Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

typodupeerror

• from producing 2D to 3D high-definition movies... (Score:3)

on Tuesday March 26, 2013 @08:36PM (#43287205)

..."over the past decade, the data required to produce the films increased tremendously."

but yet the quality and entertainment of such movies at best remains about the same.

Besides I always get a kick out of the HD systems at a cinema, sure brag about your HD flickering mirrors and your THX Super surround, doesnt mean squat when the picture is still fuzzy and the speakers sound like a cheap set of computer speakers with too much bass running though 2 metal 1 watt tweeters and a 8 inch floppy as shit "sub"

• But... Why? (Score:2, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward

How does the efficiency of this compare to some of Pixar's movies (like Brave or WALL-E)?

I only say this because sometimes long render times and exuberant technical requirements are not signs of proper craftsmanship. When they are, you often point out why they are- maybe you've developed a new BRDF shader that takes a bit longer to render but offers results closer to an unbiased renderer that nobody else can achieve. Or maybe you've written a new global illumination system that, once again, takes a bit long

• Re: (Score:3)

over-the-top lighting rig

Then you compare it to the first "Toy Story" which had hardly any shadows and a pile of other shortcuts but is still going to keep a lot of people glued to the screen for a couple of hours.

• glitz vs Quality (Score:2)

It seems that while the graphics and data requirements increase dramatically the actual quality of the stories and movies are increasing just as rapidly but in the other direction. I would much prefer less focus on graphics and 3D and them spending some money of some bloody writters that don't just rehash the same shit over and over.
• Re: (Score:2)

Modern animated movies don't all consist of clichés, double entendres and wise-cracking sidekicks, nor even have much swish CGI. I am, of course, talking about Studio Ghibli.
• Re: (Score:2)

yes and they have made some of my favourite animated movies, however I still wish there were more animated studios up to their standard, their are a couple but I wish their were quite a few more like them, perhaps then we would see more substance it what is being produced.
• Easy way to save time (Score:3)

on Tuesday March 26, 2013 @08:40PM (#43287239) Homepage
Here's an optimisation they missed, which could have sped render time up dramatically. Take the script, and get some people, dressed up as the characters, to read it out in rooms designed to look exactly like the rendered backgrounds. Of course, the people would need to just go beyond just 'reading' the script, they'd have to sort of pretend they were those characters, like it was some sort of act. Then film it.
• Re: (Score:2)

That's sort of the way "Rango" was done. Which, BTW, is a much better movie that "Croods" (who came up with that name?). The scenes where done by live actors and then the animators took over.

• this is meaningless (Score:2)

This is a worthless statistic. Maybe they assests were all bloated and inefficient and the movie took way longer to render than it should have. Maybe they were incredibly efficient and every texture and model was optimized and the movie actually took half as long to render as it would have for anyone else. Maybe the hardware was a couple of pentiums in a warm basement in southern california.

At any rate, the time it takes to render a movie is about as interesting as the average histogram from all the fram
• 250TB? (Score:2)

I'm amazed that a full-on Hollywood production can fit in 250TB.

That's really not all that expensive any more. Unless my math is wrong that's well within the budget of a medium-sized post-production facility.

• Progress (Score:3)

on Tuesday March 26, 2013 @09:47PM (#43287581) Homepage Journal

I've heard that the average time to render a frame has stayed around 3 hours, from "Andre and Wally B" to now. May or not be true, but it's probably close. It's amazing to look at the differences between "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 3", which makes a particularly good test case because they have the same characters but they're 15 years apart. I remember being amazed at how things looked in Toy Story, from Rex's bumpy texture to the messed-up paint at the bottom of Andy's door, but if you watch the first right after watching the third, you'll be amazed at the differences. I'd say it's most noticeable in the human characters but if you look closely you'll see it everywhere.

• I'll bet ... (Score:2)

... a good chunk of that was the animators surfing the web while their rendering ran.

• Re: (Score:2)

I've seen video production work in progress before. For advertisements that is. You have a director or two, followed by a few guys behind Avid workstations. They constantly loop video and audio over and over just to "get it right". It's monotonous! But that's what they do. Once they finalize on a CGI basic render (wire frame or flat shaded), they produce the final video and let it bake all night or until the render is complete.

I'm guessing these guys breakup the work load and stage production. While one seg

• What's 3D, high rez good for (Score:2)

...if they still only have 2D, low development characters?

Seriously, could they maybe start spending a few of those millions they pump into special effects and more shiny into scripts that actually, you know, make me WANT to watch the movie? Or at least make me want to stay longer than the 10 minutes it takes to know how it is going to progress and end?

• After the movie... (Score:2)

What happens to all of the assets, models, and 3D work that was put into the film? Does it go into some massive archive for the studio, or some kind of common repository? Projects like that, it's easy for files to get lost and lose all of the work put into it. I'm curious to know what the life-cycle of the digital assets is once a movie is completed. Anyone got any light to shed on the subject?
• Re: (Score:3)

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. At some point in the not too distant future, games and moves are going to SHARE art assets. Will we be able to remix the assets on our computers and make new adventures with cinema quality props??
• subject (Score:2)

"The Croods took more compute cycles to create than any other movie they've made."

Does this mean they've finally managed to change the expression on character faces from their usual open-mouthed stupidity?

• So many computations, so much emptiness. (Score:3)

on Wednesday March 27, 2013 @06:53AM (#43289797)

I saw the preview trailer...excellent graphics, top-notch animation, very good voice acting...but it failed to grab my attention. There was a void.

On the other hand, the movie 'Up' was a lot cruder, in terms of technical aspects, but so much more moving than 'the croods'.

• Gotta love the lack of imagination here at /. (Score:2)

It's been said that as we grow older we lose our sense of wonder about the world. That's certainly true of the slashdot crowd. Here we have an article talking about the technology behind creating an animated movie, and I see a bunch of comments bashing the script and progression of the movie. Face it folks, this movie isnt for you. Dreamworks wasnt trying to make it for you, and as long as youre older than 14 Dreamworks wont try to cater to you with this genre ever again. Let the kids have their fun with fa
• Re: (Score:2)

When you get to the point of calling an animated film "a kid's movie" you're part of the problem. Dreamworks has a big tendency to put out pretty-looking drivel. Sometimes as a kid or even as an adult you want to turn your brain off and watch something mindless. I enjoy Hannah Montana now and then. But when you get to the point of taking all the art away from a movie just because it's a kid's movie, you're breeding a generation of dumb people.

Just compare something like Kung Fu Panda with Finding Nemo o

• 30% is tremendously? (Score:2)

Maybe it's just me, but the fact it's not a doubling is actually a little surprising. I can picture it - the models are 3D all the way though to the final rendering, where you need to pick between 2D and 3D (2D is probably a single eye view of 3D). But at some point those shared models need to become pixels, and a 3D rendering seems a 2x increase in storage. Or are the models so complex now that the end rendering filesizes don't dominate storage needs?

That said, the trailers don't make me want to watch this

• If only they had used ElectricImage... (Score:2)

It would have been completed in half that time. LONG LIVE EIAS!

Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Working...