4 ms·

> are you sure you're not just saying this because years of software being slow [...] Yes. And I don't know where to even start explaining this. Don't get me w

> are you sure you're not just saying this because years of software being slow [...] Yes. And I don't know where to even start explaining this. Don't get me wrong. "Simply put": there is no use case for this. Moana e.g. has gazillions of vegetation geometry instances. Why would you have those inside a DCC? Pebbles on the shore, etc. etc. VFX pipelines are specialized. An animator does not care if there are 10 million hairs on their furry character while they do the animation. A lighter only cares to see the fur when it's rendering, not while operating the light rig in the DCC. Modern pipelines have instant feedback/viewport rendering where proxy geometry is swapped out for "the real thing" by the renderer (or a custom plugin inside the renderer) on the fly. The result, inside the renderer, is something like the Moana dataset. Hence its publication. It's a stress test for renderers, not DCCs.

jcelerier 4y ago
> "Simply put": there is no use case for this. there can't be for now, because artists couldn't realistically do this. I've been working with artists for, what, close to ten years now and I can guarantee you that their use of the software permanently fills the performance increase that such software gives. That's like saying, why would a music sequencer need to support more than, say, 100000 tracks, which sounds ridiculous until you see someone actually coming up with a fun music score that leverages generative scripting to create very cool pieces
- virtualritz 4y ago
  The performance increase is eaten by scene complexity. This is and has been the norm since the advent if CGI in blockbuster movies, in the 1970's. For every order of magnitude that hardware gets faster (and/or software gets 'better', i.e. using better parallelization etc.), image complexity in your average shot increases by an order of magnitude. So yes, what artists are doing is more complex but relatively so. I.e. it doesn't invalidate anything I and others wrote about the case in point – the Moana asset, how such assets are built and what part of a VFX pipeline reasonably ingests them.

jcelerier 4y ago

> "Simply put": there is no use case for this. there can't be for now, because artists couldn't realistically do this. I've been working with artists for, what, close to ten years now and I can guarantee you that their use of the software permanently fills the performance increase that such software gives. That's like saying, why would a music sequencer need to support more than, say, 100000 tracks, which sounds ridiculous until you see someone actually coming up with a fun music score that leverages generative scripting to create very cool pieces

virtualritz 4y ago
The performance increase is eaten by scene complexity. This is and has been the norm since the advent if CGI in blockbuster movies, in the 1970's. For every order of magnitude that hardware gets faster (and/or software gets 'better', i.e. using better parallelization etc.), image complexity in your average shot increases by an order of magnitude. So yes, what artists are doing is more complex but relatively so. I.e. it doesn't invalidate anything I and others wrote about the case in point – the Moana asset, how such assets are built and what part of a VFX pipeline reasonably ingests them.