Pixar's Render Farm
twitter.com
Pixar's Render Farm
1–10 of 323 posts
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#2It's good to know they care about optimization. I had the assumption that all CGI is a rather wasteful practice where you just throw more hardware at the problem.
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#3My understanding (I am not an authority) is that for a long time, it has taken Pixar roughly an equal amount of time to render one frame of film. Something on the order of 24 hours. I don’t know what the real units are though (core-hours? machine-hours? simple wall clock?)
I am not surprised that they “make the film fit the box”, because managing compute expenditures is such a big deal!
(Edit: When I say "simple wall clock", I'm talking about the elapsed time from start to finish for rendering one frame, disregarding how many other frames might be rendering at the same time. Throughput != 1/latency, and all that.)
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#4It is always a pleasure to watch/read about something that works very well it it’s domain. Nice that they put so much heart in optimising the rendering process.
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#5It's good to know they care about optimization. I had the assumption that all CGI is a rather wasteful practice where you just throw more hardware at the problem.
Most of these studios are tech first since thy wouldn't be able to have gotten where they are now without prioritizing tech.
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#6My understanding (I am not an authority) is that for a long time, it has taken Pixar roughly an equal amount of time to render one frame of film. Something on the order of 24 hours. I don’t know what the real units are though (core-hours? machine-hours? simple wall clock?) I am not surprised that they “make the film fit the box”, because managing compute expenditures is such a big deal! (Edit: When I say "simple wall…
Well it can't just be one frame total every 24 hours, because an hour-long film would take 200+ years to render ;)
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#7It's good to know they care about optimization. I had the assumption that all CGI is a rather wasteful practice where you just throw more hardware at the problem.
In the end it’s still more profitable to hire performance engineers than hardware. For the last decade I’ve heard the “toss more HW” argument. It hasn’t held because the amount of compute and storage goes up too.
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#8My understanding (I am not an authority) is that for a long time, it has taken Pixar roughly an equal amount of time to render one frame of film. Something on the order of 24 hours. I don’t know what the real units are though (core-hours? machine-hours? simple wall clock?) I am not surprised that they “make the film fit the box”, because managing compute expenditures is such a big deal! (Edit: When I say "simple wall…
Well it can't just be one frame total every 24 hours, because an hour-long film would take 200+ years to render ;)
I’m going to guess they have more than one computer rendering frames at the same time.
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#9My understanding (I am not an authority) is that for a long time, it has taken Pixar roughly an equal amount of time to render one frame of film. Something on the order of 24 hours. I don’t know what the real units are though (core-hours? machine-hours? simple wall clock?) I am not surprised that they “make the film fit the box”, because managing compute expenditures is such a big deal! (Edit: When I say "simple wall…
Wait, what? 24 hours per frame?!
At the standard 24fps it takes you 24 days per film second which works out to 473 years for the average 2 hour long film which can't be right.
Re: Pixar's Render Farm
#10For those that can't stand Twitter's UI: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1345146328058269696.html