> Focusing on the technical steps and what might be technically feasible or not versus the existing world and artists workflows.
I would say it's the opposite. There is nothing necessary about 10,000 4k maps and definitely nothing typical. Workflows trade a certain amount of optimization for consistency, but not like this.
> patronizing who actually works in the industry.
I don't think I was patronizing. This person is valuable in that they are trying to make completely excessive situations work. Telling people (or demonstrating to them) they are being ridiculous is not his responsibility and is a tight rope to walk in his position.
> Also speaking as an authority that knows best
If I said that 2 + 2 = 4 would you ask about a math degree? This is an exercise in appeal to authority. This person and myself aren't even contradicting each other very much.
He is saying the extremes that he has seen, I'm saying that 10,000 pixels of texture data for each pixel in a frame is enormous excess.
The only contradiction is that he seems to think that because someone did it, it must be a neccesity.
Instead of confronting what I'm actually saying, you are trying to rationalize why you don't need to.
> This person is valuable in that they are trying to make completely excessive situations work. Telling people (or demonstrating to them) they are being ridiculous is not his responsibility and is a tight rope to walk in his position.
Usually the way VFX works is that technology (R&D) is very moved away from production. The artist job is getting the shot done regardless of technology and they have very short deadlines. They usually push the limits.
Digital artists are not very tech savvy in a lot of disciplines, it is not feasible to have a TD in the delivery deadlines of the shots for a show.
The person at Weta also told you how Weta actually worked in Kong which is very typical. You don't know upfront what you need. And you dismissed it as something unnecessary, still, is how every big VFX studio works. Do you feel that you know better and/or everyone is doing something wrong and hasn't really thought about it? If that is the case you might have a business opportunity for a more efficient VFX studio!
Your post is an actual example of being patronizing. Before I was just trying to explain what the person I replied to probably already knew intuitively.
> how Weta actually worked in Kong which is very typical
It is not typical to have 10,000 4k maps on a creature. What has been typical when rendering at 2k is a set of 2k maps for face, torso, arms and legs. Maybe a single arm and leg can be painted and the UVs can be mirrored, though mostly texture painters will layout the UVs separately and duplicate the texture themselves to leave room for variations.
> it is not feasible to have a TD in the delivery deadlines of the shots for a show.
Actually most of the people working on shots are considered TDs. Specific asset work for some sequence with a hero asset is actually very common, which makes sense if you think about it from a story point of view of needing a visual change to communicate a change of circumstances.
4k rendering (was the 2017 king kong rendered in 4k?) and all the closeups of king kong mean that higher resolution maps and more granular sections are understandable, but it doesn't add up to going from 16 2k maps to 10,000 4k maps. Maps like diffuse, specular and subsurface albedo are also just multiplicative, so there is no reason to have multiple maps unless they need to be rebalanced against each other per shot (such as for variations).
You still never actually explained a problem or inconsistency with anything I've said.
This was created with the requirement that the director be able to use it at will. Closeups. Set replacements, destruction, the works.
You don’t have a shot breakdown or camera list.
You’ve got 6 months of pre production to support 1000 shots. Once in production you will be the only texture artist supporting 30 TDS.
How do you spend your 6 months to make sure production runs smoothly?
I’m kinda interested in your experience of this stuff as the numbers you’re quoting for 2k work are, in my experience, waaaaaay off and are closer to how a high end games asset would currently be textured.
I don’t disagree with you that the numbers involved are crazy when taken in isolation but it is (or at least was 5 years ago) a very common workflow at ILM, Weta, Dneg, DD, R&H Framestore etc etc. The quoted high numbers are the very upper end but many thousands of assets on hundreds of productions have been textured at what I believe you would consider “insane” detail levels.
If you’ve worked in high end production I would love to work at your facility.
You clearly understand many of the issues involved but downplay the complexity in running high end assets in less than perfect production.
Unless the industry has changed dramatically in 5 years shot changes, per shot fixes, variants (clean, dirty, destroyed), shader tweaks, happen on every single show I’ve ever been part of.
Render time and storage is one factor as is individual artist iteration, but the real productivity killer is an inter discipline iteration.
Going from a “blurry texture” note in comp to a TD fix to a texture “upres” is potentially a 5 person, 4 day turn around. I would trade a whole bunch of cpu and storage to avoid that.
Computers are cheap, people are expensive, people coordinating even more so.
I do not think you said anything wrong, is much less about what you're saying and more about how you're saying (as if it was a simple thing to get right and people are dumb for not doing it in an optimal way).
> Actually most of the people working on shots are considered TDs.
That's not true in the studios I've been. TDs is usually reserved to more close to pipeline folks that aren't doing shot work (as in, delivering shots). They're supporting folks doing so.
I would say it's the opposite. There is nothing necessary about 10,000 4k maps and definitely nothing typical. Workflows trade a certain amount of optimization for consistency, but not like this.
> patronizing who actually works in the industry.
I don't think I was patronizing. This person is valuable in that they are trying to make completely excessive situations work. Telling people (or demonstrating to them) they are being ridiculous is not his responsibility and is a tight rope to walk in his position.
> Also speaking as an authority that knows best
If I said that 2 + 2 = 4 would you ask about a math degree? This is an exercise in appeal to authority. This person and myself aren't even contradicting each other very much.
He is saying the extremes that he has seen, I'm saying that 10,000 pixels of texture data for each pixel in a frame is enormous excess.
The only contradiction is that he seems to think that because someone did it, it must be a neccesity.
Instead of confronting what I'm actually saying, you are trying to rationalize why you don't need to.