4 ms·
They still do in the VFX industry - 48 hours+ is not uncommon when using Arnold. The difference is, these days, the output is literally physically photo-realist
by berkut 15y ago
They still do in the VFX industry - 48 hours+ is not uncommon when using Arnold. The difference is, these days, the output is literally physically photo-realistic, with fully-accurate GI lighting and accurate BSDF material interaction. There's normally over 200GB of geometry and over 100GB of textures too :)
- mgkimsal 15y agoInteresting. There will always be high-end stuff I guess. The stuff in this demo was probably about as good as my 1989 Amiga 500 was capable of doing in several hours, but done in 20 seconds. The Amiga was 7mhz. I'm now running quad core i7 2.2ghz, so I'm - what? - 300 times faster on one chip? 1200 times faster potentially? 20 seconds now would have been (20*300) = 6000 seconds, close to 2 hours. I guess this shouldn't be all that shocking, but it is.
- berkut 15y agoIt's very difficult to say, given that we've got much better branch prediction, caching, pipelining of instructions, SSE (4 float ops at once), etc. On top of that, different rendering algorithms, optimisations, biased-vs-unbiased. http://imgur.com/MIFWC http://imgur.com/MIFWC For example, took 12 seconds to render on a quad core i7, but that's 512 unbiased samples per pixel, and 5 bounce global illumination, so that's around 2,013,265,920 rays sent in 12 seconds, which isn't bad.
- kmm 15y agoDon't forget that the Amiga demo was probably (optimized) machine code while this demo is in JavaScript. That should add a factor 1000 to 10000 to your estimate. Which sounds correcter, as so much more has happened other than increase of processor frequency.
- mgkimsal 15y agoI'm not referring to any particular demo - many of the animations for Amiga were raytraced animations, but no one claimed it was realtime raytracing. I was referring just to the time it took to render a single frame of an animation. re: the juggler amiga demo - from http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/juggler.html http://home.comcast.net/~erniew/juggler.html: The images were generated with a standard Amiga with 512K memory. A ray tracing method was used, which simulates rays of light reflecting within a mathematically defined scene. Each image requires the calculation of 64,000 light rays and takes approximately 1 hour to generate. An image is compressed to about 10K bytes for storage. Images are expanded in less than 30 milliseconds. The Amiga hold and modify mode is employed so that up to 4096 colors can be displayed at one time. ============== So... 1 hour for each frame... hrm...
- roadnottaken 15y ago48+ hours per frame??
- berkut 15y agoyep :) Pre-render steps (building the BVH/KDTree, caching transformed geometry, caching textures and building mipmaps) can take 2 hours before the rendering even starts :) And this is on a machine with 32 i7 cores and 96 GB of RAM. There's a reason SPI and Weta (and the other CG/VFX companies, although those two have the biggest) have huge renderfarms...
- bsenftner 15y agoI worked on the Garfield movies - live action with CG cats - and frames with Garfield in it required between 600-900 render hours. This is due to the physically based animation support for internal body motions and similar physics for all the fur. I've still got the render stats, because I was the render farm wrangler for those jobs...
- palish 15y agothe output is literally physically photo-realistic, with fully-accurate GI lighting and accurate BSDF material interaction This isn't true at all. At what point are the equations "accurate"? What margin of error is acceptable? We still have a long way to go before we can claim accurate lighting equations.
- berkut 15y agoErm, yes it is, with Metropolis light transport...