View Full Version : how did they made transformers?

06-28-2007, 11:11 AM
super extra ultra cool movie....i just saw it...yeah it's premiered first in asia in case someone asking...
well, is lightwave involved?

(i'm still looking for my dropped jaw...if someone find it, please let me know...)

sean hargreaves
06-28-2007, 01:08 PM
It was done mainly at I.L.M. using Maya and proprietary software. Some of the more complex SINGLE FRAMES took 35 hours to render!

06-29-2007, 02:20 AM
35 hours one frame in most complex scene...

the result is really amazing...i'm shocked and adore in the same time...much like seeing macross zero and evangelion in one movie...


07-02-2007, 08:31 PM
I would imagine, that at that rate, it would take almost a year to render the whole thing!! I'm patient, but not that patiant...

07-03-2007, 12:52 PM
Or several hundred render nodes.

Which - strangely enough - ILM does have.

Now that does make me envious.


sean hargreaves
07-03-2007, 01:19 PM
I've heard that the effects are some of the most amazing ever seen. And that the movie as a fun summer blockbuster is well worth it. I love robots! :thumbsup:

07-03-2007, 01:21 PM
didnt they just use the "make transformers" plugin?

sean hargreaves
07-03-2007, 01:34 PM
Shhhhhhh, don't tell everyone!!

07-03-2007, 01:39 PM
35 hours to render ???
No matter how complex a frame can be, it's horrifying that it takes so long in 2007 with today's super-fast computers!

sean hargreaves
07-03-2007, 01:51 PM
I'm at effects company in LA right now, very reputable, and some of their more complex renders can take 3 days. And thats with major hardware running. You can render the same scene and split it up 3-4 ways to have 3-4 machines rendering the one scene at once and it still takes long.

sean hargreaves
07-03-2007, 01:54 PM
I hav'nt seen Transformers yet, but the robots have loads of parts, and loads of changing bits. I know they tried to keep morphing down to a minimum, so in effect, they really are rendered machines with just tons of pieces. It was a ton of work, even for the I.L.M. boys. The textures on the robots are mad!

jin choung
07-04-2007, 02:55 PM
and regards to this: the "in this day and age" doesn't mean anything in vfx.

the more they got, the more they push.

also, i'd be surprised if 35 hours per frame were some kind of new milestone.... i would imagine the waterfx for something like poc or poseidon to be multiples of that....


jin choung
07-04-2007, 02:57 PM
also... ilm? i wonder what happened... didn't michael bay and some financing firm acquire (as in purchase lock stock and barrel) dd to work on this?


07-04-2007, 04:55 PM
DD was involved as well.

35 hours / frame isn't much if you see what they accomplished. Also, bare in mind that they render in 4k res, which requires ALOT more work than HD. And, HD requires alot more work than PAL/NTSC...

Treebeard in Lord of The Rings could take 40-50 hours/frame when closeup.

07-05-2007, 08:16 AM
Byup. Machine power is all great and groovy, but as they get faster, we just get to shove more detail into our scenes. 35 hours a frame's not really insanely long, when you've got walls of thousands of machines.

07-05-2007, 08:24 AM
i belive houdini was involved in the production as well as maya.

07-05-2007, 08:47 AM
i belive houdini was involved in the production as well as maya.

Surely not, there can only be one :D

07-05-2007, 08:54 AM
yeah...maya seems to always get the ''title'' of THE 3d app used...of course we know that everything and the kitchen sink is used on productions...poser was used on the matrix for example for blocking out storyboards.

07-05-2007, 06:13 PM
poser was used on the matrix for example for blocking out storyboards.

Ohhh.. that explains why the 2nd and 3rd movies sucked so badly..!

jin choung
07-05-2007, 10:02 PM
just came back from watching. we'll leave out the stuff about clumsy plot construction with lots of holes.

but in terms of backstory mythology... pretty cool. where our tech comes from. why they transform in the first place.... pretty good foundation for a series.

personally, i think the transformations and the robots themselves were TOO complicated and intricate.

it really gets lost as NOISE. too high frequency.

they should have simplified and made the silhouettes read better.

the fact that they roll around during combat really makes you cock (hahaha... i said cock) your head and wonder what the hell it is exactly that you're looking at.

weird noses and lips and eyes. they could learn a thing or too from the cartoon.


sean hargreaves
07-06-2007, 12:06 PM
I hav'nt seen it yet, but it looks like infinite detail, which is a problem if they're fighting or flying around.
Looking forward to seeing it though!

07-06-2007, 10:42 PM

I have to agree with you. The thing that really irked me was all that quick camera movement. It made me think they were trying to hide something. Maybe those intricate transformations weren't altogether smooth. They should have put lead boots on the camera man.

07-08-2007, 10:21 AM
Personally, I loved the complexity of the bots as well as the fast camera. The film, in spite of its cheesy plot, was just jaw-dropping and the action sequences were bad as hell. I highly recommend this film, in spite of the kiddy appeal.

sean hargreaves
07-09-2007, 09:56 AM
Well, I saw it. I was happy and sad at the result.

My review:

1) First attack was the best.
2) The 'epileptic camera' was annoying. I mean, shaky long lens....aaaarrrggghhhhh!
3) Little radio robot was totally annoying.
4) Bumblebee rocks.
5) Story was ok.
6) Lead kid needed to tone his schtick down 50%.
7) Transformations were way more morphed, and faster than I thought.
8) CG was incredible, it looked real.

All in all, I would say 7 out of 10.

07-09-2007, 07:03 PM
3) Little radio robot was totally annoying.

I agree. Someone please kill the psychotic radio robot in T2.

07-09-2007, 08:37 PM

35 hours / frame isn't much if you see what they accomplished. Also, bare in mind that they render in 4k res, which requires ALOT more work than HD. And, HD requires alot more work than PAL/NTSC...

Treebeard in Lord of The Rings could take 40-50 hours/frame when closeup.
Very good remark Cageman!

07-09-2007, 10:18 PM
3) Little radio robot was totally annoying.

Extremely annoying.
What's this thing about having to add low-brow "comedy relief" to movies such as this? It would have been fine to keep the character, but making it psychotic and rambling craziness? Would have been a lot cooler if it acted more intelligently. I cringed whenever I saw it.

Classic example of this type of character is Jar Jar Binks, the character so bad we dare not speak his name. Oh darn.

jin choung
07-10-2007, 12:18 AM
actually, a better example imo is the droid army guys in episode 1. they're the BAD GUYS. they're supposed to be threatening....

and yet they go around going "roger roger"?!

yah, they gotta be more intelligent about what they make into a comedy device.


Mr Rid
07-10-2007, 03:53 AM
"When they meet Shia [LaBeouf] for the first time in the alley at night, that's 36 hours per frame to render, which is a lot of computer memory."


Its good to understand ILMs Zeno platform that makes conversions transparent to the artists.
Rhythm and Hues uses a similar type of proprietary 'hub' that allows multiple artists to work on the same 'scene' or comp and always be working with the latest versions of elements or rigs. Is more effecient than the traditonal 'assemply line' pipeline.

"... in addition to Optimus Prime's 10,108 parts, there are also 1.8 million polygons and 2,000 texture maps."

"Our render farm has about 3,000 processors and we have a proprietary tool that lets unused desktops become part of the render pool at night, so we can scale up to over 4,000 processors."

Network bandwidth- "Every artist has one gig to the desk and 10GB is the backbone infrastructure."