Why It Takes Pixar 3 Years To Render A Movie



Try Audible Plus for free for thirty days at http://audible.com/hai

Get a Half as Interesting t-shirt: https://standard.tv/collections/half-as-interesting
Suggest a video: http://halfasinteresting.com/suggest

Follow Sam from Half as Interesting on Instagram: http://Instagram.com/Sam.From.Wendover

Follow Half as Interesting on Twitter: http://twitter.com/halfinteresting

Discuss this video on Reddit: http://www.Reddit.com/r/halfasinteresting

Video written by Adam Chase

Check out our other channels: http://youtube.com/wendoverproductions
http://youtube.com/jetlagthegame

source

32 thoughts on “Why It Takes Pixar 3 Years To Render A Movie”

  1. 1:28 firstly, that number is wrong as it's rendered at a much higher resolution, and secondly 268bn is moderately big number in computer terms (sure it's over 100x the maximum size of a 32 bit integer but it's 0.000001% the size of a 64 bit integer. I have on many occassions needed number bigger than a 64 bit integer, and that's why arbitrary sized integers exist). 8k is 16 times the size of 2k so it would be 4.3t which is coming close to a large number. For instance if I wanted to calculate the primality of 4.3 trillion numbers in sequence it could be calculated in tens of seconds on my computer, utilising mutli-threading on a 16C/32T CPU. It shows just how much calculation each individual pixel actually requires for rendering.

    I know a programmer who works on rendering at Pixar and he is the most insanely talented programmer I have ever come across, I think he just lives on an entirely different plane of existance. He primarily works on optimisation (he has told me his official job title before and while I can't remember what it was exactly know what he said wasn't "optimisations", it however boils down to optimisations).
    In computing it's common you might have a solution to a problem that will take more than a few lifetimes of the universe that after reworking now takes miliseconds or even less than a milisecond. He does things that while they may not take lifetimes of the universe may still take multiple seconds and can be reduced to a fraction of a second, then with this saved time the technology can be increased and fill that time. He's sisyphus in his own hell, that he loves.

    Reply
  2. I just learned that a lot of online retailers have shipping area exclusions. The usual ones like PO Boxes, AFP, overseas territories, etc., but there is one exclusion in there that I find odd and I can’t find info on… El Paso, TX. Video idea?

    Reply
  3. Wanna know the best part?
    We don't just render films once in the film industry, in fact most shots for a film will have been rendered 10/20/100 times before we (or the client) are happy with everything.
    Plus, all of the departments that lead up to those final shots usually have to do their own renders too.

    I'm a lookdev artist (Part of surfacing) and it's very normal for me and most other artists to send renders every single night 😀

    Reply
  4. Fighting 8.5% inflation (more like 35%) with a 1% Fed funds interest rate is like stopping a forest fire with a bucket of water. Folks prepare accordingly. Make investment in other not to depend on the government for funds

    Reply
  5. Well that fact about the numbers of pixels which have to be rendered isn't really that relevant in this case since video games already do it pretty well in 60fps.
    Billions of raw calculations are not a big deal for a computer nowdays.
    What's importance here is talking about the complexity of a scene and the render passes.
    And I'm pretty sure the shading part is done before the rigging and it's not really "animating" a surface yet :v

    Reply
  6. i'm glad animation is diversifying away from these photoreal techniques. i'm sure matte painting, rendering, painting over, compositing for arcane was faster than rendering a pixar movie, and it looks more interesting

    Reply
  7. Maybe you could make a video about how nobody knows how eels reproduce. They don't have sexual organs or anything. All that we know is that they swim to the Bermuda Triangle to do it.

    Reply
  8. and this stuff is why video games typically use raster lighting, getting raytracing to look right in something that renders in real time is insanely difficult. Almost no games that have raytraced lighting, exclusively use raytracing. Most use a mix of raytracing, raster lighting, and fancy algorithms (called denoisers) to approximate what a fully raytraced frame would look like… and still deliver it at 60+ fps with a PC that doesn't cost $200,000.
    But the fact that raytracing is the standard for animated films, and has been for many years, is why people who say "raytracing is just a gimmick" regarding video games, make me roll my eyes.

    Reply
  9. Whats is way more crazy though, that Unreal Engine 5 or Omniverse (Unity soon too) are able to deliver like 98% of the final image quality in real time. Many movies are actually shot in Unreal Engine currently, so we will see a lot more real time stuff in future. Only a few special effects require the big render farms, but you can reduce that just to the essential parts and put this in post pro on top of UE5 renders.

    Reply

Leave a Comment