a simple question about irradiance map in animation !

[edward80]

hi all..

am doing an animation for a villa project using vray, my camera & sun are moving along paths..& i just figured out that saving the irradiance map is with no use because the irradiance is changing while the sun is moving..

is there a way to decrease irradiance calculation time? because i have 4000 frames

any help about that would be appreciated

[JamesTaylor]

you can reduce your frame times by reducing the quality settings for things like shadows and reflections. adjusting the qmc sampler should also make a difference but any changes you make will affect the final outcome, it will always be trade of between time and quality.

[edward80]

hey thanx james..i decreaed all the settings i can but am using adaptive subdivision cause while testing.. it looked so crapy with the Qmc don't mention it increased the frame time that its almost doubled...

any other ideas ?

[anvaraziz]

animation tuto

 

chek that

[ecastillor]

nice tuto dude!

[Christopher Nichols]

Ok... looks like you have the help you need, but can I comment on something? 4000 frames???? Do you realize that the move Contact has the longest all CG shot in the world and it is around 5000 frames. I would seriously consider doing some editing. 4000 frames can be a colossal waist of CPU time if it gets really long. Hmmm... this gives me an idea for a tutorial: "How to present architecture without doing long walkthroughs."

[Ernest Burden III]

4000 frames???? Do you realize that the move Contact has the longest all CG shot in the world and it is around 5000 frames. I would seriously consider doing some editing.

The longest CG shot in a feature is 3 1/2 minutes?

He did say:

my camera & sun are moving along paths..

paths? perhaps there are multiple shots programed into a series. I do that, 2000 - 5000 frames run from one render program, but there are a series of shots in there, they just switch between two or three cameras but along one timeline. In my case that is just because Cinema4D doesn't do multi-shots any other way without saving out multi versions of a file, which is stupid.

So lets hope he wasn't saying he has a single camera move that is 4000 frames long--though I've seen it in architectural animation. Right before the audience commits suicide.

[Christopher Nichols]

The longest CG shot in a feature is 3 1/2 minutes?

 

Yeap... opening shot to Contact. Still can't confirm if it still is. The opening shot to Day After tomorrow was around 4,000 frames (I think), all CG opening credits.

 

 

He did say:

paths? perhaps there are multiple shots programed into a series. I do that, 2000 - 5000 frames run from one render program, but there are a series of shots in there, they just switch between two or three cameras but along one timeline. In my case that is just because Cinema4D doesn't do multi-shots any other way without saving out multi versions of a file, which is stupid.

So lets hope he wasn't saying he has a single camera move that is 4000 frames long--though I've seen it in architectural animation. Right before the audience commits suicide.

 

Hmmm.. strange way to work with a single timeline and multiple camera. What would I would do is to have several files for every shot... but that is just the way I work.

 

But yes, thank you for making my point about super long walkthroughs. I knew a guy who did a 3000 frame one going around the whole building including up and down stairs. The audience throw up, THEN commited suicide.

 

Just for perspective, a typical 30 second commercial is 1000 frames. There are usually around 20 shots in a commercial. If it is a high action one (nike, car, etc...) usually around 100 shots. Meaning an average from 10 to 50 frames per shot. for feature films, I would say a typical shot is around 60 to 100 frames. A slow reveal shot maybe 200 to 300 frames. A very long reveal shot may be around 500 frames.... a lot has to be happening in that shot to be worth 500 frames.

[Ernest Burden III]

Just for perspective, a typical 30 second commercial is 1000 frames. There are usually around 20 shots in a commercial. If it is a high action one (nike, car, etc...) usually around 100 shots.

 

In fairness, the typical number of meaningful shots will be much less, the quick-cut editing accounts for the rest--switching back and forth rapidly. I do not aspire to do work like this, though sometimes I have some really quick cuts. I have trouble judging my own editing work, perhaps I should send you a few animations for a brutal review.

 

In an architectural walkthrough I may have shots as long as 12 seconds (360 frames) but more in the approx. 100 length, but do a few cuts in and out of the longer segments. I think it works well, but am not sure.

 

Architectural animation is the complete opposite of a 'high action' piece--nothing at all happens. It's really hard to make it at all compelling. You just take an involuntary tour of some place. There isn't dialog, action or much of anything to hold your interest. The only reason we get away with most of what our industry produces is that we work for people who are in love with their particular subject and are thrilled to be seeing anything showing it. Its a case of 'look, that's my building, isn't it grand!'

 

However, good architectural animation is possible. Look at the work done for the AVC contest for this year. The animations are fantastic. Interestingly, most of the competitors chose to employ a 'leader' object to reveal the space. I wrote extensively about that in the crits, so read them for more on that, if anyone wants to dig further on this subject. Its also worth the time to go back and review the submissions--great work.

 

Chris Nichols is serving a different master, and we in the arch-vis animation game could learn a lot from how he has to put together animation that actually holds the viewers attention on its own merits.

[Christopher Nichols]

In fairness, the typical number of meaningful shots will be much less, the quick-cut editing accounts for the rest--switching back and forth rapidly. I do not aspire to do work like this, though sometimes I have some really quick cuts. I have trouble judging my own editing work, perhaps I should send you a few animations for a brutal review.

 

In an architectural walkthrough I may have shots as long as 12 seconds (360 frames) but more in the approx. 100 length, but do a few cuts in and out of the longer segments. I think it works well, but am not sure.

 

Architectural animation is the complete opposite of a 'high action' piece--nothing at all happens. It's really hard to make it at all compelling. You just take an involuntary tour of some place. There isn't dialog, action or much of anything to hold your interest. The only reason we get away with most of what our industry produces is that we work for people who are in love with their particular subject and are thrilled to be seeing anything showing it. Its a case of 'look, that's my building, isn't it grand!'

 

However, good architectural animation is possible. Look at the work done for the AVC contest for this year. The animations are fantastic. Interestingly, most of the competitors chose to employ a 'leader' object to reveal the space. I wrote extensively about that in the crits, so read them for more on that, if anyone wants to dig further on this subject. Its also worth the time to go back and review the submissions--great work.

 

Chris Nichols is serving a different master, and we in the arch-vis animation game could learn a lot from how he has to put together animation that actually holds the viewers attention on its own merits.

 

 

All very true Ernest which is why I talked about the reveal shots being longer takes. When displaying architectural spaces reveal shots are a good way to go, and they usually are longer takes, around the length that you mention. So we are all on the same page here.

 

However, I have been watching episodes of "Dwell" the TV show. Yeap, the Magazine has a TV show on the "Fine Living" channel. They take you through architectural spaces in real life. It is great reference on how to naturally look at an architeral space. You will notice that the camera rarely tracks or dollies, but mostly pans. Also, the space is animated (moving people, trees, just a few subtle things). And the camera NEVER, NEVER moves forward. In film, the camera only moves forward if it is following something, or if it represents a predator... think hitchcock, or Jason from "Friday the 13th." You don't want to make it seem that a serial killer is walking through your space do you?

[Ernest Burden III]

And the camera NEVER, NEVER moves forward. In film, the camera only moves forward if it is following something...

 

Well that's interesting. Almost all architectural flythrough/walkthrough is a camera moving forward. Personally, I have tried to mix other types of moves into mine, but as a class arch-vis is a camera on rails.

 

The shots showing NY in Day After Tomorrow didn't track forward as you come in from about 3000' altitude? Going from memory, only saw it once. I guess I should see it again.

[Christopher Nichols]

Well that's interesting. Almost all architectural flythrough/walkthrough is a camera moving forward. Personally, I have tried to mix other types of moves into mine, but as a class arch-vis is a camera on rails.

The shots showing NY in Day After Tomorrow didn't track forward as you come in from about 3000' altitude? Going from memory, only saw it once. I guess I should see it again.

 

Well yes it does move forward, but not in an architectural space. It is clearly a helicopter shot. On ground level pedestrian shots, camera move forward when they are following a subject. This is why "fly throughs" usually look more cinematic than "walkthroughs." You may be able to find a forward moving steady-cam shot that is NOT following a subject (the cinematic equivilent to a walkthrough shot) that is NOT in a scary movie, but you will see that it is rare. Think of things like "The Shinning," or "Blair Witch " (the last one is clearly hand held not a steady-cam).

 

BTW... don't bother seeing Day again... it is a horrible movie. I only saw it once myself. there are many more movies that can be used to study architectural space... I always found Tati's films interesting... mostly because I love the modernism:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050706/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062136/