Pixar in a Box - Hackdot

Re:Pixar in a Box by rootbear on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @01:52PM (#11763843)

Twenty-four hours is not typical. I'm a bit out of date, but I think four hours is more common. On Toy Story, it was more like two. The increase is due mostly to the use of global illumination for nearly all scenes now. Renderman traditionally didn't do ray tracing or any other GI lighting. The modern version does, and it simple takes longer.

Higher resolution, and stereo (3D), are also to blame. Toy Story was rendered at less that 1080 HD resolution!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pixar in a Box by orbitur on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @02:22PM (#11764174)

Is there more info about the TS1 re-releases then? Based on your comment I started looking for info and verified that the original render was 1536x922, but there's no info about the work they put into the 3D version and Blu-Ray release.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pixar in a Box by tomvbussel on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @04:49PM (#11765339)

Seems like it took them a few minutes per frame to render TS1 in 2011 [1], not sure if that's with the higher resolution.

[1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-faster-would-it-be-to-render-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pixar in a Box by berkut on Tuesday May 24, 2016 @05:36PM (#11765707)

24 hours (wall clock, not CPU time) is a little long, but it's not unheard of.

With MC path tracing, the noise you get is pretty difficult to resolve, and a lot of companies are using denoisers afterwards to clean up the renders, as it's just not cost-effective to keep them rendering to that extent as denoising is faster.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pixar in a Box by tbabb on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @03:07AM (#11768139)

> Twenty-four hours is not typical. [...] four hours is more common.

I'm in the industry, and [citation needed]. Four hours is not remotely typical for a final render frame, especially now that path tracers are the de facto standard.

[ Parent | on HN ]