PDA

View Full Version : The 16,000 Year Render



csandy
06-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Here are some fun facts of the highly anticipated movie Transformers 2: Revenge Of The Fallen:
Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Fun Facts


Robots
• 14 robots last time, 46 robots this time (ILM only)
• If you had all the gold ever mined in the history of man, you could build a little more than half of Devastator.
• Optimus Prime will be life size on IMAX screens in many forest fight shots.
• Devastator’s hand is traveling 390 miles per hour when he punches the pyramid.
• The pyramid destruction simulation was 8 times bigger than the old rigid simulation all-time record holder at ILM.
• All robot parts laid out end to end would stretch from one side of California to the other, about 180 miles
• Devastator’s parts stacked tip to tip would be as tall as 58 empire state buildings.
• If all the texture maps on the show were printed on 1 square yard sheets, they would cover 13 football fields.

Disk space
• TF1 took 20 Terabytes of disk space. Trans2 took 145 Terabytes. Seven times bigger!
• 145 terabytes would fill 35,000 DVDs. Stacked one on top of the other without storage cases, they would be 145 feet tall.

Rendering times
• If you rendered the entire movie on a modern home PC, you would have had to start the renders 16,000 years ago (when cave paintings like the Hall of Bulls were being made) to finish for this year’s premiere!
• A single imax shot in the movie (df250) would have taken almost 3 years to render on a top of the line home PC running nonstop.
• IMAX frame render times: As high as 72 hours per frame!

Imax
• Optimus Prime will be life size on IMAX screens in many forest fight shots.
• Imax frames take about 6 times longer than anamorphic to render.
• IMAX frame render times: As high as 72 hours per frame!

ILM screen time

ILM Screen Time is about 51 minutes.

Devastator
• Devastator is as tall as a 10 story building.
• Devastator has more than 10 times the number of individual parts found in an average car.
• Laid out end to end, Devastator’s parts would be almost 14 miles long.

Devastator totals
• Number of geom pieces: 52632
• The total number of polygons: 11,716,127
• The total length of all pieces: 73090 feet
• The total length of all pieces: 13.84 miles

It gets me to thinking.... why isn't distributed or parallel computing more popular? Most of us don't have the resources of Industrial Light and Magic. All of us combined have far more the resources than ILM.

How come a "[email protected]" type project has never taken off for 3D and mortion design artists?

Are there cheap render farms out there?

Has the practice been discouraged/sabotaged due to national security reasons (read the export restrictions on your high end software or computers sometime....)

Do tell.

Paul_Boland
06-24-2009, 07:18 PM
Great movie but some of the action scenes were too short and too fast. Some times I was left sitting there wondering just what had I seen? What had just happened? The timing of some of the shots was very bad indeed.

But otherwise a great movie.

cresshead
06-24-2009, 08:46 PM
nice stats but does that transform into a good film?

AdamAvenali
06-24-2009, 08:51 PM
nice stats but does that transform into a good film?

no you didn't... haha

oobievision
06-24-2009, 08:54 PM
nice stats but does that transform into a good film?

I think its more about the quality of the images rather then the context.

Chris S. (Fez)
06-24-2009, 08:57 PM
Saw it this evening. Fallen was not unlike being force fed a bucket of stale popcorn.

csandy
06-25-2009, 01:08 AM
Great movie but some of the action scenes were too short and too fast. Some times I was left sitting there wondering just what had I seen? What had just happened? The timing of some of the shots was very bad indeed.

But otherwise a great movie.

That's how I felt about the first one. If it was a ploy to get me to watch it over and over again, it worked.

What do folks think about network rendering?

doimus
06-25-2009, 02:23 AM
nice stats but does that transform into a good film?


Well... isn't it obvious:



Robots
14 robots last time, 46 robots this time (ILM only)

Nangleator
06-25-2009, 07:21 AM
Maybe they edit movies like that now for just the nerds who go through all the action scenes a frame at a time.

Kuzey
06-25-2009, 07:38 AM
Mmm...does that mean it's not that great and I was looking forward to seeing it.

There is a scene with the mosquito robot that looked like it was taken from War of the Worlds,. You know...the searching for people in a closed area/house and said people trying to avoid them...kinda thing.

I'm comparing things again...haha :hey:

Kuzey

Astralworkz
06-25-2009, 07:42 AM
Who cares about the plot...it's all about those friigin cool looking robots from outer space!! I'm going to the movies this saturday:D

Dexter2999
06-25-2009, 11:01 AM
I thought about the distributed rendering thing a couple of years ago, but I thought it was shot down by the fact that different processors will compute proceedurals differently. So you would get flicker.

You could address this problem by baking everything I guess. But I don't know what downsides there are to that.

Have you seen this?
http://www.nvidia.com/object/personal_supercomputing.html
Yeah, 960 parrallel processing cores in a box.

oobievision
06-25-2009, 11:06 AM
hmmmmm well aint that dandy, im also sure that building one of those is gonna be a fortune

Dexter2999
06-25-2009, 11:09 AM
$10,000

Chris S. (Fez)
06-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Well, I do... but you see, I'm 30 so I can recall the olden days, when we had awesome summer blockbusters that had a heart and soul (AND crazy VFX), not only noise. levels.

Agreed. I am 32. For a 7th grader, it doesn't get much better then Batman and Last Crusade.

If I am remembering right, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and T2 came out the same summer...wow...

My favorite summer movie memory of all time was my dad taking me to see Predator. My first R rated movie and I was blown away. I could not believe what I had been missing. I was pretty dissapointed to discover that not all R rated movies kick ***.

For nonaction movies I fondly remember the audience all but wetting themselves watching the Ferris Bueller "Star Wars" Ferrari segment.

Titus
06-26-2009, 06:19 PM
How come a "[email protected]" type project has never taken off for 3D and mortion design artists?


Actually, there's one:

BIG AND UGLY RENDERING PROJECT (http://burp.boinc.dk/).

Red_Oddity
06-27-2009, 04:14 AM
Distributed rendering in the seti way is just not very usuable (unless you have absolutely NO deadline, what so ever)

It is the same reason why MR satellite doesn't work in production.

When you tweak a scene on a 8 core machine with 8GB of memory distributed rendering over multiple very inferior workstation (like the machines in accounting or for the secretaries for example) just doesn't work, they kick the bucket very quickly or take ages just to render a bucket, and even on a very good multi GB network the computers just take too long to acquire all the data to finish the render faster than just doing it on the single workstation you started with.

That has been our experience every time when trying to use those worthless MR satellite licenses.
We just dump it on the farm which is build and tweaked for actual rendering and it works.

byte_fx
06-27-2009, 06:23 AM
Who cares about the plot...it's all about those friigin cool looking robots from outer space!! I'm going to the movies this saturday:D

Add me to the list of viewers that expect at least some effort toward a plot and script.

'Fallen' mostly ignores both to the point of eliciting groans from the audience. Several people left during the screening we attended and afterward some of those that endured the torture were demanding their money back.

But - hey - it's your money and your time. Go for it if you can't wait to rent the dvd.

byte_fx

Cageman
06-27-2009, 06:00 PM
Well.... apart from the "humor" put into it and the scene that shows how Transformers are "born", I liked it.... of course... You HAVE TO REMEMBER that this is a cartoon that is made into a live action movie. Some things just doesn't add up, even if they may do so in the cartoon version of Transformers.

I really liked the first one and this was not as good, but close... not because of the plot, but because of the "humor". Worth noting was that there were many people who laughed and had fun during these "humor" things, and there were one or two that made me laugh as well.

I didn't see anyone leaving the movie in protest. When the movie ended, people clapped their hands and cheered. It was a rollercoaster and I think the money spent was well worth it.

There are many things you can "waste" $10 on (like alcohole or drugs) ; this is not one of those things, especially if you are into 3D... imho, of course.

:)

Brian_7
06-27-2009, 07:28 PM
If I am remembering right, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and T2 came out the same summer...wow...


Sorry Chris, but WFRR came out in 1988 and T2 came out in 1991. :)

Chris S. (Fez)
06-27-2009, 08:30 PM
Sorry Chris, but WFRR came out in 1988 and T2 came out in 1991. :)

Doh. Thanks. Senility strikes early in the Fez family...

dwburman
06-27-2009, 09:11 PM
hehe.. I feel the need to rant.

I haven't seen Rise of the Fallen yet, but I bought the last Transformers movie on DVD using a gift card even though I hadn't seen it.

On the first viewing I was kind of disappointed mostly because it was so different from the cartoon I watched as a kid. In the cartoon, there were only a couple of human characters and they needed to have more than Spike and his dad in the live action movie. The problem was that the robots in the movie had so few lines that I never really connected to them as characters. Plus the new designs of the robots are complicated and it is hard to tell them apart in the action scenes. In the original series the robots still had large sections of car exposed and faces that were much simpler (heck, Optimus didn't even have a mouth) so you could easily tell who was who by their color or their profile. Those designs probably wouldn't work as is for a big summer movie and 2D cartoons didn't deal with the complexity of shading. The new designs are cool on their own but they made the action sequences hard to follow. The artists put a lot of work into the machines and should be congratulated on making great images but I wish the action was easier to follow.

The new movie may actually fix the problems I had with the bots being too 1 dimensional but from what I've read about it, it's still hard to know what's going on.

I look forward to watching the new one, but I'll probably wait and rent it.

TeZzy
06-28-2009, 07:03 AM
Add me to the list of viewers that expect at least some effort toward a plot and script.

'Fallen' mostly ignores both to the point of eliciting groans from the audience. Several people left during the screening we attended and afterward some of those that endured the torture were demanding their money back.

But - hey - it's your money and your time. Go for it if you can't wait to rent the dvd.

byte_fx

LOL! that's like ordering a dish at a restaurant.....finishing it, licking the plate clean and then go and complain and demand refund because the food was not good....absolutely outrageous if you ask me.

Don't know how it is in other places but here....if 30mins into the movie you can actually refund no questions asked.

I enjoyed it very much :D......Optimus is badass in this movie aswell :thumbsup:

thomascheng
06-28-2009, 08:11 AM
I thought the Bay transformer design was pretty bad. Overly complex and too much exposure of delicate parts. It looks like if I threw a screw driver in the right place, it will cripple them. With such fast action, it took a bit of time to understand what I was looking at.

Lottmedia
06-28-2009, 05:52 PM
I thought about the distributed rendering thing a couple of years ago, but I thought it was shot down by the fact that different processors will compute proceedurals differently. So you would get flicker.

You could address this problem by baking everything I guess. But I don't know what downsides there are to that.

Have you seen this?
http://www.nvidia.com/object/personal_supercomputing.html
Yeah, 960 parrallel processing cores in a box.

What? We've got distribuited rendering now. I've got 4 'puters in my office hashing out framed around the clock. You know of Screamernet, right? It's part of Lightwave.

Now about the movie. uggg:( it was really bad. I enjoyed the first one a lot, it took me a long time to get onboard with the new robot designs, they looked so different from the cartoon (yes, I was the only girl pushing the boys out of the way to see) but everythign in this one seemd inconsistant with the first movie. The characters seemed like different people, the robot design was really different (not as cool somehow) and can you say Bionicle for the "old" robots?I'm not one for everythign has to make sense and just let the movie be a movie sometimes, but this one just failed on all story counts, it didn't even try. And the adolecent humor was just out of place and dumb, especially since the first one didn't really contain anythign like that (OK, the one peeing scene...) It's just another case of a director making a good movie when the studio is reigning them in, but when they go to make the second one and they give him free reigh he completely blows it (say Hellboy, everyone) (or Matrix)

Crossfire
06-28-2009, 05:59 PM
My Movie Review.

I saw the first one and loved it. Loved the fallen twice as much. All you nah Sayers are crazy. Sometimes its nice not to have an intellectually deep movie. How can you say no to unbelievable visual effects and explosions.:D

jin choung
06-28-2009, 06:12 PM
I thought the Bay transformer design was pretty bad. Overly complex and too much exposure of delicate parts. It looks like if I threw a screw driver in the right place, it will cripple them. With such fast action, it took a bit of time to understand what I was looking at.

exactly... so intricate and complex that it just adds up to visual NOISE. talk about lack of silhouettes!

and in the first movie, they were CARTWHEELING AROUND!!! i couldn't tell wtf was going on!

i did not see the movie this weekend. i refused to contribute to openeing weekend tallies.

michael bay must not be encouraged... alas, as i also predicted before the summer movie season started, transformers may end up being king this summer. ack.

but i'll see it next week or something for the fx.

jin

Andyjaggy
06-28-2009, 06:20 PM
It was okay. I guess mildly entertaining.

I highly doubt I will spend the money to buy it however.

One part I thought made the whole movie worth it was the fight scene in the forest. I don't know why but seeing the transformers fighting in the middle of an aspen grove really wowed me. It was a beautiful sequence.

The other part I really liked was the SR-71 Transformer. He was cool and funny. It was great to see a grandpa transformer. After that however the movie went downhill and was an indecipherable mess of mechanical chaos and no story. Uck.

Dexter2999
06-28-2009, 08:44 PM
What? We've got distribuited rendering now. I've got 4 'puters in my office hashing out framed around the clock. You know of Screamernet, right? It's part of Lightwave.

Now about the movie. uggg:( it was really bad. I enjoyed the first one a lot, it took me a long time to get onboard with the new robot designs, they looked so different from the cartoon (yes, I was the only girl pushing the boys out of the way to see) but everythign in this one seemd inconsistant with the first movie. The characters seemed like different people, the robot design was really different (not as cool somehow) and can you say Bionicle for the "old" robots?I'm not one for everythign has to make sense and just let the movie be a movie sometimes, but this one just failed on all story counts, it didn't even try. And the adolecent humor was just out of place and dumb, especially since the first one didn't really contain anythign like that (OK, the one peeing scene...) It's just another case of a director making a good movie when the studio is reigning them in, but when they go to make the second one and they give him free reigh he completely blows it (say Hellboy, everyone) (or Matrix)


I know about Screamernet. What I am talking about was something similar to what Titus posted a link to. A BOINC project where people sign up all over the world and install software that processes files when the computers are idle. Almost like Cloud computing but I think it's a little different. I'm no expert for sure. But I did the [email protected] thing for a couple of years and did the protein folding project for a couple of months. I abandonded the Protien folding project when I was spending all my time rendering my own stuff.

The first movie had "the peeing thing" and the bit where the parents are accusing him of drugs and masturbating. The peeing thing was funny. The masturbation thing I thought was out of place with the number of little kids in the theater. YES, I know what the movie was rated but you know as well as I do that any Dad who doesn't take his eight year old son to see giant fighting robots will be forever a loser in his childs eyes.

I hated the pacing of the action shots. I complained about it in the first one and in the Spiderman III as well. It's a trend I don't understand and don't like. Then again I also can't get into the Stereoscopic thing either. So that pretty much tosses my credibility in the trash as far as the tastes of the general public goes.

AdamAvenali
06-28-2009, 08:46 PM
did anyone else want to punch mudflap in the face? haha

i did like certain parts of the film (the forest scene), but i still do not like it as much as the first.

Dexter2999
06-28-2009, 08:48 PM
michael bay must not be encouraged... alas, as i also predicted before the summer movie season started, transformers may end up being king this summer. ack.

but i'll see it next week or something for the fx.

jin


Maybe Harry Potter will give it a fight.

I'll be going to see transformers in the theater as well. I mean what's the point of giant fighting robots if they aren't giants? So, I think the aspect of the presentation is going to have certain impact that home viewing just won't be able to capture. But I am determined to make it a matinee. F-em.

CC Rider
06-29-2009, 10:39 AM
I wonder if we even saw the same movie?
I had a great time! Saw it on IMAX and was very impressed (with the IMAX experience-brand new theatre in Charlotte,NC) and the movie too.
No sign of anyone who didn't enjoy it at the showing I saw and the theatre was 100% sold out.

Thinking about going back to school...if I can just find some contact info for "Every Female Here Is An Extremely Hot Babe" University, I'll pay whatever the tuition costs!
Also, wouldn't mind having some of the slo-mo footage of Megan Fox running toward camera for my screen saver too!

:D

Try not to dig too deep on this one and you'll enjoy it a lot more...its "Transformers" for cryin' out loud!

Ernest
06-29-2009, 11:05 AM
So they locked 8000 nodes 24/7 on a single project for 2 years?

Andyjaggy
06-29-2009, 11:07 AM
Maybe Harry Potter will give it a fight.

I'll be going to see transformers in the theater as well. I mean what's the point of giant fighting robots if they aren't giants? So, I think the aspect of the presentation is going to have certain impact that home viewing just won't be able to capture. But I am determined to make it a matinee. F-em.

Harry Potter looks genuinely good. It's been fun to watch the actors grow up, and they are actually really good actors now..... the first few movies were a bit painful. :)

erikals
06-29-2009, 11:52 AM
I thought the Bay transformer design was pretty bad. Overly complex and too much exposure of delicate parts. It looks like if I threw a screw driver in the right place, it will cripple them. With such fast action, it took a bit of time to understand what I was looking at.

true, it is so much details it is starting to look less like a robot, more like a big mess.

"story is king" someone said, that's why i appreciate "a new hope" "aliens" "bladerunner" "the rest of the day" etc. etc.

transformers could have been on that list, but it would have required much more from the makers. it was ok though. haven't seen "revenge" will probably rent it just to see how they went about the sfx.

in their defense though, good movies are hard to come by.

TeZzy
06-29-2009, 02:34 PM
honestly though, if the transformers weren't complicated and was similar to the way it transformed in the newer cartoons(not the stylised one).....I am sure there will be complaints also. Some action shots could have been a tad bit slower though :lol:

TheDynamo
06-29-2009, 03:14 PM
I wonder if the script synopsis was titled thusly.

Michael Bay presents:

Rock-em Sock-em Robots.... In THREEEE DEEEE!

-Rob

crashnburn
07-04-2009, 12:30 PM
At the end of the day, no matter how you make a film, there will be people that love it and people that hate it. I haven't seen Fallen yet, but it is interesting to see other people's thoughts on the film.

For me personally I am expecting a no brainer action film. It is nice to watch films like that, as a bit of escapism. Michael Bay is well known for making action films, so how can you expect a plot driven film from him.

And there is the problem that films have to target as wide an audience as possible to make a profit. It's not like the early 90's when films were targetted at a smaller audience. I can remember watching lots of 18 certificate films back then. Many now are 12 and 15 at a push.

New films are all starting to follow the same guidlines, they have to have humour, they have to have wow factor special effects etc etc. Simply to get bums on seats. The film companies are frightened of breaking the current mould because if the film flops they make a massive loss.

For me, I find many new films have no heart, they concentrate too much on the star and not enough on the character. As someone said in an earlier post about Fallen, LaBeouf being LaBeouf. You only have to look at how much a lot of these stars get paid to be in films. How many people watched Fallen because Shi LaBeouf was in it?