If home users can now realtime render, why the Hollywood still render 11 hours per frame?
iSeeThis
Posts: 559
in The Commons
I'm going to buy 3 Titan X which I've seen in Youtube that can realtime render. What I have to render overnight with my late 2012 iMac (1GPU 680MX) seems to be instant for 2 Titan X. The point is, if we can afford this, why supercomputer in Hollywood lab can't do so? Eleven hours (or several hours in average render time) seems too unbelievable for today supercomputer.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
we dont have realtime render, cept games. we do have faster renders than in prior history. go ahead and compose a holywood quality render and render it at Imax or theater resolutions and see how long it takes on your sysrem.
they have much better hardware, and higher quality output than home users.
-
saying such generality is completely....humm... pffff
Compare what is comparable.
"we", "real time", "they" etc... pffff
We (= here?) even with 4 or 8 titan X can't do realtime even ONE still pics there (= they = hollywood? etc).
We = 1 or (very) few char in a simple static word physically in the 7th dimention (= not in a real world) in low res with NO hair (our hair are just .....no hair) etc...
They = animation which has to folow something look alike real world physics laws, HI RES, smooth material, particle materials, Many chars (up to several hundreds in a single picture with each ahs a different outfit) + weather + my gran-ma has to believe it + the age of the captain + etc...
It is worked out by how long it would take to render on a more basic machine, not on how long the frame took render on the farm/super-computer they used.
It is also how render farms calculate the cost to customers.
More basic for them yes, but still better than what most home users have. Still take 11 plus hours at home.
Maybe Hollywood doesn't use Daz Studio to render motion pictures, or they need more than 12GB RAM to render a scene, which by-the-way is the TOTAL of what 3 Titan X's have when you combine them for Iray. That's lots of RAM but you only combine the CUDA cores on the cards in Iray at this time, it can't combine the RAM and you may consider a 1500 - 1600W PSU as a 1000W would be the absolute minimum for those three heaters in your rig or it might get ugly in there.
Deleted
Just know it now! Thanks!!
I think I understand it more clearly. Thanks!
Really? A woman here
says she use 800W for 2 Titan X without problems. But she will buy new 1000W soon (see what she replied to a comment asking her about PSU) If you really know it, please show me some credible document cuz I have to hurry up reordering new spec of power supply. Thanks!
edit: I should quote her reply here for instant reference.
MEC4D 2 เดือนที่ผ่านมา
+Bosingr render time : seconds , my PSU is 800W little low but the cards never reach the full power usage . max 64% and second card is used only for rendering. In December updating to 1000 W to be safe I have 32 RAM , rendering was GPU only as you saw in the video no CPU was selected , you need 24 RAM to run 2 x Titan X 12GB , but only if your scene use the full RAM , I recommend to remove the main scene after you hit the render button it will free some nice V-Ram memory as the rendered scene is saved as another temporary file already
What did you delete? Really would like to know it, man.
The 11 hour per frame figure is misleading. Assuming you're speaking of the same news article, they also talk about how they have some 22,000 cores for rendering. At first glance, it might appear that it takes 11 hours to render a frame on 22,000 cores, which can't be true. Otherwise, it would take over 200 years to render a full length animated movie. Who knows how many cores they allocate per frame. The number of hours is really meaningless unless you also consider the computational power behind it. They often render frames in parallel. They might a minute or two of animation overnight that way.
In addition to pure light path rendering, there are a lot of physics that go into each frame, including motion blur, hair motion, stretch and squash, and so on. Like in traditional cel animation, many films don't re-render everything on each frame. They leave static foreground, background, and other objects for compositing, which simplifies the rendering.
The 11 hour/frame figure might also include pre-viz, untextured dailies, and so on. But in any case, the final render does NOT take 11 hours per frame over 22,000 cores. The math simply doesn't add it.
My understanding is that it's parallel and they work around the clock, yeah.
A few days ago DAZ had a spotlight on one CG artist (Ron Mendell?), and the way I understood it he might use DS to develop some parts of a larger scene, in Jurassic World say. He was also using it to develop the... essential spatial concepts of what in the end would become more-complex scenes... at least that was my take on the item.
Btw there was an item in the newspaper the other day that suggested IMAX was going great guns, there is a new Xenon projector or something, and they are building screens all over the world, for example Azerbaijan which is on like the Caspian Sea. Wow!