More from Numberphile's Pixar Video - Computerphile
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2015
- Pixar researcher Tony DeRose spoke to Brady over on Numberphile, here's some extra stuff from their conversation not used in the main video.
Math and Movies (Animation at Pixar) - Numberphile: • Math and Movies (Anima...
A Universe of Triangles: • A Universe of Triangle...
TH-cam's Secret Algorithm: • TH-cam's Secret Algor...
Real Life Holodeck with an Oculus Rift: • Real Life Holodeck wit...
/ computerphile
/ computer_phile
This video was filmed and edited by Sean Riley.
Computer Science at the University of Nottingham: bit.ly/nottscomputer
Computerphile is a sister project to Brady Haran's Numberphile. See the full list of Brady's video projects at: bit.ly/bradychannels
Little did you know this was actually a photo realistic CGI pixar character the whole time.
This guy has an awesome job
Damn... I just realised there's at the beginning of the video and at the end. I feel like a giant dweeb for not noticing that earlier. Funny =P
Originally, it wasn't, they had complaints.
Computerphile is XML compliant....sort of.
George Jordan - Holy GIF! It was actually Tom Scott who got that to happen, when he was a guest on Computerphile.
Ramzuiv Oh really? When was it?
What if it was supposed to be something that is nesting itself infinitely?
inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of inside of ...
"For us, Physics is kind of a starting point"
Haha...Pixar, you're so great :)
Yay. I've been waiting for the second part for a while.
It is wonderful that they release their tecniques back to the science community. This is how companies should run, giving back when possible. Not hiding everything under trade secret and copyright. I think people watch Pixar movies for the story and the art. So naturally since they usually have such good stores they can show a bit of their algorithms.
We need more from Tony DeRose! What he says is too interesting.
I know exactly what Brady is asking about, since I work as a stage technitian I can't visit a concert without checking out the lighting and the soundboard first :) It's kinda funny when you see little interesting details that others, who don't know about the subject, would never notice
Fun fact, the engineering industry (as I work in), lose an engineer every now and then to the film industry to create realistic simulations of crashes and other engineering problems. This as the film industry has become richer, and has money to use on engineers. So for instance the film industry would hire engineers from the car industry to realistically simulate a car crash (where they don't want to smash a brand new veyron for instance).
***** Hey, I'm not an english-speaking guy (french) but I really love your videos. However, in cases like these where the reverbation of the room is quite present, I don't catch any of your questions actually :/ That would be so cool, at least for the indirect speaker, to sub them :) Thanks, really neat video though! Bye.
your videos are always SOOOOO god and informative. -A college Physics major
More videos related to in depth behind scenes of animation please!!
math + animation = fascinating ..
+Mike Downes Definitely, however providing also some freedom to artists can be a bit of a pain!
I always wondered where CGI could go from the photorealism we see today, but it seems that the main trend is cheaper, faster, and more accesible, and I imagine that is a good thing. Still, it seems there aren't going to be any major hurtles in the next decade, though the photoreal actor sounds interesting!
They write much of it themselves so they can use it in private software like renderman. My friend has worked on hair physics for them. This was a pretty cool video.
love it
Tony DeRose has an awesome job.
I remember watching Toy Story at the cinema back in '95 when I was 14 with my cousin, who was 12, and his father. Both me and my cousin were constantly saying things like "Woah did you see the reflection in the metal in that ventilation duct? That must have taken ages to render!" =)
Just like computer graphics class :) its really inspiring!
Very interesting.
Virtual worlds are always amusing to create.
I NEED MOAR!
#CGIPhile
i love it
I just noticed this video has way higher contrast and saturation than the one on Numberphile. A stylistic choice to differentiate your channels with different grading, I assume? :)
I would like to know long it would take to render the first toy story using the computers Pixar have today. I'm guessing half and hour.
flesh simulation? as in subsurface scattering? or are you talking about soft body physics for animating jiggly fat rolls?
Well, at least in real-time computer graphics there is a "holy grail" and that's Global Illumination.
Each year we're getting closer, most recently it almost made it in a production engine - UE4, but seems to have been deemed still too expensive for feasible real-time rendering.
I think that all technical people disect their movies.Its what we enjoy.
wanna have a bad time at the cinemas? go with a bunch of artists/animators.... every 30 seconds a freakish comment
"like the matrix with numbers and equations" lol
Hi :)
As animators, my friends and I can no longer watch a film for what they are, especially those who actually worked on some of those films.
When we sit down and talk after the movie, we don't just talk about the characters and plot but also about the lighting, textures, and animation quirks like how Anna's hair clipped through her shoulder and that Elsa is definitely animated by guys during Let It Go.
I'm on the topic in another thread, so I'm curious to hear your opinion. What do you think about the artistic credibility of something made with cgi vs something made using traditional cel animation? I'm coming from a mostly anime background, although I do enjoy pixar as well. Thanks! :)
Corranhorn122 I'm a tradtional 2D animator myself but I'm also trained in 3D and stop motion, I enjoy all forms of animation.
People usually respect hand drawn animation because of the sheer effort put into it. The hard work and skill is often very visible and relatable to the audience as people have a general understanding of how drawing works.
People don't seem to give as much respect to CGI, which shouldn't be the case, because CGI is actually far more tedious and technically demanding to pull off. There are a much greater variety of skills and resources needed to create a piece of CGI animation, so much that the audience has no idea how to relate to the extremely work intensive production process.
For 2D, one just has to draw and maybe colour each frame and you get an animation, anyone can do that, it just takes extra skill to do something impressive.
In order to do CGI, 3D, one needs to know how to use a number of specific programs to model, texture, light, animate and render just to produce something. And each of these processes have countless technicalities within them. You have to understand polygons, meshes, UVs, texture maps, weights, constraints, shadows, etc., the list is endless. The audience simply has no idea how much work CGI actually is.
For anime, 2D has always worked well, but not 3D, and this was a matter of resources and tecnology. Only until very recently did Japan catch up to the West in 3D animation, especially in integrating them into 2D, this is because anime studios are extremely underfunded and do not have access to up to date CGI software or even skilled CGI artists.
If you have vast amounts of funds and skilled artists flocking to you, you will be able to create 3D masterpieces that Pixar has. CGI is simply another medium and deserves credibility and respect like any other form of art.
GuyWithAnAmazingHat
Wow, thanks a lot for such a detailed explanation! What you said pretty much makes perfect sense to me. I guess the only issue that I might have with cgi, as I see it, is if it's used as a crutch. My understanding is that, once a model for, say, a hand waving or a wave crashing, is created, it can be used again. That's something that seems like it could be used to great effect and save the artists' effort so it can be applied elsewhere, or abused. Do you have any recommendations for further reading into this?
Josh Leitzel you may find this interesting; also I'd still appreciate some input on that other post. :)
My preference of traditional animation is merely a personal opinion. 2D comes off as more personal and handcrafted to me, even if less painstaking work was put into it. To put it into perspective: I've never bought an "art of" book for a single CG film, but I have tons of Ghibli and classic Disney ones. And I happen to be quite a big fan of pre-sequelitis Pixar.
What other post are you referring to?
Josh Leitzel lol sorry if I inundated you with messages, but it would be the most recent one. I think you sent a record the other day for me with your messages. xD
what programme is he using for rendering
Oh gosh the sound quality :/ This echo and noises make it difficult to watch.
I'm gonna check my device then :/
***** No, this video has really crappy speech recording quality because of some ambient noise in the room, I guess.
***** "quality" isn't just about datarates.
The sound quality came through perfectly for me. It was 1080p bit rate. :>
***** How this have ANYTHING to do with crappy recorded audio for this video? Did you saw ANYONE complaining about TH-cam audio compression instead of bad recording here?
Why is restart often the solution to a problem in devices?
Probably some exception occurred somewhere somehow in the system, and resetting the system is much easier than to find a work around it.
2:00 One of my greatest fears.
so how are those quantum processors coming along?
Getting there but still nowhere near practical. Still not at a point where it beats classical computers in everything (just read something about a passive quantum error correcting system that might make it somewhat feasible but at current the processors still can't compete in most common task).
I wonder how the cloth and flesh simulations are doing today.
So it's a bit like a demoscene.
pacinpm2 Not really. CGI people write code, then throw as much computing power at it as needed (within the boundaries of affordability, of course). Demo people work within the confines of a single machine, and often even within artificial confines like "64kb binaries at most", then see how much they can do with that.
Pixar == awesome
true
ey
i have so much more respect for pixar :)
Pixar needs to make an R rated movie. Gore simulations!!!
Math is magic tho
He is really cute.
They say they come up with the maths for all physical simulations? They are most likely using software from a company like Autodesk which has these simulations already built in. I highly doubt they have written it themselves, unless they are running their own software.
They are. Autodesk and such give only basic tools. If you need any nonstandard behaviour or if you need to automate some work you have to write plugins and scripts.
They do write tons of tools and some studios even have their own 3d app, like ILM's Xeno. Though developing a robust 3d app is very hard so apps like Maya, Houdini are still the king as a base.
They don't though, all of the rendering is done with their own software, pretty sure they've made their own animation software too, as well as countless amounts of plugins and scripts that will solve very specific issue's for them that something like maya isn't capable of doing just because Autodesk have to focus on making a general 3d package.
In fact, Pixar's version of "Maya" is so far removed from the consumer version at this point that it's pretty much a different piece of software. And compared to the consumer version, in a lot of ways it's kind of backwards, because they've been forked from the progression of Maya updates for so long.
But unlike the video game industry, where there's a ton of pressure to get things done fast and a high turnover rate (forcing them to buy middleware solutions), the animation industry has time to employ programmers who are dedicated to the visual image and simulation effects. Meaning nearly everything is proprietary.
Pixar does write there own software. Look up RenderMan. It's a shading/rendering prorgam that's used by many other effects houses and animation studios since the early 90s. Not only that, they made there own computer call the Pixar Image Computer that sold for $135,000. They only sold 120 machines.
Do use all a favor on your next interview; please work on audio quality. Thanks
1:15 Just call it what it is... Ray-Tracing.
Ray tracing is one of many techniques to get realistic lighting and is mostly used in reference to hardware supported light tracing though it has been possible through software for a long time (in just takes a really long time to do/not real time). Path tracing is a less accurate but simpler method of global illumination that's often used for real time tracing without specialized hardware like newer RTX and AMD cards have. Both ray tracing and path tracing are generally used in reference to global illumination (though not technically accurate) but most older stuff uses local illumination which is much simpler to do and for stylistic purposes may produce 'better' results.
raytracing
I love that he called Pixar a glorified cartoon lol.
Looks like they need quantum computers
One little request: can you export your animations at 60fps but leave video at ~30fps (frame doubling). I understand why you are not using motion blur, but without it all fast animations (like papers in this video) look jerky. I think 60fps will help it.