4 ms·

What numbers did you base yourself on for the Toy Story claim? I'm curious.

• petercooper 16y ago
  That's the one piece I pulled out of my ass to conclude with a bit of hyperbole :-) I doubt a 2010 PC could render Toy Story 3 in a year if things are similar now to how they were with Toy Story 1 in 1995. I'd also be curious to see how modern PCs would cope with Toy Story 1 though.. [Update: If it helps rescue me, I found a page about the difference between rendering TS1 and TS3 in their respective times: http://watchingapple.com/2009/09/pixars-blistering-rendering-speed-for-toy-story-3d/ http://watchingapple.com/2009/09/pixars-blistering-rendering... It turns out the original Toy Story took an hour per frame to render, whereas Toy Story 3 can render in real-time (or 24fps, at least.) Given that's probably on a server farm, my claim is still hyperbole, unless you expect cloud processing to be mainstream on all devices by then ;-)]
  • kinetik 16y ago
    The Wired article claims that the average render time is seven hours per frame: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/process_pixar/all/1 http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/process_pixar/all/1 Assuming a single machine (which is obviously not true, but I can't find any details about the size of the render farm), that'd mean the entire film would take something like two hundred and thirty seven years to render. Also, note that the WSJ article you linked to is talking about Toy Story 3D which is a re-rendering of the original film in stereoscopic 3D.
    • petercooper 16y ago
      Sorry! I hand in my reading comprehension card forthwith :-( However, it was all worth it for your great citation. Thanks!
  • ewald 16y ago
    The article talks about the re-render of Toy Story 1 in 3D, not Toy Story 3.