4 ms·
> 288 hours PER FRAME So it took close to a year to render each second on-screen. I do not believe this.
by monochromatic 15y ago
> 288 hours PER FRAME
So it took close to a year to render each second on-screen. I do not believe this.
- VikingCoder 15y ago288 cpu hours. Divide that by a large number of CPUs. Most rendering is very parallelizable.
- astrodust 15y agoYeah, that's a day on a 12-core system.
- noblethrasher 15y agoRendering is one of those embarassingly parallelizable problems we've been hearing so much about.
- sliverstorm 15y agoI believe that number is per node, e.g. they have a cluster of 10 nodes that rendered for 24 hours producing 1 frame per day. Much like the concept of "man-hours" in a project. [1] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/transformers-dark-moons-powerful-visual-208967 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/transformers-dark-moon...
- astrodust 15y agoThere's only 24 frames in a second for production-caliber film. They also throw an obscene number of cores at the problem. On a 12 core system you can render that out in a day. If you have 24 of those systems in a rack you can pump out one second of film time per day. That means in a month you can deliver 30 seconds of footage. If you have a five minute sequence, get ten racks like that and you can turn it around inside a month. Also, since when is 288 hours even close to a year?
- Jimmie 15y ago288 hours per frame, 24 frames per second, 24 hours per day = 288 days per second of film time. Pretty close but the assumption that you'd be using a single CPU is wrong.