4 ms·

I always thought 3D content creation would be perfect for a web/cloud approach. Use the client software anywhere on any HTML5 enabled device (even tablets), hit

by kayoone 13y ago

I always thought 3D content creation would be perfect for a web/cloud approach. Use the client software anywhere on any HTML5 enabled device (even tablets), hit Render and the cloud renders the scene and you have immediate results.

Sambdala 13y ago
The new AWS GPU EC2 instances should be perfect for that.
32bitkid 13y ago
I agree, and I'm surprised that anyone would have ever had any doubts that the industry -- or craft -- would move in this direction. And in fact, why have a render button at all. Why not just batch changes to the scene and send them off to the cloud to be rendered all the time? Make a change? Cancel the job in the cloud and send a new one. Use a map-reduce to build output movies an just have them available when done. "Render" becomes "play when ready" I think the 3d content creation world is ripe for disruption.
- bhouston 13y ago
  Cloud computing is very expensive compared to storing changes in a database. One computer can server hundreds/thousands of simultaneous users if you are not rendering. But once you are rendering, a computer can serve only a small fraction of that. When in interactive rendering mode Clara.io does constantly render after each batch of changes, but it is more than 20x as expensive as not rendering in terms of server costs. https://vimeo.com/72194528 https://vimeo.com/72194528 We want to make Clara.io as low cost as possible and one way we can do is to not have it rendering all the time. :) But if you have deep pockets go for it! The same concerns about cost apply to automatically creating the movie on each change. Yes it is possible, but the cost for computing that may not be required is pretty high.
  - 32bitkid 13y ago
    I'm not an expert in either cloud-computing or 3d rendering, so I'm not saying that I've got it all figured out; "easy-peasy". But I do think there are some ways to transform the problem that could be more beneficial than the "traditional" render-farm approach that most of the industry seems tied to. Things like, progressive enhancement rendering -- either quality or resolution -- like wavelet compression for rendering. Massively parallelized rendering pipelines -- borrowing from the high performance password cracking on GPUs, and real-time game inspired rendering pipelines. Static scene analysis/dynamic compositing; rather than require the artist to think about layering and compositing, let the computer algorithmically break down a scene and maximize rendering speed. Perhaps it will eventually be determined to not be cost effective -- and I'm sure people much smarter than I are working on it -- but I think we will see some really interesting and novel changes in this space in the next 5 years after being relatively unchanged for the past 20. And just for the record, I think Clara.io is fantastic, not saying you guys are doing anything wrong, just talking. :)
    - bhouston 13y ago
      Yeah, the issue is GPU/CPU power required for photorealistic rendering is really high right now and it is costly. If there is some way to bring it down, which is outside of my area, then you are right the economics will change and we can always do live updating progressive rendering for nearly nothing. This will happen of course at some point, but I think we are at least a few years away. For now we just have high quality viewport that is similar to game quality graphics, that is super cheap because it leverages the local GPU rather than cloud resources.
      - Arelius 13y ago
        I think the problem is that the economics of offline rendering play out a bit differently. We've been doing offline rendering for a pretty long time now. And compute resources keep going up vs cost and time significantly, but the price of rendering is so small versus the price of artists. That your bottleneck is always* going to be on the artists, and improvements in performance will always* be spent with improving visual fidelity once you get past a certain speed. Turns out, if you want high-quality(All quality is relative) rendering that doesn't take much time at all, we can do it any modern game engine can output decent image in about 30 ms. And an even better one still quicker than a human can react. And there are tons of people which that is quite sufficient. Videos from source filmmaker show that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I http://www.sourcefilmmaker.com/ http://www.sourcefilmmaker.com/ Also see UE4 infiltrator: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLOi3mo9NE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLOi3mo9NE * I use always lightly here, that is of course not true on certain time scales.

by kayoone 13y ago

Sambdala 13y ago

The new AWS GPU EC2 instances should be perfect for that.

32bitkid 13y ago

I agree, and I'm surprised that anyone would have ever had any doubts that the industry -- or craft -- would move in this direction. And in fact, why have a render button at all. Why not just batch changes to the scene and send them off to the cloud to be rendered all the time? Make a change? Cancel the job in the cloud and send a new one. Use a map-reduce to build output movies an just have them available when done. "Render" becomes "play when ready" I think the 3d content creation world is ripe for disruption.

bhouston 13y ago
Cloud computing is very expensive compared to storing changes in a database. One computer can server hundreds/thousands of simultaneous users if you are not rendering. But once you are rendering, a computer can serve only a small fraction of that. When in interactive rendering mode Clara.io does constantly render after each batch of changes, but it is more than 20x as expensive as not rendering in terms of server costs. https://vimeo.com/72194528 https://vimeo.com/72194528 We want to make Clara.io as low cost as possible and one way we can do is to not have it rendering all the time. :) But if you have deep pockets go for it! The same concerns about cost apply to automatically creating the movie on each change. Yes it is possible, but the cost for computing that may not be required is pretty high.
- 32bitkid 13y ago
  I'm not an expert in either cloud-computing or 3d rendering, so I'm not saying that I've got it all figured out; "easy-peasy". But I do think there are some ways to transform the problem that could be more beneficial than the "traditional" render-farm approach that most of the industry seems tied to. Things like, progressive enhancement rendering -- either quality or resolution -- like wavelet compression for rendering. Massively parallelized rendering pipelines -- borrowing from the high performance password cracking on GPUs, and real-time game inspired rendering pipelines. Static scene analysis/dynamic compositing; rather than require the artist to think about layering and compositing, let the computer algorithmically break down a scene and maximize rendering speed. Perhaps it will eventually be determined to not be cost effective -- and I'm sure people much smarter than I are working on it -- but I think we will see some really interesting and novel changes in this space in the next 5 years after being relatively unchanged for the past 20. And just for the record, I think Clara.io is fantastic, not saying you guys are doing anything wrong, just talking. :)
  - bhouston 13y ago
    Yeah, the issue is GPU/CPU power required for photorealistic rendering is really high right now and it is costly. If there is some way to bring it down, which is outside of my area, then you are right the economics will change and we can always do live updating progressive rendering for nearly nothing. This will happen of course at some point, but I think we are at least a few years away. For now we just have high quality viewport that is similar to game quality graphics, that is super cheap because it leverages the local GPU rather than cloud resources.
    - Arelius 13y ago
      I think the problem is that the economics of offline rendering play out a bit differently. We've been doing offline rendering for a pretty long time now. And compute resources keep going up vs cost and time significantly, but the price of rendering is so small versus the price of artists. That your bottleneck is always* going to be on the artists, and improvements in performance will always* be spent with improving visual fidelity once you get past a certain speed. Turns out, if you want high-quality(All quality is relative) rendering that doesn't take much time at all, we can do it any modern game engine can output decent image in about 30 ms. And an even better one still quicker than a human can react. And there are tons of people which that is quite sufficient. Videos from source filmmaker show that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I http://www.sourcefilmmaker.com/ http://www.sourcefilmmaker.com/ Also see UE4 infiltrator: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLOi3mo9NE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLOi3mo9NE * I use always lightly here, that is of course not true on certain time scales.