1,187 views
3:54
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
12 Comments
ChaosEnginesome *quality software *engineering there
siftbotBoosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by ChaosEngine.
Adding video to channels (Engineering) - requested by ChaosEngine.
artician"Pixar says Hank the Octopus wasn't possible with the technology available 13 years ago for "Finding Nemo.""
Well... not really true, but it is quite good! I laughed out loud at the kitten poster gag.
ChaosEngineWhy do you say that's not true? I'm guessing they mean one of two things, both of which are plausible:
1: the hardware wasn't fast enough, i.e. it wasn't possible to render Hank in a reasonable timeframe. Remember, GPUs in particular are several orders of magnitude faster now than they were in 2003.
2: the software wasn't written. Almost certainly true, but not exactly accurate to say that it "wasn't possible with the technology".
"Pixar says Hank the Octopus wasn't possible with the technology available 13 years ago for "Finding Nemo.""
Well... not really true, but it is quite good! I laughed out loud at the kitten poster gag.
articianI just know/work with the tech intimately, and I'm showing my aversion to PR videos. Their claim is *technically* true insofar as they had to write the software to do it the way they wanted to, because that's how they do things (and well; zero criticism of Pixar here). It certainly would have been more technically challenging to animate it with the tools of 2003, but whoever said it wasn't possible for technical limitations works for marketing, not art or animation.
Why do you say that's not true? I'm guessing they mean one of two things, both of which are plausible:
1: the hardware wasn't fast enough, i.e. it wasn't possible to render Hank in a reasonable timeframe. Remember, GPUs in particular are several orders of magnitude faster now than they were in 2003.
2: the software wasn't written. Almost certainly true, but not exactly accurate to say that it "wasn't possible with the technology".
Syntaxedsays...Brings a smile to my face to see a continuation of a charming cartoon classic(Finding Nemo)...*promote
siftbotPromoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, June 13th, 2016 4:57am PDT - promote requested by Syntaxed.
Syntaxedjokingly says...Ouch, burned a power point, that's going to smart...
Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, June 13th, 2016 4:57am PDT - promote requested by Syntaxed.
HenningKOHere's what was possible 9 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=badHUNl2HXU
It might look like they're doing the same thing, but no. Hank has to do far more, for far longer, far more slowly. Fast action scenes can hide a lot of your rig's limitations because an animator only has to get it right for a few frames, but Hank has to ACT. Dramatically. While everyone's staring at him. Artician is right, anything would have been possible with enough animator sweat, but you wouldn't sustain for a feature character.
ant*nature *water
siftbotAdding video to channels (Nature, Water) - requested by ant.
anthttp://videosift.com/video/Oktapodi
Here's what was possible 9 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=badHUNl2HXU
It might look like they're doing the same thing, but no. Hank has to do far more, for far longer, far more slowly. Fast action scenes can hide a lot of your rig's limitations because an animator only has to get it right for a few frames, but Hank has to ACT. Dramatically. While everyone's staring at him. Artician is right, anything would have been possible with enough animator sweat, but you wouldn't sustain for a feature character.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.