4 ms·

If it's perspective corrected for the camera, it would probably look very distorted for anyone else on set -- whether there's depth or not And that's certainly

If it's perspective corrected for the camera, it would probably look very distorted for anyone else on set -- whether there's depth or not And that's certainly not the goal with this. Something along those lines has been around for a while (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environ...). This system seems specifically targeted for solving challenges for film production, as it probably should be. I am pretty impressed that real time rendering has gotten good enough to use for these purposes. I certainly wouldn't have expected that those backgrounds in the show were coming out of a video game engine.

RaptorJ 7y ago
From the video posted upthread, around 3:40 it looks like they're doing just that: https://youtu.be/gUnxzVOs3rk?t=220 https://youtu.be/gUnxzVOs3rk?t=220
- mlrtime 7y ago
  Look at the ceiling, you can see it moving.
- vernie 7y ago
  The most interesting aspect to me is that the system is pulling double duty by displaying both a dynamic, perspective-correct backdrop for the camera's POV and a static view for environment lighting and reflections outside of the camera's view frustum. I wonder if they had to take care to mitigate artifacts caused by the dynamic view bouncing off of surfaces facing away from the camera.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    What artifacts?
    - rangibaby 7y ago
      I guess he is thinking about situations where you would use a negative fill
      - BubRoss 7y ago
        What does that mean?
miohtama 7y ago
They mention they cannot push enough GPU juice to the screens, so they only render the camera focus area in full resolution. Also there is 12 frame lag which prevents moving camera too fast.
- toyg 7y ago
  > they cannot push enough GPU juice to the screens ...yet. That's just a matter of waiting a few more years. I wonder if most of the next Star Wars movies will be shot with this tech.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  I don’t fully get this. They could just employ different computers to render different parts of their cave. It seems more like a cost savings thing than a technical limitation. And I’m not sure why you’d skimp on a few PC’s if you’re already building a humongous led wall, so maybe there’s something I’m missing.
  - rangibaby 7y ago
    “They could just...” Pretty much every time I’ve thought this, it’s turned out I was underestimating the difficulty of doing “just” that. If it were just that easy, wouldn’t they have done that already?
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      Who knows? Sometimes people make things a lot more difficult than they have to be. That isn’t always the case, but asking the question is better than the alternative.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    The part you are missing is the insane complexity involved in keeping perfect frame sync with a low latency across GPUs and machines, especialliy when some final compositing of partial outputs is involved. The stuff sounds simple on paper and it looks like you can just go buy the tech, unpack it and switch it on. The reality is nothing like that. The off the shelf tech is fiddly and barely stable because it is always a low priority feature added with the least possible effort.

RaptorJ 7y ago

From the video posted upthread, around 3:40 it looks like they're doing just that: https://youtu.be/gUnxzVOs3rk?t=220 https://youtu.be/gUnxzVOs3rk?t=220

mlrtime 7y ago
Look at the ceiling, you can see it moving.
vernie 7y ago
The most interesting aspect to me is that the system is pulling double duty by displaying both a dynamic, perspective-correct backdrop for the camera's POV and a static view for environment lighting and reflections outside of the camera's view frustum. I wonder if they had to take care to mitigate artifacts caused by the dynamic view bouncing off of surfaces facing away from the camera.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  What artifacts?
  - rangibaby 7y ago
    I guess he is thinking about situations where you would use a negative fill
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      What does that mean?

miohtama 7y ago

They mention they cannot push enough GPU juice to the screens, so they only render the camera focus area in full resolution. Also there is 12 frame lag which prevents moving camera too fast.

toyg 7y ago
> they cannot push enough GPU juice to the screens ...yet. That's just a matter of waiting a few more years. I wonder if most of the next Star Wars movies will be shot with this tech.
Aeolun 7y ago
I don’t fully get this. They could just employ different computers to render different parts of their cave. It seems more like a cost savings thing than a technical limitation. And I’m not sure why you’d skimp on a few PC’s if you’re already building a humongous led wall, so maybe there’s something I’m missing.
- rangibaby 7y ago
  “They could just...” Pretty much every time I’ve thought this, it’s turned out I was underestimating the difficulty of doing “just” that. If it were just that easy, wouldn’t they have done that already?
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Who knows? Sometimes people make things a lot more difficult than they have to be. That isn’t always the case, but asking the question is better than the alternative.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  The part you are missing is the insane complexity involved in keeping perfect frame sync with a low latency across GPUs and machines, especialliy when some final compositing of partial outputs is involved. The stuff sounds simple on paper and it looks like you can just go buy the tech, unpack it and switch it on. The reality is nothing like that. The off the shelf tech is fiddly and barely stable because it is always a low priority feature added with the least possible effort.