 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is exactly why most productions will use renderers geared toward
utmost speed.
In vfx production raytracing is more often than not a last resort, or
only used for very select elements in a shot.
The speed you can get out of modern scanline/REYES renderers these days
is absolutely mad. Couple this with a well thought out pipeline based on
reusability of cached render data, and the whole process of rendering
thousands of entirely cg frames starts to seem realistic! (also a farm
of a couple of hundred processors kinda helps).
A lot of the effects that raytracing grant you can be either:
-faked using creative empirical methods
-baked out to point or rasta data cahes to be re-used for subsequent
renders (effectively turning an expensive ray call into a simple map
look-up ( which has further benefits if you use a mip-mapped data format
( these can exist for 2d and 3d data! ) ) )
- or restricted to specific passes, so that when you do need to
raytrace, you contrive your scene to trace against an absolute minimum
of participating geometry.
The other (vital) aspect to production renderers is programmable shading
languages. Having very low level conrol over shading lets you tune the
shading of a scene to do the bare minimum
of shading computations to get a frame out at an acceptable quality and
time frame. And with programmable shaders, you aren't locked into
someone else's idea of what a certain effect should look like, or how it
should be calculated. Nearly every shot in every sequence on every show
needs to be tweaked and tuned uniquely to make sure you get the
bang-for-the-buck into the image, and the image out on time!
benpee
www.rsp.com.au
EagleSun wrote:
>
>
>BOOM! Oh how I wish all you guys's comments were true and that I was
>joking... unfortunately, Jeberger guessed correctly (sortof...)
>
>I found a parameter that can lead to a perfect render of earth, it's called
>"sample". I entered some blow-out number and clicked on "Run" to render
>the image. And yes, I forgot to turn on anti-alias.
>
>Despite its small size, this render took 1 HOUR to render a simple 256^2
>image!
>
>This gets worse...
>
>I'm working on a movie where the screen resolution will be 1280 x 720.
>Assume I don't need to anti-alias (which I do), I'll render a single frame
>for about 14 hours! Since the scene should be about 2 minutes long, where
>the frame rate will be 24 fps, that's going to take me 40 THOUSAND HOURS!
>In simple terms, this translates to 1,687.5 days, or 4 years and 7 months..
>assuming optimal and continuous rendering conditions 24x7 on a 2.6 GHz
>system!http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen/sneakpeek/boulder.html
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplace com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4489c9ef$1@news.povray.org...
because it's so good you had the feeling you were leaving earth and you were
getting homesick?
My speech, Zeger!
Best greetings,
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Because your girl-friend left you over the rendering and all the time you
spent with it?
Seriously: maybe because that gray zone before the night comes?
By the way, it just looks great! I like it very much! I don't mind if you
publish the code here... :-)
Greetings,
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think that there are services which rent united computer powers to render
artists. But mi no know nuttn bout dat. Yu fi check inna di Web. It might
even cost something, dependent on the various service providers.
Best greetings,
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder how long that would take on my system. Do you want me to test? If
my result is not too bad, I wouldn't mind to offer you render time on my
machine. Just a certain amount of frames you give meprepared as scene file
(inclusive clock values). You could/should divide this job to several
friends if they agree, each handling an amount of frames.
For me, I am offering it to you. My machine runs 24/7, so why not. :-)
Greetings,
Sven
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just saw it! Great hint! Thanks,
Sven
"Florian Brucker" <tor### [at] torfboldcom> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4489f7c0$1@news.povray.org...
>> that's going to take me 40 THOUSAND HOURS!
>
> www.imp.org :)
>
>
> HTH,
> Florian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sven Littkowski" <sve### [at] jamaica-focuscom> wrote:
> I wonder how long that would take on my system. Do you want me to test? If
> my result is not too bad, I wouldn't mind to offer you render time on my
> machine. Just a certain amount of frames you give meprepared as scene file
> (inclusive clock values). You could/should divide this job to several
> friends if they agree, each handling an amount of frames.
>
> For me, I am offering it to you. My machine runs 24/7, so why not. :-)
>
> Greetings,
>
> Sven
Hi Sven!
Nice of you to offer.... I posted my source code already on the news site
that you recommended... just download it... I also posted a few lines that
will get you started in rendering Earth.... all you need on your part is 3
things: Earth map, Earth bump map, and clouds... .which I think you already
have.
You can send me email at "aitfrog" at "yahoo" dot "com".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> "EagleSun" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> Can anyone guess why this render made me cry?
>
>
> Antialiasing?
>
> Norbert Kern
More importantly, what is the global warming situation like in 4039?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
