 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very cool graphics, IMO. Fur and water effects, especially.
Also, throughout the movie I noticed that the rendering style resembled
a lot Gilles Tran's works. That kind of warm smooth (often yellowish)
lighting which makes everything look realistic, yet not photorealistic.
Like for example:
http://www.oyonale.com/image.php?code=727&mode=info§ion=2004&lang=en
http://www.oyonale.com/image.php?code=491&mode=info§ion=1999&lang=en
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool as the graphics were, the storytelling was even better. This is why Pixar
is still head-and-shoulders above just about everyone else. They don't assume
their audiences are either complete morons or are all under age six. My two
cents.
--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Btw, there's a short animation in the DVD called "Lifted" which is
graphically perhaps even more impressive. And funny too.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Very cool graphics, IMO. Fur and water effects, especially.
>
> Also, throughout the movie I noticed that the rendering style resembled
> a lot Gilles Tran's works. That kind of warm smooth (often yellowish)
> lighting which makes everything look realistic, yet not photorealistic.
> Like for example:
I saw this movie a couple months ago. One of the best CG flicks yet.
That water was amazing (!) Nice touch with the blurred reflections as well.
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ratatouille is top-notch! I wasn't expecting to enjoy it, the plot revolving
yet another talking furry animal and... cooking?! No way it could be any good.
But Brad Bird subverted so many conventions to make the movie absolutely
adorable:
They are talking animals just among their peers, there's not a word exchanged
between the rat and the humans, who just hear squeaks;
The animals talk, but aren't the typical anthropomorphic fare of conventional
like a human and this serves both to satirize animal cartoons and to make clear
into the kitchen, he falls directly into the sink and inadvertdly takes a bath;
The food critic may look like a typical Disney villain, but has a very human
side;
Linguini under the control of the rat is just worth the movie alone. :)
So many good points I don't want to spoil. It's damn fun and the food looks
delicious. :)
Graphics are pure CG joy: the kitchen is stupendous, the fur and water vivid
and the chase scene in the middle of Paris memorable. The 2D-from-3D animated
Gusteau figures are a nice novelty. But really, best lighting and lighting
effects (including SSS) I've seen in CG movies so far.
I don't know if Ratatouille would match Gilles' view of Paris though, which
seems kinda "mouseless"... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I absolutely loved it :)
And speaking of Pixar, I read recently that Cars was entirely raytraced :)
(Side note of trivia: Each frame of Toy Story took about 10 minutes to
render, each frame of Cars took about 15 hours!)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> I absolutely loved it :)
>
> And speaking of Pixar, I read recently that Cars was entirely raytraced :)
Not sure. Renderman is capable of raytracing, but its main pipeline is a kind
of scanline: REYES. Besides, I think in the DVD they said the reflections on
the cars were limited to 2 or 3 bounces, not to bog it down indefinitely. And
all those desert scenaries surely don't require raytracing...
> (Side note of trivia: Each frame of Toy Story took about 10 minutes to
> render, each frame of Cars took about 15 hours!)
Really?! Even with all the better hardware?! :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>> I absolutely loved it :)
>>
>> And speaking of Pixar, I read recently that Cars was entirely raytraced :)
>
> Not sure. Renderman is capable of raytracing, but its main pipeline is a kind
> of scanline: REYES.
I'm aware of REYES, and the fact that previous movies were mostly
scanline rendered, with some raytracing thrown in. What I read was
actually that Cars was their first movie to be entirely raytraced,
meaning they didn't use the scanline renderer at all for it :)
Granted, the author could have been wrong about that.
> Besides, I think in the DVD they said the reflections on
> the cars were limited to 2 or 3 bounces, not to bog it down indefinitely.
That has nothing to do with whether or not it's raytraced. In fact,
POV-Ray lets you do this, too :)
>> (Side note of trivia: Each frame of Toy Story took about 10 minutes to
>> render, each frame of Cars took about 15 hours!)
>
> Really?! Even with all the better hardware?! :)
Yup. If you wanted to render a 2 hour movie in one year on a single
computer, that would yield 3 min 2.5 sec per frame. This lets us make
an educated guess about the size of their render farm.
Assuming they finished their final render in one year (8760 hours
processor time):
Toy Story: 3.28 Computers
Cars: 295.9 Computers
Assuming the final render finished in one month (720 hours processor time):
Toy Story: 39.3 Computers
Cars: 3550.8 Computers
Assuming the final render finished in one week (168 hours processor time):
Toy Story: 171 Computers
Cars: 15429 Computers
I think the actual number of computers at their disposal was something
like 40-50 for Toy Story (though I'm probably remembering this wrong).
I have no idea how many they used for Cars; it's conceivable at this
point that they have server farms of hundreds or thousands.
Of course, all the rendering isn't done straight through like that; the
artists do their daily work, and then submit their jobs for overnight
rendering (generating the digital equivalent of film dailies), so the
movie effectively gets rendering throughout the entire production cycle
of ~2years.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> I absolutely loved it :)
>
> And speaking of Pixar, I read recently that Cars was entirely raytraced :)
The Reyes renderer was extended to shade things using ray tracing.
According to the docs at graphics.pixar.com, they used ray-tracing to do
accurate reflections and ambient occlusion.
However, a reflected ray is only tested against objects within a certain
distance; if nothing intersects within that range, then the ray is fed
into the environment map and the results are taken from there.
The folks at Pixar do appreciate ray-tracing's elegance and capacity for
accurate reflections and refractions,
*BUT*
the ray-tracing algorithm requires that all of the scene geometry exist
in memory all at once. For Pixar's recent work this is likely
impossible on current machines; the stadium of cars in Cars probably had
many millions of scene-level objects.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan Byers wrote:
> Cool as the graphics were, the storytelling was even better. This is why Pixar
> is still head-and-shoulders above just about everyone else. They don't assume
> their audiences are either complete morons or are all under age six. My two
> cents.
Dreamworks, for pretty much its whole time in the business, has resorted
either to fairly predictable stories, or filling the flick with one gag
after the next. When the gags are good, like they were in Shrek and
Shrek II, the results are good, but when the gags are no longer funny
the film loses its appeal.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
