a matter of time (for your eyes only)

Let’s say you want to make a movie… mmmmmm… about 1 hr. duration ???

And after working hard, you just got the best image you can.

It took… mmmmmm what about… 20 minutes ???

OK, now:

1 hour = 60 minutes
60 min. x 60 sec. = 3,600 sec.

you must render at least 24 frames per second so:

3,600 sec. x 24 = 86,400 frames

remember your render time ???

86,400 frames x 20 = 1,728,000 minutes

1,728,000 / 60 = 28,800 hrs.
28,800 hrs. / 24 = 1,200 days
1,200 / 365 = 3.29 YEARS

That of course IF your computer is ON
ALL DAY LONG !!!

Sooooo… you better hurry finishing your modeling, texturing, UV mapping, lighting, composing, making dialogs, recording those dialogs, making music, recording that music, mix all of them…

Don’t forget post-production

See you in 4 years !!!
:smiley: :slight_smile: :frowning: :o :-? :stuck_out_tongue:

:wink:

Aleks 8)

C&C Welcome ! :smiley: :smiley:

Comments from the author:
I made this for you to laugh… or to think ! (when i was waiting for a looooong render :wink: ) No intentions to hurt anyone’s feelings.

Anyway, this only works if you have a “squared mind”

-edited-

o…my…god… :o

I haven’t thought about it that way…(but i’ve got an imacG5 so it takes a year to render :P)

Job: if you have an IMac G670 :stuck_out_tongue: but it takes 20 min. to render ??? they are still 4 years !!!
:smiley: :smiley:

Render in passes
Composite in post
Avoid raytracing where possible
Efficient models
Efficient lighting
Multiple renderboxes

These things will effectively reduce the time to completion.

that’s a good example of why people use render farms…

i found this rather amusing…

Regards,
~Delta

At places like Pixar, don’t they say it takes about 300 man-years to make one movie?

Plus they have the top-of-the-line computers and it usually takes 6 hours to render one frame. I think 90 hours was their highest.

:o

-Laurifer

???
what’s the problem? You think you can animate a 1 hour movie that is interesting to watch in only 3 years by yourself? Hell, I’ll donate you 10 machines to render in 4 months. But somehow I doubt it, seeing the credit list of The Incredibles. And I know it takes me a week or 3 to make 30 seconds of attractive animation.

…seeing the credit list of The Incredibles

That makes you think, doesn’t it. If they have, say 50 animators (which doesn’t seem to far off if I remember how long the list was). Then they are responsible for about 2 minutes of animation throught the entire film during the course of the movie.

2 minutes is more than people think it is but if you had 6 months to do it, that’s 20 seconds a month, that’s not bad :).

Who’d be crazy enough to wait one year for everything to render. I wouldn’t. You’d need something powerful.

You’d need something powerful.

Or just turn raytracing off. After one motion project I did where I had a fully reflective floor I have tried as hard as I could to forsake raytracing unless is it necessary for some effects (like raytraced transparencies, which actually isn’t that CPU intensive).

haha, yes. It’s about right I think. But ofcourse not everybody gets 2 minutes of the movie (hihi, I’ll do 59:00:01 till 1.00:59:24 ) . You would do all the lipsink of elastigirl and I’ll do all the hair that the dynamics mess up.

Which reminds me … does anybody know how the Blender distributed rendering project is doing?

Hahahah, ofcourse it is, silly man. All of them.
You are not going to make this 1 hour movie on your ZX80 now are you?
Just send me the file and I’ll render a frame or 2 for you.

The last thing I heard it was doing pretty well.
There where some troubles with the particles and Goofster (I think) fixed it.

Now you want a link… :frowning: maybe the search can help you out.

The last thing I heard it was doing pretty well.
There where some troubles with the particles and Goofster (I think) fixed it.

Now you want a link… :frowning: maybe the search can help you out.[/quote]

i think he might have meant the other kind of distributed rendering…

but i could use a link to either one.

When you are working on a single still-image, you might be able to afford long render-times; but with an animation, for the reasons aforesaid, you can’t. You need results quickly, and you need to be able to change and adjust things without “starting over” at any point.

The single biggest discovery I have made, in terms of overall workflow and completion-time, is this notion of rendering in many discrete strips of film and compositing the results together using the Sequence Editor. For example, a background image for a camera that does not move is … one frame, rendered once. The motion of a piece of machinery in the background is … one cycle of its movement, duplicated as often as necessary. This strip might have motion-blur, unless the simple Blur sequence-filter gives acceptable results as it very often does. (Two or three copies of the same strip, offset by a couple of frames and softened, can also “fake” motion blur very cheaply.)

“Shadow-only” materials, alpha=0.0 ‘blue screen’ scrims, and other camera-tricks allow you to get what you need for very realistic compositing.

I use Unix “makefiles” to specify what depends on what, so I can re-generate a scene or even a movie with a single command, “make.” Nice thing to do before going to bed.

It’s absolutely critical that you make the problem you want the computer to solve be as simple as possible. This means that you rarely “imitate reality.” Instead, you cheat like hell. For example, I made a very plausible imitation of an Ambient-Occlusion (AO) look by using layer-lights… lights that only “see” objects in certain layers and therefore shine right through “solid” objects in other ones. Misty sunlight streaming through the high windows of a factory … was painted in: the yellow planes that looked like lighted windows provided no light. (They didn’t need to… the slightest visual cue, coupled with the viewer’s knowledge of how the real world works, carries the shot nicely.) And so on and on and on.

  1. Use one of the free renderfarms (www.renderplanet.com)

  2. Bake lighting and textures to all opaque, non-moving meshes. (Oh wait, that’s not available in Blender! exports .obj files to Maya, renders UV-mapped lighting, then re-imports back into Blender)

Bake lighting and textures to all opaque

What does it mean?

And to the render time… At work i’ve G5 dual processor 2 Ghz. When I tried to render in Yafray directly from Blender I noticed only minor improvement of speed with 2 processors turned on. It might be even caused only by using another apps during render (i must pretend i’m bussy here at work :wink: )
Is that option working or not? :slight_smile:

I read that multithreading is planned for the next release. I’m looking forward to that becuse I have a dual processor machine laying around that I want to use soon without having to run more than one instance of Blender.

“Baking” is where it does all of the calculations once and then saves the result so that it doesn’t have to do it again. In other words, if you have a really complex scene and the only thing that needs dynamic lighting are the characters, you “bake” the lighting for all the stuff. So it takes the result of the texturing and lighting and it then makes a big texture of the end result, placing it back on the models. So it looks like it’s doing really cool lighting effects but in reality it’s just a texture of the end result of when it did the lighting calculations once. The nice thing about this as compared to compositing is that you can still move however you want within the 3D environment without the restriction of having a flat background.

I will often DRAW soft shadows into the UV textures of architecture just so I don’t have to set up that kind of lighting rig. Rendering time goes down, and I have the shadow exactly how I want it without having to tweak those bloody spotlight settings.

No kidding. I have said a few times, “If you have something that looks really good and it doesn’t take long to render than you are doing something right.” I often tell people that if you want tips on making good stuff in Blender that renders quickly, look at what they do in video games! Talk about cheating! But still, it all looks REALLY good. If you pulled the same stunts that are used in the game industry you’ll have really fast renders. Then just add a few slow features to make it look more believable (buffered shadows, etc)

Man, I always tell people that if they want to be good CG artists they really need to take art classes. If you do that you’ll be more capable to “cheat like hell” because you know how nature works, you will understand how lighting effects objects, and you’ll be able to just draw that stuff into your textures without having the computer figure it out. For example that UV mapped ship I’m working I drew in soft shadows and reflected light under the wing. It looks so much more beleivable because I did that regardless if the light is actually coming from that direction or not.

When drawing still-lifes in class our instructor told us “don’t draw what you see, draw what you want to see.” Make that apple more intense red so you are drawn to it. Fix the lighting. Move that shadow so it looks interesting. Art isn’t always about photorealism. Just make something that is fun to look at. That’s why knowing the principles of design are so important.

Crap, i need to make a video tutorial about that :). I need to give people a quick art class.

Wow, this has turned into a really good discussion. People really need to learn that cheating can get you places in life :).

First i want to thank you all, for your comments. I must say that i prefer the positive ones (just a personnal preference :wink: )

I though about it when i was waiting (as said before) for a long render, and specially after a nice render i did that liked A LOT, and render time was 30 SECONDS (Blender / Yafray / HDRI)

In order of appearance:
Fweeb: Advices like that are very welcome, they give us (me in the first place) some clues about how to taclke a big project, i thought about some of them due to illustration experience ( i had to tell !!!)

Delta: I’m new to render farms, but think they are a good option, freeones … better.

Laurifer: didn’t know about that 300 man-years wooow that’s incredible. The last reference i got was a single frame 40 hours render (bugs movie)

whatever: i don’t see this like a “problem”… must like a challenge !!!. I don’t have that movie in question, maybe just the idea, but i will remember your promise (donate 10 machines), believe me !!! :smiley: .

And i must say this, a big project needs big people (of course not talking about just one !!!) Bright ideas, lot of work, a large quantity of entusiasm… (more to ad)

Metsys: more calculus to make ?? :wink:

Kansas: I’m not planning to wait for so long, and hopefully computers will be more powerfull (64 bit was a dream…now it is a reality). i remember (and still have with me) my very first computer, a commodore 64 !!!
But at the present day IT IS possible to make a 3D movie, just have to think big :-?

Metsys: now we are on the road… :smiley: These kind of advices are welcomed

whatever:

I’ll do all the hair that the dynamics mess up
you’ve got it man… begin now !!! :smiley: :smiley:

sundialsvc4: i only want to thank your excellent comments (so; no more words added)

RipSting:

Use one of the free renderfarms
Thanks

Oh wait, that’s not available in Blender! *exports .obj files to Maya
I… 'll let you know when i purchase Maya :smiley: :smiley:

Metsys: great comments (no more words)

Aleks 8)