You are not allowed to make up your own rules to this game!! This is pretty pointless info. I think someone was just having fun with a rendering package.

Your video, What Happens Rendering in the Middle of the Night, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

People haven't been doing shit like this for decades, that's clearly nonsense. Mainstream 3d rendering is barely two decades old.

Show me some examples of games doing this kind of thing pre-2000.

The explanation afterwards typifies my skepticism of machine learning and the kind of magical thinking that makes people think that limitless tasks can be automated beyond set domains.

Of course, algorithms with enough data are going to be effective at determining scary, tender or action segments from movies. But just like how they admit, a human touch is required to then piece it together in a way that resonates on an emotional level.

Trailers ultimately are pretty formulaic so they may be automatable but there are bound to be a whole host of areas where either a deterministic result is not practical or the noise of the algorithm response will be high enough to render the prediction meaningless.

Also too bad the movie's getting panned by reviews, I was kind of excited about watching this.

Vimeo is better, but it's still pretty low. I'd like for their bitrates to be at least double what they are right now. 4x would be ideal, but I know even 2x is asking a lot.

For instance, the "Posing and Rendering CGI Characters" video from Filmmaker IQ:

Youtube 720p - 782 kbps video (44 khz 125 kbps audio / 178MB file)
Vimeo 720p - 1,077 kbps video (48 khz 256 kbps audio / 135MB file)

Youtube 1080p - 1,474 kbps video
Vimeo 1080p - 2,545 kbps video

Also, if downloads are enabled for the video on Vimeo you can download the original file, which looks like this:

Vimeo 1080p original - 10,100 kbps video. (1.35 GB file)

This trailer misses the exact thing that No Man's Sky trailers realized - you have to show the transition in scale. If you want to impress, you need to seamlessly transition from surface to orbit to solar system to galaxy. If you don't do that, the celestial objects just look like balls with high res textures and the surface shots look like Bryce 3D renders, but there's nothing to connect them.

if only this is what no mans sky was rendering at!

Demo is all right, we really don't see anything we haven't seen before. Pretty much the onlything we havn't seen is mass scale destruction. Heck even small scale is so-so, mainly because of 2 things. #1 you really need a chunk of processing time for convincing physics calculation of a good amount of debris (We still don't see the level of particle effects the old AGEIA PPU demo's had) and #2 realistic enough fire effects. #1 is at least possible with tech that we have today, but #2 requires that someone actually create the effect for use in games.

Fire as you may have gathered, is probably the most difficult CG effect to create. Hollywood took 20 years after CGI effects started in movies before it actually didn't look fake. Today fire in CG is very manageable, but before that it just made more sense to record your fire on a matte backdrop and insert the footage over one of the final rendering passes of your 3d project.

Evening doll! Having studied film and being in the biz for as long as I have, I have become pretty jaded, and was convinced that I have seen it all. There just doesn't seem like there is any original thought left, Hollywood appears to have given up, and watching endless "student films" kinda proved that assumption.

However, every now and then a short comes along that renders me speechless, snatches the breath from my lungs, and makes me stare in wonderment at the screen. Watching a Horror Film as a Young Boy is one, and I keep finding my mind drifting back to it, playing it over and over in my head.

This is why I dig the Sift so much, and really feel connected to it and some of the amazing people here. This does more for my soul than any meeting or therapy session ever could.

P.S.Holy balls, you have 0 videos in your Personnel Que...I think I will just start referring to you as King, having @bareboards2 already nominated you to join our shared fantasy. It really does seem to be fitting!!

2 hrs/frame to render the t-rex is not that bad at all.

3 months for that transformers shot isn't crazy either.

I would have zero problems with watching that as a movie. Considering that it's rendered in real-time... it's pretty impressive.

ok, i'll do my best:

"It's where the program does the animation for you using physics (or other) algorithms. As the artist, you place a "flag" in the scene, and attach it to a "pole" then tell the program there's a "45 mph wind from the East".
Then you hit "Play" and you get a movie of a flag waving in the wind."

this is called a sim, and yes it's a type of procedural animation but it doesn't replace some kind of "classical" method of animating. sims are used for all kinds of things: particles, cloth, fur/hair/feathers, crowds, fluid, rigid body destruction, etc, etc. the artists who do this are not animators, they're FX artists and it isn't as simple as plugging in "45 mph wind from the east". not even close. for something seemingly that simple you're dialing in things like direction, turbulence, gravity, plus the cloth properties. once you have your settings, you sim it, which can take days on a render farm for complex sims. if that sim is approved then it goes to lighting, gets put into the scene, has textures/materials/shaders applied, and then gets rendered, which can take another several days on a render farm depending on the complexity. these sims are the only way to get realistic animations for these types of materials. and there are generally many versions made at this stage to get the sim right, fix broken frames, fix intersecting, get the lighting and textures/materials/shaders working right, etc. THEN it goes to the compositing dept for a couple dozen more versions.




"As opposed to regular animation, which can be thought of as glorified stop-motion animation. Each single piece moved by you, individually, for each frame of video."

regular animation is like stop motion except it's not every frame (it's interpolated between keyframes) and is for character animation.

anim and FX are 2 different departments and often use 2 different software packages.

mocap is also not handled by the anim dept. it would be done by match move and/or tech anim.




"You create a flag and a pole. Then the next frame you bend it here, here, here, and here, then click forward to the next frame, and bend it a bit more here, little less here, invert this bend, add another, make this corner whip a bit."

no one in there right mind would do this, it's completely impractical, and would look like complete shit.




"It basically allows less technically savvy artists play in a world where only "nerds" used to play."

the FX people are way more nerds and technical than anim people. you need to be technically savvy for every dept. but the real nerds and really technically savvy people work on pipeline who were probably heavily involved in this project building custom toolsets for it.




"Really kind of lazy way of animating."

no, it's fucking hard, requires a lot of knowledge, a lot of people, a lot of cpu horsepower, is used all the time to get high quality animations, is a collection of several departments other than animation, and is used in conjunction with 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".

Nothing some exposure to Hentai or 3D rendered porn can't fix.

“Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.”- Carl Sagan/Dr. Ann Druyan