics, textures, lighting, AI and environments.

In terms of the game-engine renderer, I see two potential uses for it.

The first is for visualization, allowing the director to get a better idea of what the shot will look like while doing pre-vis, when shooting the film onset or doing post-vis.

The second is for final rendering, in this instance I don't think you should think of it as a 'game-engine' anymore and rather as a 'film-engine'. In fact sebastian___ is already doing this and others have done it previously using things like Maya's hardware renderer - for example the flames on the Balrog in the first LOTR were done using particle sprites and the hardware renderer. The goal is not necessarily to render everything in the shot or even have things run at a constantly high frame rate (24-60 fps) or have it even be interactive - the goal is too quickly render elements which will work on screen.

The big problem with this through is that it typically requires the maintenance of two different sets of assets for certain things like models, textures and rigs. Also if you want the game-engine to look comparable to your software-renderer (including the GPU accelerated ones) of choice you need to maintain the same surface shaders, light shaders and LUTs across both.
 
  03 March 2013
Originally Posted by Jules123: on your website. Maybe CryEngine is not the right way to go though?


I understand that discussion here centers about the speed of rendering. And how cryengine or udk can do 2 seconds renders per frame but they are still not as useful because emerging GPU renderers offers 1 minute render per frame but with a higher quality.

Well for me as I said before, is not about that. It doesn't matter if XY software could achieve 1 minute per frame. It would have to be at least 25 frames per second and at the same time it would have to render tons of foliage and objects and all the effects from the final render.

And the second reason for cryengine was the workflow and the nature building tools. In fact for me, a cryengine competitor is not 3ds max or Vray but the E-on Vue or similar nature building and instancing plugins for 3ds max.

I used to work many years in 3ds max and when I found E-on Vue it was a revelation. Everything was perfect, it had wonderful tools for nature except because of the interaction speed it was almost unusable, at least compared to cryengine. And you had a small interactive render I think 100 pixels by 100 or something similar where you couldn't see anything and even that was not real-time but very slow.
 
  03 March 2013
Game Engines are a PART of the future, not THE future.

By that I mean that they have gotten to the point where they can be acceptable alternatives to getting a final result, depending on what you need.

I don't think they will completely replace current render workflows as each of these platforms have their strengths and final objectives which will scale with computer power. But... I DO think that any 3D artist would be remissed in not taking the gaming engine tools seriously, learning them well and using them in their bag of tricks.
__________________
-

Visual Engineering, Inc.
Creative Communication | Industry Consultation
 
  03 March 2013
Thanks God Autodesk bought competition, or we would already been in the future.
Now, we don't have to worry that much (and hurry learning), because software is much slower advancing, then it would with the right competition.

I also think that, at one point, GPU real-time rendering will totally replace standard method.
10 years from now (maybe), and I think we will have in realtime everything we need to calculate now. For example cloth... or fluids... at one point it won't matter will you place cloth with 5000000 polygons, or with 50 million polygons (which will slow you down a bit), because the difference will not be noticeable (same for the fluid grid).
__________________
Now it's the time to be extreme!
Demoreel
website
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.