Buy Microsoft Office Home & Student
Buzz Out Loud Lounge: 1080p animation is easy!
1080p animation is easy!
by snodman - 5/1/07 9:09 PMTom and Veronica mentioned hi def versions of Pixar animated movies for possible Blu-Ray distribution on the show a couple of times last week and somehow seemed to think that it would be difficult for Pixar to release a 1080p version since the render farms had to work so hard to do the amazing animation in the first place.
Well, even though rendering and lighting a solid animated object in space (and from scratch) is quite a complicated task, just dumping a hi res master AFTER all the animation has been rendered is almost trivial. Besides, PIXAR ALREADY HAS 1080p versions of Cars and The Incredibles - what do you think you were looking at in the theater if you saw the movie at a theater with a digital projector? Professional digital movie projectors are 1080p, they were just first to market and REALLY expensive. So a Blu-Ray disc (or an HD DVD one for that matter) will top out at the same resolution as what was shown in theaters.
Sending to the render farm is easy...
by kwahhn - 5/2/07 5:51 AM In reply to: 1080p animation is easy! by snodmanit's the post production that takes time.
Of course....
by skellener - 5/2/07 9:40 AM In reply to: 1080p animation is easy! by snodmanMovies are generally rendered out at either HD quality (1920x1080) or higher (Cineon 2K 2048x1556). Whomever assumed that they are rendered out smaller and that PIXAR (or any studio) would have to go back and re-render for larger size is mistaken. It's already there. I believe some studios have already been experimenting with 4K files.
As far as 3D (stereoscopic) goes...yes, they would in fact need to re-render different perspectives to achieve that. That way to will get the parallax you need for the stereoscopic 3D effect to work.
Dreamwoks has announced that they will indeed be using the process for their future animated fims. It involves rendering out 3 versions of each image. One for the left eye, one for the right eye and one centered (as they would normally do). You may ask why the third version? Well, when it becomes available for DVD release where there won't be any 3D or glasses to view with, they still need a regular version for normal viewing. So doing stereoscopic 3D does in fact triple the amount of render time.
Also what you may not know is that, most scenes are set up so they only work from the camera view. If you were to look at the scene even just slightly off the camera view you will probably see huge mistakes and cheats. By adding two additional cameras to the scene, this creates a tremendous amount of additional work for all involved. Now all the cheats must work from 3 points of view. This will take much longer to get everything to fit just right.
I'd much rather see the time and effort put into better designs, characters and stories myself. I can do without the stereoscopic 3D. It just gives me a headache.
Not too sure about 3 cameras
by dflipb - 5/3/07 12:07 AM In reply to: Of course.... by skellenerI Don't think that Dreamworks would need to render 3 cameras to get the 2D and 3D shots.
We create 3D from 2D footage. From that 2D image we then create the other eye. No middle camera is needed. and the image looks great in both 3D and 2D.
So what Dreamworks would probably do is decide on a dominant camera then just add the second camera. Do you have a link to their announcement about the 3 cameras? I would be very interested in reading it.
Also when we film out for IMAX, it is in 4k.
Mark the animator
What I had heard...
by skellener - 5/3/07 1:31 AM In reply to: Not too sure about 3 cameras by dflipbYou would think that doing the two cameras would be enough and that you could simply choose one of them for your non stereoscopic version as you said. But that does not seem to be the case. They have a great deal of rendering ahead of them.
I highly doubt they will use any kind of 2D to 3D conversion. It's all done in 3D, so they will simply set up two cameras for stereoscopic 3D and render two versions (three including the main center camera). Sounds like an awful lot of work to me.
4K is brutal. 
no 2D to 3D
by dflipb - 5/3/07 2:27 AM In reply to: What I had heard... by skellenerI wasn't saying they would be doing any 2D to 3D, I was just making the point that they wouldn't have to use 3 cmaeras. 2 Works just fine to create both a 2d and 3d film.
"You would think that doing the two cameras would be enough and that you could simply choose one of them for your non stereoscopic version as you said. But that does not seem to be the case." - I know it does because that is what we do. Even in our all CG films. We have used a 3 camera rig but only render R and L eye.
4K is the pits LOL, You can see EVERY proplem :\ gone are the days of hiding it in the noise.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
