Talk:Render farm

message: 209.19.96.75 (Talk | contribs) added this:
By the way, know why it’s called a render “farm”?
When Pixar first wrote Renderman, they deployed it on a few computers that were all in the same room (big computers, small room). An imaginative engineer added a line of code to the program that would have the computer play a sound when a frame completed. Someone had already host-named all the computers in the room after different animals, so the logical conclusion was to have the sound played be the sound from that animal. They could listen to the sounds and tell which computers were completing frames and which ones were hung. Hence the render farm was born.
:I could not verify this on the internet. I would love it if it were true though, that would be awesome. As they say, "Please make sure your changes are are based on verifiable sources." —Wikibarista 05:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Emailed Pixar for verification --Pmkpmk 12:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they get back to you? I think I heard something like this before, but I suppose it's somekind of computing urban legend. There's no speaker on rendering computers. It'd be nice to have this debunked (or verified!!)F3-R4 22:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'm pretty sure "render farm" is derived from the term "server farm", which predates the render farm.  Second, a render farm contains a lot of computers, way more than the number of typical barnyard animals. Thirdly, even if you could come up with enough barnyard animals to name an entire render farm, now some engineer needs to go and find sound files for each and every one? No, I don't think so! --24.86.245.68 (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  why it's called a render “farm” 

message: ::Would drqueue fit here ? drqueue.org . It was used for elephants dream and it's open source. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.216.187.247 (talk) 6 September 2006.
::::I think there's a fine line between spamming and citing notable softwares. Like in this article, renderman (PRman) should be cited because it is the de facto leader in the entertainment industry, right? Along with mental ray to a lesser extent.F3-R4 22:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr Queue 

message: "As a rule of thumb, CG images take roughly an hour per frame to render."
At what quality? what resolution? how detailed is the scene? this line is completely fallacious in its current context, rendering a 100x100 picture of a square will take under a second. Rendering hugely complex scenes of massive size could take many hours or even days. Also entirely dependent on the CPU speed of the computer and how many computers in the render farm.
I'm assuming that this is meant to be a reference to how long it takes for CG movie projects like shrek. This could be completely different for making CG movies for computer games, which are often made on lower budget and may have smaller Render Farms. It should give specific details. Something like "X Company, making Y movie had Z computers in a render farm which took roughly an hour per frame to render"
::To say, render a 100x100 frame takes a second, well, to render a cube with only one light and no ray tracing or shadow or whatever else there may be at 1080i would take about one second. Frame size is less of an indicator of rendering speed as to what is getting rendered. (deformations, displacements, particles, clothes, fluids etc) As the article refers to render farms, it should relate to the time it takes to render the stuff they usually render on render farms. On the Simpsons season 7 DVD (to cite a source) the PDI guy said that the rule of thumb should be "rendering time stays constant" it still takes hours to render a frame as it did in the 90s but now a frame has more element to render. Computing power has increased, but also the complexity of the software that runs on them, thus the rendering time stays constant.(PDI is the folks who would now become dreamworks animation who made shrek etc) But then, pixar in one of them press conference cited something like average 8 hours. The average time to render something on a render farm depends on what software is being run. A mental ray rendering a certain frame wouldn't yield an equivalent result as it would if that certain frame is rendered on a PRman. In summary, I thought that phrase needs to be removed and replaced with a more "wikipedia" explanation.F3-R4 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did my best to rewrite it but keep the sentiment. Originally, it was two lines long, so I may have lengthened it to be a little to repetitive, feel free to reword the last two sentences a bit. —Wikibarista 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross generalization? 

message: Can someone put examples of some movies and how long it took to render them. Like "Movie X took Y months to render".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frap (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of time 

message: I have to agree, this article is a bit too technical. It didn't help me better understand what this or how it works at all. Any chance this will be changed in the near future? ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lucky you, Digital Jedi Master. You did not absorb the many errors therein. Zero references (except a dictionary item!) of course, and the entire process description is at times outdated and more often incorrect. I may get to fix it one day.... For now I just tagged it to avoid error propagation.  History2007 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Technical 

message: :Well, lucky you, Digital Jedi Master. You did not absorb the many errors therein. Zero references (except a dictionary item!) of course, and the entire process description is at times outdated and more often incorrect. I may get to fix it one day.... For now I just tagged it to avoid error propagation.  History2007 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: And also an incorrect article