Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Final Fantasy At 2.5FPS

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the that's-a-lot-of-pixels dept.

Graphics 308

Rikardon writes: "Adding a little fuel to the ATi-vs-NVIDIA fire started earlier today on Slashdot, NVIDIA and Square are showing a demo at SIGGRAPH of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within being rendered in 'real time' (four-tenths of a second per frame) on a Quadro-based workstation. Now that I think of it, this should also inject new life into this debate." Defender2000 points to the Yahoo article. Update: 08/14 09:30 PM by T : Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4 seconds per frame. Sorry.

cancel ×

308 comments

At what resolution? (2, Insightful)

Pop n' Fresh (411094) | more than 12 years ago | (#2112275)

Rendering a movie at 320 x 240 or 640 x 480 is much easier than rendering it at the resolution and size of a movie theater's screen. If the Quadro was rendering the movie at 100 x 75 pixels, all this doesn't mean much.

Re:At what resolution? (1)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2141649)

Rendering a movie at 320 x 240 or 640 x 480 is much easier than rendering it at the resolution and size of a movie theater's screen. If the Quadro was rendering the movie at 100 x 75 pixels, all this doesn't mean much.

Yeah, they're probably only really rendering a 1000 times faster, instead of the 13,500 implied by the math (when done correctly) or the 100,000 times faster claimed by the Yahoo article. I mean, who can get excited by a mere 3 orders of magnitude improvement?

oh my bad memory and deleted old stories (1)

thexdane (148152) | more than 12 years ago | (#2113157)

i was mildly surprised when i saw this for a couple reasons.

1. they actually were able to do it, this quickly
2. it was said that nvidia had no chance of ever being able to do something like this as it they weren't serious graphics cards.

this comes from an article several months ago on maximum pc [maximumpc.com] (sorry i checked for the link but it's not to be found, but if a staff member from there reads this and they can find the link please link it) which was about a flame war that someone from nvidia and one of the guys from sgi (i might be wrong on sgi, sorry if i am and i forget the names, it's not cause i don't want to leave them out it's that i don't remember), where the guy from sgi said that nvidia was off his rocker with saying that nvidia cards could ever come near the level of performance to do something like toy story and it would be many years, tho the article is less than a year old.

well i guess the guy from sgi is eating crow now after reading what the nvidia cards are doing what they said would take years till bill gates becomes a linux lover in less than a year and right now i don't think that bill has really embraced the penguin quite yet.
it was just an interesting side note to this story.

Re:oh my bad memory and deleted old stories (4, Interesting)

donglekey (124433) | more than 12 years ago | (#2140807)

No, he was absolutly correct. Toy story is not close to being rendered in real time yet and this isn't the same. There are many details to the REYES architecture that is used in PRman and likewise used to render toy story. One is the subdivision of NURBS patches and subdivision surfaces to the pixel level. Another is the surface, light, and volume shaders used. There are many many things that people are missing when they say 'Movie X rendered in real time'. What they really mean is 'Movie X rendered in near realtime, at a MUCH lower resolution, with a bajillion hacks to make it look as close as possible to the original.'

Still didn't get it right (0, Redundant)

Zaknafein500 (303608) | more than 12 years ago | (#2113160)

Well, they fixed the headline, but the update says:
  • Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T:Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't 4FPS. Oops.
Shouldn't that read ".4FPS doesn't equal 4/10 a second per frame"?

Re:Still didn't get it right (1)

pgpckt (312866) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143823)

Yes, it should.

0.04166 SPF (1)

Monkey-Man (145523) | more than 12 years ago | (#2113354)

Typically, I believe a movie has a framerate of 24 FPS. Therefore, 1 sec / 24 frames = 0.04166 SPF. Right?

?? .4FPS (0, Redundant)

JiffyPop (318506) | more than 12 years ago | (#2113574)

From the text it seems that you meant 2.5 FPS (or possibly .4spf? although who would want a sunscreen like that?)

Stephen King, author, dead at 54 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2113600)

I just heard sad news on talk radio - Horror/fiction writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine house this morning. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't read his books you've probably enjoyed one of his movies. Truly an American icon.

Visionary Timothy McVeigh, dead at 33 (-1)

Cmdr (Fuck You) Taco (469621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2119456)

As heard on NPR a few minutes ago - Anti-Government Visionary Timothy McVeigh was found dead in his Terre Haute prison this morning. I'm sure we'll all miss him - even if you didn't follow his work you've probably enjoyed some of his writings. Truly an American icon.

If... (-1, Redundant)

excesspwr (218183) | more than 12 years ago | (#2113997)

.4 frame per second != .4FPS what does?

All right! 14 redundant posts! Keep it up! (0, Redundant)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2114489)

14 people chimed in to say that FPS != SPF. Where are the moderators when you need them?

So what? (3, Offtopic)

ChristianBaekkelund (99069) | more than 12 years ago | (#2114887)

So what if it can render fast?... That still doesn't mean things like that can be MADE fast!...The ungodly massive number of man-hours that went into:
  • Modelling
  • Matte painting
  • Painting textures
  • Lighting
  • Shading
  • Animating
  • Writing!
  • Making the sound effects
  • Making the music
  • Doing the voice work & lip-sync'ing
  • Writing custom graphics applications for the skin, hair, etc.
  • Using said applications in the afformentioned modelling/animating/texturing, etc.

So, yippee, it can render fast...too bad that has NO BEARING on the actual quality of the production (with the possible exception of the team gets to iterate on the work a little more).

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2124675)

The point is not that this will speed up the creation of 3D CGI movies but that it may be possible to get the graphics quality of these movies into games.

Re:So what? (3, Informative)

donglekey (124433) | more than 12 years ago | (#2139388)

You have obviously never worked in a production environment. Rendering isn't everything. Nothing is everything. No one will ever be saying that rendering is the only thing, because anyone with half a brain cell knows that it isn't, and anyone who has ever looked at CG knows that you are stating the obvious.

Rendering fast is a big deal though. Actually, its a fucking big deal. The faster something can be rendered, that faster people can work because the interactivity is there. Many 3D programs are instituting semi-real time fully rendered previews over limited spaces, like Softimage, 3DS etc. Everyone realizes the extensive work that goes into a movie. Toy Story took around a month and a half to render, I don't think anyone thinks that a movie can be made in a month and a half and it probable never will. (A good movie that is). Fast rendering is what drives the animation industry by allowing more interactivity, more complexity, and an every increasingly powerful toolset.

I can't make a movie sitting here on my computer. I don't have the computing power for it. All of those other things keep me from the mecca of the one-man movie as well, but I could do them in theory. What I cannot overcome is the power it takes to render, and that takes computers, which likewise take money. So 'yippee' is right, it is a big deal to render faster.

Now does this particulare demo mean anything? Yes and no. Geforce 3's and Radeon 8500's won't mean anything to final rendering time for a while, that would take alot of programming that hasn't been done yet. But interactivity is a huge deal, and it makes all the difference in the world to an artist who doesn't want to be constrained.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2140195)

That still doesn't mean things like that can be MADE fast!

...who said it does?

Re:So what? (2)

sheetsda (230887) | more than 12 years ago | (#2142749)

The key point they were attempting to make here is that if you can do it real time you can make Quake look as good as Final Fantasy. Everyone knows you can't create a movie in the same time it takes to show it.

Re:So what? (5, Funny)

typedef (139123) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143291)

After seeing the movie, I don't believe that more than 30 minutes was spent on the writing process.

But the big question is (5, Funny)

PanBanger (465405) | more than 12 years ago | (#2116823)

will this improve the plot?

Rendering in real-time won't happen... (5, Informative)

soboroff (91667) | more than 12 years ago | (#2116825)

``It has long been an artist's dream to render CG animation in real-time,'' stated Kazuyuki Hashimoto, CTO at Square USA.
We've been able to render CG animation in real time since Ivan Sutherland was a grad student. What makes it hard is a classic Parkinson's law: your needs expand to fill existing processor power. When the movie companies and animation houses have more horsepower, they will go to the next level and push the state of the art in CG back from what's capable of being done in real-time.

The FF render times sound about the same as numbers I heard from Pixar about Toy Story. What was that post a couple weeks ago, about the machine you want always costing $5000? Well, the frame you want to render will always take 90 minutes.

So now which is smaller...? (1)

DahGhostfacedFiddlah (470393) | more than 12 years ago | (#2119378)

...downloading the Final Fantasy movie, or just the models used to create it?

Not exactly... (-1, Redundant)

felipeal (177452) | more than 12 years ago | (#2124565)

0.4 FPS (Frames per second) means it would take 2.5 seconds to render a frame.
2.5 FPS would mean 4/10 of seconds to render a frame.
Looks like someone missed the quake classes :)

It doesn't look as good as the movie (5, Informative)

ThisIsNotATest (515208) | more than 12 years ago | (#2124677)

While it is impressive to see the movie rendered in real-time (with adjustable lighting sources and shadows and reflections) it really doesn't look as good as the movie did. I'm at siggraph now (just saw the demo five minutes ago) and the interactive polygon rendering techniques just can't match the radiosity/raytracing used for professional moves - its getting close though!

You're STILL wrong! (0, Redundant)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 12 years ago | (#2125068)

"but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops." Actually, .4 frames per second IS .4FPS (FPS stands for Frames Per Second, heh) I think what you might have meant is that .4 seconds per frame isn't .4FPS.. Isn't this supposed to be a geek site?

Yes, but (-1, Redundant)

witch (21633) | more than 12 years ago | (#2125187)

.4 spf would be 2.5 fps.

Lets see... (4, Informative)

swordboy (472941) | more than 12 years ago | (#2125189)

60 frames per second divided by .4 (frames per second) = 150. If we oversimplify and apply Moore's law to the speed of 3D processors, we will halve this every 18 months.

As I see it, we are about 7 - 8 years away from this kind of rendering in real time.

Thoughts? Comments? Complaints?

Re:Lets see... (3, Informative)

jedwards (135260) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132942)

You only need 24fps for the cinema. Knocks a year or so off your estimate.

Re:Lets see... (1)

tomlouie (264519) | more than 12 years ago | (#2138243)

That's if you only used one processor to render. Slap a render farm together with a fast frame queueing stack, and you can do real time Render 'n' Watch (tm)

Re:Lets see... (3, Informative)

skroz (7870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143858)

Actually, at 2.5 frames a second, you'll only need about 5 years, give or take a few months.

A few factors to consider ... (5, Informative)

misaka (13816) | more than 12 years ago | (#2127260)

It sure sounds nice when they write that they can render something that took 90 mins per frame at .4 seconds per frame, but is this really a fair comparison? I don't doubt that NVIDIA is bringing some wicked technologies to the table, but let's also consider:
  1. Size of rendered frames. What resolution was NVIDIA rendering out, maybe 640x480? 1024x768? FF was probably rendered out at 1880x1024 (about 2-3 times the number of pixels as compared to 1024x768) if not more.
  2. How did they have to massage the data before passing it to the rendering pipeline? I hear FF was rendered with Renderman ... are they claiming they can render RIB files through the Quadra chipset? If not, how much time does it take to convert/cook the data? If so, then ... wow
  3. How good did it look in the end? Were all the elements rendered properly, and does it really look anywhere near as good as the movie we saw in the theatre?
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see this kind of technology coming, I can totally see this replacing, or at least complementing, our Linux render farm at some point in the future. But it sure would be nice if we had some usefull technical details to qualify this 90 mins verses .4 seconds render time comparison.

--M

Re:A few factors to consider ... (1)

donglekey (124433) | more than 12 years ago | (#2127076)

Ahhhh, the first rational comment I have seen yet on this topic. Also, where are their pictures? I find it odd that there are no shots of the render yet.

FPS (-1, Redundant)

Warin (200873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2128669)

At four tenths of a second per frame, you get a frame per second rate of 2.5fps, not .4fps. Geeze guys...try a little harder next time!

What I'd like to know is what hardware is sitting around the Quadro? How many and what type of processors, how much RAM. I mean, it's all well and good to talk about how great Quadro is, but whats the rest of the system

Heh, sort of reminds me of the bad old days when AMD would quote system cpomparisons using twice as much RAM as the Intel system, to artificially inflate their scores.

Re:FPS (1)

jnik (1733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2115684)

Heh, sort of reminds me of the bad old days when AMD would quote system cpomparisons using twice as much RAM as the Intel system, to artificially inflate their scores.
I presume you're talking about when AMD was still running K6 (classic) and Intel had just come out with the PII. AMD generally ran two comparision charts: one with the systems configured similarly (just swap out 200MHz PII with 200MHz K6) and one with the systems configured for the same price. The idea was "Look, we're pretty close clock-for-clock, but if you buy our stuff, you have enough money to really boost the performance." Neither benchmark is more valid than the other, so they ran both.

Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T: (0, Redundant)

snake_dad (311844) | more than 12 years ago | (#2128913)

Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't 4FPS.

No it isn't. But it is .4FPS!
Are you drinking, Timothy? :)

Disclaimer: I am... (drinking :-))

Geez. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2130123)

And I thought the movie was slow at the theatres.

I don't know about you... (1)

Wire Tap (61370) | more than 12 years ago | (#2130932)

Man, in spite of what the post says: 'real time' (four-tenths of a second per frame)
. . . I kind of think .4 frames per second is a bit slow. I mean, my measly GeForce 2 does a nice 30 frames per second in Half Life. *grin*

Just kidding, of course. :-)

but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2131158)

Can it render THIS [goatse.cx] in real time?

a few more years... (2)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2131159)

Soon, we'll have the ability to render DVD quality video in real time. This opens up tons of possibilities - imagine a version of final fantasy with DVD-style seamless branching based on user interactivity!

The user could interact with the movie and affect the animation in real time. Or, to put that in perspective, imagine fragging your office mates in a photo-realistic Quake VIII. :)

Re:a few more years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2140039)

urr.. whats so special about DVD quality?

Your update is wrong, T. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2132105)

> Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T:Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed
> out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops.

YES IT IS! .4 frames per second IS .4 FPS. What you meant was 0.4 seconds per FRAME is not 0.4 FPS.

Wireframe (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132234)

Why don't they just render it in wireframe and get 100fps? With hidden line removal it would still be entirely watchable.

Re:Wireframe (3, Interesting)

Warin (200873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2114886)

I think the point was to show that real time animation of the quality presented in the FF Movie is almost at hand.

I had a friend in the early 90's in the computer animation field who was wowed when his first 486 with an astounding 8mb of RAM could render a full frame of a 640x480 scene in under an hour or so. So I can imagine that wherever he is now, he's happier than can be.

And yeah, if they wanted to demo some huge frame rate, they could dump the textures to a lower quality..but then it wouldnt be all that impressive now, would it?

Re:Wireframe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2140806)

THAT'S GAY SHIT FOR FAGS. [just like the lameness filter]

Re:Wireframe (1)

nick-less (307628) | more than 12 years ago | (#2141091)

Why don't they just render it in wireframe and get 100fps? With hidden line removal it would still be entirely watchable.

It should run a descent speed if they remove some polygons or render without textures (just shaded...), dropping down to wireframe should'nt be necessary ...

Jews (-1)

Ralph JewHater Nader (450769) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132235)

First anti-Semitic post!

Six million more baby!

Re:Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2120297)

can it render THIS [goatse.cx] in real time ?

Do the math... (2, Informative)

tweakt (325224) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132239)

.4FPS is NOT the same as "Four-tenths of a second per frame" which is it?

Re:Do the math... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2120299)

.4s/frame = 1/.4s/frame = 2.5 fps

Anyhoo, that's good enuf for 3D. Let's start getting a stinkerator peripheral to produce smells.

Imagine the 3D artificial pr0n. The API code would look something like this:

BOOL rc;

rc = ProduceFemaleCrotchStink(NUM_DAYS_PERCOLATION);

(or, for men, NUM_YEARS_PERCOLATION).

Re:Do the math... (0, Redundant)

balls001 (191004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2133588)

sweet fucking christ where the hell did you go to school?

4/10 of a second per frame
that means you can fit 2 frames in a second
2*4 = 8
so 2 frames taking 8/10 of a second, with 2/10 left over

2 2/10 = 2.2fps

Re:Do the math... (1, Redundant)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2140462)

.4FPS is NOT the same as "Four-tenths of a second per frame"

That's a lot like my GNC suburban 4x4. Sometimes I think it gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon.

Well then (1, Redundant)

VFVTHUNTER (66253) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132241)

it should be 0.4 SPF, not FPS.

And all this time the doctors told me an SPF of at least 15 was the best ;)

Re:Well then (1, Redundant)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 12 years ago | (#2114902)

it should be 0.4 SPF, not FPS.

Which is it? A frame roughly every two seconds (.4 FPS) or roughly two frames each second (.4 SPF)?

--
Evan

Re:Well then (0, Redundant)

balls001 (191004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2137237)

jesus h christ, can nobody do any math?

four-tenths of a second per frame

that comes up to what, 2 1/5 frames per second. when the fuck did that become good? it's certainly not real-time.

That's pretty impressive. (1)

dave-fu (86011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132941)

Doubly so when you realize that while CPUs have been picking up pace according to the seemingly speedy Moore's Law, graphic accelerators have been picking up pace at Moore's Law cubed.

2.5 FPS (-1, Redundant)

CodePoet82 (177189) | more than 12 years ago | (#2133391)

At 4/10ths per frame, wouldn't the actual frame rate be 2.5 FPS? I think someone needs to retake some grade school math classes...

Rendered Goosebumps (2)

tarsi210 (70325) | more than 12 years ago | (#2134092)

From the: Who-needs-a-woman-when-you-have-a-video-card dept.

Ok, quick Geek Test: If, upon reading this news post (despite the ditzy title), you did not instantly gasp, shiver, or become aroused, you are NOT a geek. Period.

Which sort of answers my question to my friend after we watched FF for the first time. Is this the top of our abilities in CG? Or was it a matter of the producers saying, "Um...no. We can do a LOT better, but we'd have to wait 100 years for it to build/animate/render instead of 2, so we cut it down to size."

If that is the case, then it's just a matter of BBF (Bigger, Better, Faster (tm)) in terms of hardware before we see something twice as good as FF. Otherwise, if this is the height of skill we have, then we're talking development of new technologies and methods of doing this sort of detail before we see something else come out.

I'm no graphics expert, so maybe someone can answer that question for me. At any rate, the movie still made me shiver. Now I can watch it on my desktop...at 2.5fps, not .4 (dipstick)

Can you imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2137242)

Bah, nevermind.

at the same resolution (2, Interesting)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 12 years ago | (#2137244)

were they just rendering it on a 21 inch screen or rendering it at what must be the fantastic resolution needed to get it to look right on a giant movie screen?

Re:at the same resolution (0)

socokid (398226) | more than 12 years ago | (#2116153)

Uh, as far as I know, these movies are still shown from FILM, which has microscopic resolutions. What the resolution was when transferring to film, which is MUCH smaller than a monitor, is what would be interesting to know...

The Nvidia site claims 1/10th of a second! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2138950)

http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=final_fantasy

HEY! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2138951)

Has anyone pointed out that .4 FPS != 4 seconds per frame? I can't believe that nobody noticed that error! I must be a genius to notice that! All this time, I thought that Slashdot had educated, bright readers - I guess not!

Hmm... (2, Interesting)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 12 years ago | (#2139426)

Interesting.

- Square has tie-ins to Sony (exclusivity clause of Final Fantasies on the PS1, rights to publish the movie).
- Microsoft has tie-ins to nVidia (nVidia makes some of the chips for the XBox).
-Square now has tie-ins to nVidia with this demonstration.

Does this mean that more Square games will get ported to the nVidia chipsets, most notably Final Fantasy for the XBox? If I had a choice between the relative hardwares (rather than my PC, which would come first) I'd love to see what Square could do with an nVidia chipset.

.4SPF (0, Redundant)

BIGJIMSLATE (314762) | more than 12 years ago | (#2139427)

Shouldn't it be .4 seconds per frame instead of 2.5 frames per second?

Besides, any "realtime" demo can't show off all the hard work involving texturing and lighting that animators put into it. "Pixar quality animation" isn't what it is because of computers. Its due to the people who are using the computers.

Re:.4SPF (-1, Redundant)

Raging Idiot (457985) | more than 12 years ago | (#2113998)

Um, isn't .4 seconds per frame EQUAL to 2.5 frames per second?

I wonder how much is really 'rendered' (1)

Hamfist (311248) | more than 12 years ago | (#2139871)

Now is it actually doing all of the rendering? or is there a bunch of PRECALCULATED information? Remeber compiling a Quake 2 Map. It was pre compiled to get the shading and lighting done beforehand so that it could be 'played back' in realtime. I suspect something similar is going on here. If it's really 'realtime' then they should be able to move things around and change stuff, not just re-render a movie. Nothing mind-blowing here.

Try it yourself (1)

Zecho (206792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2140665)

IGN has this article [ign.com] with more information, including a review, trailers, and some serious footage.

His error correction has an error!!! (1, Redundant)

Wraithlyn (133796) | more than 12 years ago | (#2140808)

".4 frame per second isn't 4FPS" What the heck does that mean? Where did 4FPS come from? I guess he meant 0.4FPS? Because even THAT is wrong. Should read: ".4 seconds per frame isn't .4FPS"

Great, just great. I don't normally nitpick article goofs like this, but this is just shamefully amateurish and unprofessional.

Re:His error correction has an error!!! (0)

Raging Idiot (457985) | more than 12 years ago | (#2125067)

Wow, so you're saying there was another fuck-up before he corrected it to say ".4 frame per second isn't .4 FPS"? And it's still fucking wrong?

Maybe they should shut down for a few days and send the "editors" to a basic high school english course. You think?

Re:His error correction has an error!!! (2)

Mike Schiraldi (18296) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143018)

It's kinda like, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." :)

Resolution, details, etc. (2)

chill (34294) | more than 12 years ago | (#2141007)

What res? Film is usually somewhere well above anything a GForce can touch. 640x480 != 2048x1152 (or higher for Super 70 mm).

Also, 2.5 FPS isn't "real time". 24 fps film is "real time". 30 fps on video is "real time".

HOWEVER, this would be incredibly useful for generating dalies; spot render checks; web-based trailers and streaming video; Television-quality animation; etc.

Now you can PROVE to a director that a plot sucks, even in final form, and no all the whiz-bang graphics don't help!

... (1)

Slitwrist (469068) | more than 12 years ago | (#2142642)

Hmm. Realtime rendering thru a GPU. Which means the the programmers who make the game/movie are going to have to work WITH the board manufacturers, and also imply that there would be only ONE 3D card company, because it will be geared to that board and taking advantage of hwat that card offers. Maybe we'll see it go the way of Intel/AMD? Intel is 100% X86 arcitecture.(duuhhh), with AMD being 99.9% compatible. However, CPU's and GPU's are wildly different, so i doubt that will happen.


My .02

Wait a minute: (-1, Redundant)

Raging Idiot (457985) | more than 12 years ago | (#2142748)

Update: 08/14 08:39 PM by T:Original headline was wrong, said ".4FPS" but as cxreg pointed out, .4 frame per second isn't .4FPS. Oops.

Um, actually .4 frames per second would be .4 FPS, but the article said .4 seconds per frame, which would be .4 SPF. Can't you guys even get it right when you are fixing one of your mistakes?

4/10 of a second per frame... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 12 years ago | (#2142963)

So that gets us about 2.2 frames per second. Impressive.

A full second of video (24 FPS) would take 11 seconds to render.

1440 frames for a minute of film.

152640 frames in the whole movie.

6360 seconds of video in the movie.

69960 seconds to render the movie, which means that to watch it rendered in realtime (not really), it'd run for about 1166 minutes, or about 19.4 hours.

My math may be wrong, but that's not bad. Of course, one may want to claw their eyes out after sitting that long...

Lies damned lies and benchmarks (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2143017)

http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=final_fantasy Notice the picture of the girl is virtually textureless. No moles or skin blemishes like in the movie. Also they say the "Technology Demo" runs fast while the movie ran 90 minutes per frame. It does not say they rendered the actual movie at that speed.

It's amazing... (1, Redundant)

11223 (201561) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143101)

In a situation like this, to see the comments which either (1) bash the submitter's poor math (.4 SPF != .4 FPS), e.g. read the article, or (2) just post something about "how slow .4 fps is", indicating that they didn't read the article at all.

A most intriguing study of slashdot responders.

Re:It's amazing... (3, Insightful)

TBone (5692) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132714)

Not only that, but holy bejeezus, there isn't a single link to the pertinent information in the submitter's italicized text. Timothy had to pull the story link out of some other submission. Come on people, I don't care about your freaking thread on Slashdot in the last 8 articles that mentioned Nvidia or SIGGRAPH or Squaresoft, I want to see the story.

Re:It's amazing... (1)

Tattva (53901) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143076)

Why yes, it is amazing that it can render at .4 fps. That is quite a feat of silicon and software. I didn't read your post but I assume that's what you're talking about!

A sunburn waiting to happen (2)

infinite9 (319274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143536)

.4 SPF

Heh, if you think I'm going to the beach with .4 SPF sunscreen on, you're out of your mind!

Apples to Oranges? (5, Insightful)

All Dat (180680) | more than 12 years ago | (#2143859)

Notice how the official "press release" doesn't state the resolution it was rendered at? What's the movie resolution? Several thousand by Several thousand I imagine. Does doing it a 640x480 or LOWER mean the same thing? I have a hard time believing that a Quadro Setup can render something in .4 of a sec that their SGI setup takes 90mins to do. If Nvidia WAS INDEED 100,000 times faster at this using a Quadro setup, we might have heard of this before? Something's missing from this methinks.

Re:Apples to Oranges? (3, Informative)

RadagastTheMagician (469373) | more than 12 years ago | (#2140545)

Lucasfilm's Sony camera, on which they have filmed Episode II, and which was considered to completely supercede analog film, picks up 1920x1080 resolution. You don't really need that much resolution to look fantastically better than what passes for film these days.

It's all about image quality... (2)

drift factor (220568) | more than 12 years ago | (#2144114)

and believe me, there's no way nvidia's chip came anywhere remotely close to that of the movie.

Until their chip can produce a single frame that matches the image quality, they're still just making toys for quake fiends. Diffraction, interference, antialiasing...just a few of the photorealistic rendering staples, and nvidia has only recently been able to do antialiasing. They've got a long, long way to go before we're going to see actual movies rendered using their hardware.

Re:It's all about image quality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2142771)

I think if they are going for image quality they will probably concentrate on terms that actually mean something other than diffraction (diffusion + refraction?) and interference.

Re:It's all about image quality... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2142962)

Please shut the fuck up.

Do the math (0, Redundant)

KrisJon (6582) | more than 12 years ago | (#2144543)

0.4 Seconds Per Frame means 2.5 Frames Per Second (FPS)

.4FPS IS NOT 4/10s of a second per frame!! (2, Redundant)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 12 years ago | (#2153971)

Jesus! We do math good at slashdot.

4/10s of a frame per second means you can do just over 2 frames per second.

God damn. People go to college and come out knowing this much about math?

Re:.4FPS IS NOT 4/10s of a second per frame!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2137239)

I think you should join them back in college.

4/10 FPS (Frames per second) will NOT yield over 2 frames per second. It will be 4/10 of a frame in one second!

Re:.4FPS IS NOT 4/10s of a second per frame!! (2, Redundant)

tosderg (44011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2142055)

"4/10s of a frame per second means you can do just over 2 frames per second."

Wouldn't it be 4/10s of a second per frame means you can do just over 2 frames per second?

Cool! (-1)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2157155)

that nice synthetic butt looks even nicer in slow motion.

Title Is Wrong (1, Redundant)

citizenc (60589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2157180)

It is not rendering the frames at .4 FPS:
The Quadro-based workstation renders a single frame in four-tenths of a second, allowing for an interactive, real-time CG scene. For comparison, a single frame from the original movie took over 90 minutes to render.
Sheesh. Read the news posts before making up headlines!

Re:Title Is Wrong (-1)

Ralph JewHater Nader (450769) | more than 12 years ago | (#2145311)

Obviously. All the /. posters are fucking idiots, timothy, michael, Hemos (especially), all of them. All a bunch of Jews.

Image Quality (1)

tweakt (325224) | more than 12 years ago | (#2153970)

The Quadro-based workstation renders a single frame in four-tenths of a second, allowing for an interactive, real-time CG scene. For comparison, a single frame from the original movie took over 90 minutes to render.
Yes, but I doubt the image quality is anywhere near as good. C'mon...


.4 FPS? (2, Redundant)

JesseL (107722) | more than 12 years ago | (#2157193)

.4 FPS != 4/10 second per frame.

Re:.4 FPS? (1)

TekkonKinkreet (237518) | more than 12 years ago | (#2129872)

I read this as 2.5 frames per second. Or about 1/10 the frame rate you see when you go to the theatre. I wonder if this is an average for the whole film, surely it must vary somewhat from frame to frame. I'm curious...so they render it in real time, but what about the physics and such? Precalculated, or did they do all that on the fly as well? No matter how you slice it, this is some amazing stuff.

Is it 4/10 or 1/10 of a second? (3, Interesting)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 12 years ago | (#2131066)

Because the Nvidia press release [nvidia.com] says differently:
The average time it took to render a single frame in the Final Fantasy Technology Demo was less than one-tenth of a second, compared to the 90 minutes it took in the movie,
Final Fantasy The Spirits Within!
Spin doctoring?

Re:Is it 4/10 or 1/10 of a second? (-1, Redundant)

Raging Idiot (457985) | more than 12 years ago | (#2140534)

My god, is this entire thread going to be one huge math flame?

Jesus fucking Christ!

Re:.4 FPS? (0, Redundant)

smnolde (209197) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132632)

.4 FPS != 4/10 second per frame.

It's crap like this why the US population can't handle the SI unit system, not to mention their own gringo unit system.

This is the same reason why hot dogs are sold in packages of twelve and buns in packages of eight.

Re:.4 FPS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2137241)

Yes, I'd forgotten that nobody ever makes arithmetic mistakes outside of the US. Thanks for pointing it out.

Re:.4 FPS? (1)

smnolde (209197) | more than 12 years ago | (#2142400)

I find that non-US persons are more familiar with unit systems. Even though I'm an American (chemical) engineer, few of my friends would know what FPS means. They might have a guess at SPF since sunblock is commonly advertised on TV. If only computer hardware was more actively advertised....

Re:.4 FPS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2140215)

Umm... actually they're both sold in packages of 8 now. It's now just an embarrassing bit of our history.

Re:.4 FPS? (1, Redundant)

catch23 (97972) | more than 12 years ago | (#2132943)

2.5 FPS == 4/10 of a second per frame
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...