stormrider wrote:38 hours for 1 frame? There's either very few frames with robots in it or else Bay needs to get moving quickly if he wants to make deadline.
38 hours doesn't sound too unreasonable when you consider how much detail is involved.
Yeah, it does. At 38 hours per frame, ILM have enough time between now and the movie's release date - not counting time needed to edit the final product and ship it to theatres - to render a little less than 4 seconds of one effects shot.
If we imagine that effects shots with the robots make up a total of 20 minutes of film - which I think is a pretty conservative estimate - that's nearly 30,000 frames, or 1,094,000 hours of render time. That's 125 years
! Either ILM are running a massively parallel render farm to the tune of seven or eight thousand simultaneous frames - and while I'm sure that ILM have a pretty damn good setup, given that rendering effects is their business, I'm not inclined to believe that they are - or the article (or Bay) got the numbers way wrong.
Presumably it's meant to refer to some combination of human and computer hours to actually set up and produce the shot, averaged over the total number of frames. If ILM has enough people working on the movie in some capacity or another, I'd be prepared to accept that.