mlody47 wrote:Can we already stop this conversation?
@roubal: so many shots makes me really want to see "the movie":)
ROUBAL wrote:@roubal: so many shots makes me really want to see "the movie":)
I would like too ! Unfortunately, currently the exporting/loading time per frame for a scene with the desert, the car the airplane and all props is around 15 minutes with the minimal subsurf resolution on most parts of the two vehicles, in 2560x1440 (to get a cleaner Internet HD 1280x720 after rescaling). The number of samples per pixel, and so the rendering time for a video could be decreased IMHO from 2h to 15-30 minutes on most shots, compared to a still picture, but the whole time of the export/load/render process wouldn't allow me to render much more than one second of movie per day. Even if I would render directly in 1280x720 (maybe possible with next MLT like algorithm if there are less fireflies), The process would be still rather long.
ROUBAL wrote:I used two GTX480 with Octane Cuda 3.0 version (Cuda 3.2 version with Cuda 3.2 drivers crashes on my machine).
Obviously, for the views from the sky, some props or details can be simplified a lot or removed from the file (radio, car suspension...), but the memory saved by doing that could be used to enable one more subdivision level on closer objects, leading to a similar average loading time.
The weight of my scenes often comes from the fact that I like the ability of moving the camera everywhere with total freedom without loosing details. So I think of the scene globally(like in real world), and not from a static camera point of view. Doing it the last way requires a story board and managing many files with various versions of objects, allowing less detail on far objects. It is lighter in term of computing power, but much more complicated in term of scenes management.
As I'm still far from making the movie, I prefer to manage few heavy scenes than many optimized files.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests