<p>This question can not be quantified. There are too many variables involved. For one it really depends on what you want to happen in the scene and how much flexibility your rendering pipeline needs.</p>
<p>But consider this: In the past there was a whole lot more of optimization work happening in the rendering pipeline. With more computational power and knowledge. This optimisation work is turned into more details. The work stays mostly constant, sure less capital overhead also. The reason for this is that if before youd spent 300 hours optimizing and waiting, now you can just add more things in that 300 hours or simply not work those hours and be less convincing.</p>
<p>Now also what you consider photoreal changes over time. Generally, we dont strive to simulate a camera perfectly. Unless we design imaging equipment. Instead we aim for convincing enough images that are interesting. If we could photograph it efficiently and interestingly we would do that. But you know that you can photograph an image and its still not necceserily interesting nor particularily realistic looking. Most of the things you see are heavily editted, curated and filtered.</p>
<p>So can you do this stuff with a consumer card? Sure, this kind of stuff was also done in late 90's with computers which by all metrics are less powerful than most smartphones. In essence its just a question of patience and extra work. But considering that the operator costs several thousands per month, then it does not make sense to save few thousands on the computer if your worker is more productive with more resources. So its not done because it makes sense economically not because it really needs all of this stuff.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-27T11:15:32.700Z
"This question can not be quantified" Can you give some real examples in real works?
jw_
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-22T10:18:36.647Z
2022-07-22T15:17:41.153Z
2022-07-22T15:17:41.153Z
joojaa
<p>I can only find online infomation such as some scene need days to render a single frame, but I'm not sure what is the hardware based on, it may be based on CPU rendering farms in the 2000s. There is also information about it takes several minutes to ray trace a scene in Maya, but the level of photorealism for the render is unkown. A lot of search doesn't give more accurate information.</p>
<p>To render a photo realistic video that is absolutely of the same photorealism level as video or film shot with real scenes, how many RAM is needed (i.e. can 16GB comsumer GPU be used)? Is it still needed to be rendered on CPU? What is the time scale needed to render a video? Can inter-frame correlation be exploited?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-11T15:15:37.697Z
"*To render a photo realistic video that is absolutely of the same photorealism level as video or film shot with real scenes*" That is not *generally* possible today. There are specific scenes that we can render well enough to fool most people. But we still aren't to the point where you can render *anything* perfectly (particularly with anything that moves).
Nicol Bolas
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-12T16:45:55.370Z
The bulk of the cost isnt about the frame render time but preparation for that render. Usually one sets a rendering budget and works within that limitation. Yes CPU rendering is still relatively common.
joojaa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-15T10:08:13.183Z
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.
Community
<pathtracing>
What is the rendering cost of photo realistic video today?
jw_
# What is the rendering cost of photo realistic video today?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-07-11)

I can only find online infomation such as some scene need days to render a single frame, but I'm not sure what is the hardware based on, it may be based on CPU rendering farms in the 2000s. There is also information about it takes several minutes to ray trace a scene in Maya, but the level of photorealism for the render is unkown. A lot of search doesn't give more accurate information.

To render a photo realistic video that is absolutely of the same photorealism level as video or film shot with real scenes, how many RAM is needed (i.e. can 16GB comsumer GPU be used)? Is it still needed to be rendered on CPU? What is the time scale needed to render a video? Can inter-frame correlation be exploited?

**Tags:** pathtracing

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "*To render a photo realistic video that is absolutely of the same photorealism level as video or film shot with real scenes*" That is not *generally* possible today. There are specific scenes that we can render well enough to fool most people. But we still aren't to the point where you can render *anything* perfectly (particularly with anything that moves).  
> **username_2**: The bulk of the cost isnt about the frame render time but preparation for that render. Usually one sets a rendering budget and works within that limitation. Yes CPU rendering is still relatively common.  
> **username_3**: Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-07-22. Score: 1

This question can not be quantified. There are too many variables involved. For one it really depends on what you want to happen in the scene and how much flexibility your rendering pipeline needs.

But consider this: In the past there was a whole lot more of optimization work happening in the rendering pipeline. With more computational power and knowledge. This optimisation work is turned into more details. The work stays mostly constant, sure less capital overhead also. The reason for this is that if before youd spent 300 hours optimizing and waiting, now you can just add more things in that 300 hours or simply not work those hours and be less convincing.

Now also what you consider photoreal changes over time. Generally, we dont strive to simulate a camera perfectly. Unless we design imaging equipment. Instead we aim for convincing enough images that are interesting. If we could photograph it efficiently and interestingly we would do that. But you know that you can photograph an image and its still not necceserily interesting nor particularily realistic looking. Most of the things you see are heavily editted, curated and filtered.

So can you do this stuff with a consumer card? Sure, this kind of stuff was also done in late 90's with computers which by all metrics are less powerful than most smartphones. In essence its just a question of patience and extra work. But considering that the operator costs several thousands per month, then it does not make sense to save few thousands on the computer if your worker is more productive with more resources. So its not done because it makes sense economically not because it really needs all of this stuff.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "This question can not be quantified" Can you give some real examples in real works?  

---

