• Popcorn Points determine how popular a video is. You can click the popcorn bucket or simply react (Like, Love, etc.) and it will register a vote.

Flat

I'm starting to feel sick. I take it you rendered these images in a few second/image? So why is everyone else, myself included, always talking about our 20 minute- 24hour/per frame renderings? I was assuming that your method gave speed at the expense of something else but so far, I haven't seen any of your images lacking in anything.

You must have keys the ILM.

Or maybe a render farm?
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to feel sick. I take it you rendered these images in a few second/image? So why is everyone else, myself included, always talking about our 20 minute- 24hour/per frame renderings? I was assuming that your method gave speed at the expense of something else but so far, I haven't seen any of your images lacking in anything.

You must have keys the ILM.

Or maybe a render farm?
Lol. I know what you mean. I spent many years frustrated by insanely long render times. I'd spend 5 days rendering a test print for a client, and then they would say, ok, it's good, but can you go back and just change this one detail that's in every single scene.

And your assumption is correct. I am indeed trading quality for speed, on a lot of levels. The trick is to try and hide the things you traded and showcase the improvements you got in the trade. This video does that pretty well. You'll see one of those tradeoffs if you look outside the windows as the camera slides past them. There is an unnaceptable noise level where it's trying to calculate the outdoor light at a volumetric quality that's dialed in for this small apartment, and it can't do it in time for the frame, so that makes the noise.

If you look at about 54 seconds in, you can see the render breaking down for a minute, but the errors aren't bad enough to warrant tripling the render time to fix that one thing.

I just use the one 3090 card now, which is insanely fast, and the rest is baking and optimizing the lighting. If you want to start getting fast render speeds, the key is switching from CPU to GPU rendering. Vray has been working on a native solution for a while, called Vray RT, and it mostly works, but does require quite a bit of rebuilding within the scene. You can actually use Vray in Unreal Engine, and the results are better than what you see here, but in my case, it's not enough difference to justify multiplying render time. UE also has a built in path tracer, but, same issue. So what you are seeing in this video is a bunch of lower quality options, carefully orchestrated to provide the illusion of high quality rendering. This is what makes Save Point even possible, is this concept of trading 20% of quality for 7000% speed increase. It's working out pretty well!

Here's a video showing a SBS comparison of the same scene rendered in UE5 and Vray.

 
Last edited:
I'm saying this movie was made in 8 hours from concept to upload, inside a computer with no budget. Viva la Revolution.
Yup. I've said before that I think there are two types of people (beyond people who think there are two types of people and those who dont): People who are on TV and people who watch TV. The first are mostly ass holes, the second, mostly dumb asses.

Anyway, now I think there is another two: people who can create computer generated graphics, and those of us who are barely smart enough to watch them.

Anyway, I tried to understand the issue here, and so looked up "ray tracing" on the google. The Wikipedia page on ray tracing has ten sections, one of which has ten sub-sections. It is about seven times longer than the page explaining relativity theory.

I found out it has something to do with this:
(illustrations from Wikipedia ray tracing page)

1663981852405.jpeg


A guy with a broken guitar and a long string, and a diagram of a stomach and another guy . . . something.

Or this:

1663982006820.png


A guy drawing a picture of a naked lady's, uh, beaver.

This example makes a little more sense to me:

1663982102937.gif


I get it now: it's computer animation.

But I finally understood, with this explanation;

1663982158101.png


I thought it had something to do with the Blinn-Phong illumination equation.

Anyway, Nate, all I can say is that it's a very cool video, and all the light and the reflections look, to me, just fine. :)
 
Last edited:
Nate, THANK YOU for reminding me about something right in front of my face; RT! Without doing any texture or light baking, I just flipped a switch to RTX and my renderings went from 8.5 minutes down to 34 seconds. The strange thing is that the renderings look different but better. My underwater shots look more like what you would expect when looking up while underwater. That includes GI and maybe Caustics. I feel like I've discovered something wonderful, and it was right there the whole time!!! I'll start another thread and post some images and videos tomorrow.
 

sfoster

Staff Member
Moderator
I can tell, interesting so many people cannot.

I'd say the lack of UGLY shadows is truly half the battle when it comes to lighting.
You have absolutely no issue with ugly shadows since there are barely any shadows at all
 
Yup. I've said before that I think there are two types of people (beyond people who think there are two types of people and those who dont): People who are on TV and people who watch TV. The first are mostly ass holes, the second, mostly dumb asses.

Anyway, now I think there is another two: people who can create computer generated graphics, and those of us who are barely smart enough to watch them.

Anyway, I tried to understand the issue here, and so looked up "ray tracing" on the google. The Wikipedia page on ray tracing has ten sections, one of which has ten sub-sections. It is about seven times longer than the page explaining relativity theory.

I found out it has something to do with this:
(illustrations from Wikipedia ray tracing page)

View attachment 2773

A guy with a broken guitar and a long string, and a diagram of a stomach and another guy . . . something.

Or this:
View attachment 2774
A guy drawing a picture of a naked lady's, uh, beaver.

This example makes a little more sense to me:

View attachment 2775

I get it now: it's computer animation.

But I finally understood, with this explanation;

View attachment 2776

I thought it had something to do with the Blinn-Phong illumination equation.

Anyway, Nate, all I can say is that it's a very cool video, and all the light and the reflections look, to me, just fine. :)
Lol, it's not as complicated as it's made to look here. This is just the how anything not affected by gravity or friction would bounce. Sunbeam hits car paint, turns red on contact with paint, bounces into your eye, that's it! The tracing part refers to how the computer simulates reality, by literally tracing a path from the camera to the object being filmed, to the light sources illuminating that object. Before ray tracing, we could not use mirrors, except through fakery.

 
I can tell, interesting so many people cannot.

I'd say the lack of UGLY shadows is truly half the battle when it comes to lighting.
You have absolutely no issue with ugly shadows since there are barely any shadows at all
This is a true story. I was talking to this guy, and I showed him one of these "Pitch meeting" episodes. I told him a bit about the host, and he asked me, in all seriousness, "who is the other guy?"

I explained that the other guy is just another shot of him, with different clothes and glasses. He didn't believe me. He still to this day thinks that this is two people having a conversation.

 
I do enjoy you all's discussion about this stuff (and sorry to clog it up trying to be humorous, lol). I get some real insight into these processes, and it is fascinating. In this world, and in, I believe, all worlds, everything is physics.
 
Last edited:
Nate, THANK YOU for reminding me about something right in front of my face; RT! Without doing any texture or light baking, I just flipped a switch to RTX and my renderings went from 8.5 minutes down to 34 seconds. The strange thing is that the renderings look different but better. My underwater shots look more like what you would expect when looking up while underwater. That includes GI and maybe Caustics. I feel like I've discovered something wonderful, and it was right there the whole time!!! I'll start another thread and post some images and videos tomorrow.
Here is some additional information that you might find helpful.


This will give you a clear view of how different available hardware will affect your rendering time, now that you've enabled RT.
 
I do enjoy you all's discussion about this stuff (and sorry to clog it up trying to be humorous, lol). I get some real insight into these processes, and it is fascinating. In this world, and in, I believe, all worlds, everything is physics.
I have countless things to say about physics, but I think people are probably capable of becoming incredibly bored without my direct intervention.
 

sfoster

Staff Member
Moderator
This is a true story. I was talking to this guy, and I showed him one of these "Pitch meeting" episodes. I told him a bit about the host, and he asked me, in all seriousness, "who is the other guy?"

I explained that the other guy is just another shot of him, with different clothes and glasses. He didn't believe me. He still to this day thinks that this is two people having a conversation.

That's nothing. I had a conversation (IRL in-person) where a person suggetsed that the 9/11 attacks were all a conspiracy that never happened.
They weren't convinced, but they were seriously questioning.

They also thought the election will be overturned, trump made president, and then run again and win presidency for a third term.
 
That's nothing. I had a conversation (IRL in-person) where a person suggetsed that the 9/11 attacks were all a conspiracy that never happened.
They weren't convinced, but they were seriously questioning.

 
Top