PDA

View Full Version : Transformer specs!



sean hargreaves
07-03-2007, 06:28 PM
Guys, transformers is supposed to really be amazing, fx wise.

there are 6.5 million polys in Optimus Prime.

There are 6,000 pieces that made up O.P.

Yikes!

hyperfx
07-03-2007, 08:22 PM
I saw the movie yesterday and was totally blown away! AMAZING. It was a visual feast. And the sound fx... Wow! The textures..Wow. I hope they make a sequel.

Bytehawk
07-04-2007, 03:13 AM
don't forget the hot chicks
those were rendered beautifully too :)

LW_Will
07-05-2007, 01:34 AM
WOW! 6.5 Million Polygons... that explains it.

That is why it looks so bad, they all get up and move when it transforms...

Sorry guys... did not like the movie... wanted to, but the movie failed. The three screenplays that Bay just threw together and it doesn't work. Some really cool action scenes, few good jokes, but Optimus Prime shouldn't say,"My bad."

And the chicks were hot... but not enough to help the movie.

Zane Condren
07-08-2007, 04:00 PM
I saw it last night, I had heard all the hype. I think it is the best action movie so far this year.

Wickster
07-09-2007, 12:09 AM
Am I the only one who is starting to think that the movie was good because of the choreography and cinematography? I mean yeah the FX was great but the camera was usually moving so fast or obscured by debris that you can't really appreciate the transforming and the fights. King Kong had the best CG fighting in my opinion still.

Transforming was a great movie but everytime I start to think the upcoming sequence will be better, its over too quickly. The Bumblebee vs. Barricade fight for example, they start to fight --> cut to Shia and Meagan --> cut to Bumblebee walking victorious. Where is the big gorilla fighting off 3 T-Rex for a good chunk of the movie?

I'm not saying that Transformers isn't one of the best movies out, it is. I just wanted to see more action with the Transformers. The choreography and cinematography was great though, Starscream doing aerial acrobatics and those transform while in mid-action sequences.

Still waiting for my guy, Omega Supreme transforming into an aircraft carrier.

Just my thought guys. :)

wavk
07-09-2007, 01:48 AM
6,000 pieces?

quote 'The original Optimus Prime action figure has 51 pieces; the movie version has 10,108.'

im not gonna animate that by hand ! :)

http://vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=57c5ed8a&atype=articles&id=3337


mlon

Edbittner
07-09-2007, 04:15 AM
Yes 10,108.
E.

Mr Rid
07-10-2007, 03:52 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."

http://www.vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=319b255d&atype=articles&id=3337&page=1

Its good to understand ILMs Zeno platform that makes conversions transparent to the artists.
http://vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=1e242f07&atype=articles&id=2608&page=2
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."

oDDity
07-10-2007, 03:59 AM
I don't understand how it can take 36 hours to render a frame if you have 3000 processors.

voriax
07-10-2007, 04:29 AM
Maybe one computer would take 36 hours to render a frame - I wouldn't doubt that. But then every 36 hours you'd have 3000 frames rendered.
Wordplay to make the time sound extravagantly huge.

Brian Arndt
07-10-2007, 08:01 AM
I thought it was great! and campy enough to fit the old transformers!

Andyjaggy
07-10-2007, 08:25 AM
Yeah that has to be 36 hours per computer. I should hope anyway. Otherwise I think someone needs to do some optimizing!

CMT
07-10-2007, 09:07 AM
Even if only a 1/3 the movie's frames took 36 hours each to render, it would take over 200 years to render them all. They have to be talking about 36 hours on just one computer otherwise it's impossible to finish.

The movie itself was a dissappointment. Overly complex modeling and overly shakey camerawork made 90% of the fights confusing to watch. Dialog sucked IMO and was even more hokey than the original cartoons I loved as a kid, but this movie had an overall older audience, so the dialog should have reflected that.

Parts were dragged out, others not given enough time....

I had high hopes for this one, I really wanted this to be a great movie, but I gave it a C-.

Edbittner
07-11-2007, 06:57 AM
Even if only a 1/3 the movie's frames took 36 hours each to render, it would take over 200 years to render them all. They have to be talking about 36 hours on just one computer otherwise it's impossible to finish.

The movie itself was a dissappointment. Overly complex modeling and overly shakey camerawork made 90% of the fights confusing to watch. Dialog sucked IMO and was even more hokey than the original cartoons I loved as a kid, but this movie had an overall older audience, so the dialog should have reflected that.

Parts were dragged out, others not given enough time....

I had high hopes for this one, I really wanted this to be a great movie, but I gave it a C-.

I could not disagree more heartedly. I thought the "Michael Bay" style of filming lent reality to the subject matter. Everything was treated as though it was happening on set. No slow-down for FX. Remember Batman Begins? you could hardly see the fight scenes because of quick editing, and frankly, that is the nature of situations such as those. It's a blur. Do I wish I could have seen more? Sure. That would have, however, diminished the in-camera realism of the shooting style.
E.

Cageman
07-11-2007, 08:01 AM
I don't understand how it can take 36 hours to render a frame if you have 3000 processors.

36 hours/frame/cpu...

CMT
07-11-2007, 10:48 AM
I could not disagree more heartedly. I thought the "Michael Bay" style of filming lent reality to the subject matter. Everything was treated as though it was happening on set. No slow-down for FX. Remember Batman Begins? you could hardly see the fight scenes because of quick editing, and frankly, that is the nature of situations such as those. It's a blur. Do I wish I could have seen more? Sure. That would have, however, diminished the in-camera realism of the shooting style.
E.

Story, content, and dialog, and understanding the moment are paramount over camera "style". There's a point where you can overdo the "realism" of the camera movement for sake of style. And that point was leaped past many times.

Michael Bay's style IMO hurt the movie more than helped. Batman Begins I didn't have much of a problem with because at least I could make out that his fist was hitting someone's face. Not so with this film. This is definately a case of style over content.

There were moments that I thought were really cool, but when I left the theater, instead of thinking about those cool parts, I found myself thinking I missed half the movie because I couldn't see what was going on. I don't know about everyone else, but when I watch an action movie, I not only want to know who just hit who, I want to feel the power of the fight. Not the confusing nature of it.

CMT
07-11-2007, 10:51 AM
36 hours/frame/cpu...

Is that how they do it? Render 3000 seperate frames with 3000 computers all at once? or do 3000 computers share rendering 1 frame in 6 minutes then move on to the next?

kjl
07-11-2007, 04:13 PM
Technically amazing, lots of moving parts, yes. Worst character design ever, though - no coherent silhouette so you couldn't make out arms, legs, or heads, and the interiors were filled with a bajillion metal chunky spaghettios, so you couldn't make out any shape or form at all. Just terrible, terrible design. If two robots were wrestling not only could you not tell what were arms and what were bodies, but you couldn't tell which metal spaghettio belonged to which robot.

I knew I'd hate the non-robot parts, so I was able to ignore all of the human drama/comedy crap, but I expected a pretty reasonable giant robot section of the movie, but that let me down terribly. Camera work was all zoomed in and frantic and overly cutty like the second Bourne movie; there were like 3 wide shots in the movie where you could actually see the robots... and then in those shots they were doing "Tim Allen in Galaxy Quest" somersaults all over the place. Blegh.

voriax
07-11-2007, 06:29 PM
Is that how they do it? Render 3000 seperate frames with 3000 computers all at once? or do 3000 computers share rendering 1 frame in 6 minutes then move on to the next?

It couldn't be sharing one frame between them all. As detailed as the transformers were, they weren't nearly bad enough to keep 3000 computers working for 36 hours on one frame. Even LW's renderer isn't that slow ;)
As mentioned, each comp would take 36 hours to do one frame, but you're getting 3000 frames in those 36 hours. They're making it sound dramatic, but not explaining it properly.

Imagine the network traffic from 3000 computers rendering one frame! 3dmax's bucket renderer is constantly sending info back and forth to machines when using the distributed rendering on one frame - I've watched it rack up over a gigabyte of network traffic within about 20 minutes of use with 3 render nodes, on a very basic scene. Times that by 1000.....

Nicolas Jordan
07-11-2007, 06:38 PM
I saw it last night and thought it was a great movie mostly! The only thing that I didn't like was the character design for Megatron. I think it would have been better to have him look more like his original concept when in robot form regardless of what he transforms into. Oh well nothing can be perfect.

I also thought Bumblebee was good but I think they could have kept his original Volkswagon Beetle concept and it would have worked just fine.

sean hargreaves
07-11-2007, 06:48 PM
You guys are taking the 36 hour render time too literally.
It does'nt mean each frame containing a robot took 36 hours. It means the more complex scenes where you have multiple robots transforming, and maybe under circumstances such as fire, explosions, etc. Plus there are areas where buildings were replaced with cg buildings, environments were replaced with cg environments, there are many factors that vary the render speed. Also, 10,000 parts, 6.5 million polygons for one robot. Multiply that when you have multiple robots.

IgnusFast
07-11-2007, 07:48 PM
Wow, I thought the movie was fantastic! I never really liked Transformers when I was a kid - the first giant robots I saw were the Shogun Warriors, and because of that, I always thought the Transformers were kind of silly. But even with my expectations fairly high, I really did like the movie.

SaturnX
07-11-2007, 07:55 PM
http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4150

Cageman
07-11-2007, 10:41 PM
Is that how they do it? Render 3000 seperate frames with 3000 computers all at once? or do 3000 computers share rendering 1 frame in 6 minutes then move on to the next?

That is mostly how a farm works, yes. I'm not sure about how many computers can collaborate on a single frame, but I'm sure the lighting and shading artists have a bunch of computers that are used when they hit render. As someone else pointed out, 36 hours/frame is probably just the peak. There are certanly frames in the movie that shouldn't require that rendertime...

kjl
07-12-2007, 12:06 PM
http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4150

Heh, in his interview he says: “We had to get some cohesiveness so they didn’t feel like walking junk piles, so we did a lot of posing the characters to try and tuck pieces in and get a cleaner silhouette, so that even at a quick glance you can tell what he is doing, what direction he is looking.”

Fail :p

I don't know if I can think of any characters where it was harder to read arm, body and head position at a glance than the Transformers, except maybe the big blob thing in Akira ;)

iconoclasty
07-12-2007, 12:20 PM
lol. Now I feel kind of bad for them, since they were aware of the design problems and thought they fixed them.

sean hargreaves
07-12-2007, 01:40 PM
It seems they did'nt have a discussion at the lead end of the project regarding Michael Bays wishes on how fast the robots would fight, run, etc! The problem with designing stuff like this is you're looking at a static image. But, I have to say, most people know Michael Bays camera moves and action sequences, so something was lost in the mix. Basically, tight camera shots on highly detailed giant robots don't work!

iconoclasty
07-12-2007, 02:04 PM
I didn't think the robot designs worked even in their still frame promo shots.

Mr Rid
07-12-2007, 08:04 PM
I think this says it-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGQsthDNGW0

voriax
07-12-2007, 08:48 PM
I didn't mind the robots bodies, but their faces - ugh!
Seriously, the characterisation of them was just awful, and the face animation left a lot to be desired. I don't get why they tried to make the faces/mouths all separate moving entities... considering they're ultra-robots from space, can't they have some kind of flexible plastique to simulate mouths and faces?
I would have rather Optimus Prime did his "face plate mumble" than the ugly face with mouth they gave him.

Dave Jerrard
08-12-2007, 12:54 AM
They are robots. They don't need mouths to talk. They don't even need those useless eyelid bars to blink with for that matter. They just need a speaker to talk and at most, a wiper of some sort that actually contacts the camera lens they use for eyes to clean them off if they ever got dirty.

Personally, I think the movie was pretty good, in spite of Michael Bay littering it with Bayisms - the stupid jokes, the lame Bell/AT&T sweeping slo-mo camera moves, and the overused shaky cam stuff that makes all those 10,108 parts, 1.8 million polygons and 2,000 texture maps completely worthless - they could have just stuck a bunch of untextured grey polygons randomly through the bodies and no-one would have been the wiser. I went in, expecting to see some nice detailing, and got nothing but lots of dull, dark grey, and now they're telling me they had to use 2000 texture maps to give me that? Sounds like someone either didn't know what they were doing, or they're hyping the technology to BS levels. Robots was far better executed, and apparently they got all that nice mechanical surfacing without any texture maps. That movie was pretty bad due to other things, but the rendering wasn't one of them - that was top notch.

As for Transformers, only one scene really stands out for me; the overhead view of Optimus and that other large Decepticon (which one, I forget, they all kinda of looked alike to me) tumbling off the overpass on the highway. Cool shot.


He Who Just Wishes This Thing Was Put In More Capable Hands.

Cageman
08-12-2007, 02:55 AM
As for Transformers, only one scene really stands out for me; the overhead view of Optimus and that other large Decepticon (which one, I forget, they all kinda of looked alike to me) tumbling off the overpass on the highway. Cool shot.


He Who Just Wishes This Thing Was Put In More Capable Hands.

I have to say that I agree with you on the technical aspects. I didn't know they had 2000 texturemaps! The scene where the Autobots reveal themselves to the two main human characters was probably the scene I liked the most, because you saw them very well and the camera didn't move too much. But many of the actionscenes were way to fast paced and shaky, so, as you say, they would probably not need that massive amount of textures for those shots (and who says they did)? :)

I can't say that ILM and DD did a bad job at all. Transfomers has almost seamless compositing, and if someone is to blame, it is the director. I'm quite sure that ILM and DD could pull off very detailed and non-shaky shots if they ever get the oppertunity. I hope they will, because I heard there will be a sequel! :)

Matt
08-12-2007, 06:01 AM
Is it just me who thought that there was a packaging issue with the robots too?

Take bumblebee for example, when transformed I thought to myself, "where did all that metal come from!" No way did all that robot came from that one car!

iconoclasty
08-14-2007, 09:58 AM
They fold up very tightly. I guess.

Andyjaggy
08-14-2007, 10:10 AM
Is it just me who thought that there was a packaging issue with the robots too?

Take bumblebee for example, when transformed I thought to myself, "where did all that metal come from!" No way did all that robot came from that one car!

It's the same technology that allows the metal robots to talk and feel like humans.

v1u1ant
08-14-2007, 11:32 AM
too much badly tarnished/worn reflecting chrome for me and the action was all too tight. stopped watching it after half hour, dissappointed.