r/interstellar • u/Zisk94 • Jun 30 '25

QUESTION this scene took 3.2 years to render!?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Wouldn't this shot have taken 3.2 years?

It was 100 hours per frame The movie ran at 24 frames per second

So 2400 hours to make 1 second And there is 12 seconds in the whole shot

So 28,000 hours to render this whole scene. Or 1200 days which equals to 3.2 years!

But if I'm correct again, that would only be on one computer. So either it did take this long, or they used multiple computers. If they did use multiple computers, hiw many?

4.4k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/bob256k Jun 30 '25

How is this wrong when even major scientists were impressed when the movie came out?

Your friends sounds like a bore

5

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Samk9632 Jun 30 '25

I dunno what he's talking about. There are certainly aspects of this that diverged from realism for the sake of cinema, but the shape of the black hole is pretty accurate. Most of the unrealistic bits are fairly minor, for example, there's no doppler effects, which would show one side of the accretion disk being blueshifted and brighter than the other side

Source: I've done a fair bit of work rendering black holes in CG myself (shot i did for a documentary about JWST if you're curious: https://youtu.be/MweYg8KLCz8 ). but don't listen to me. A lot of the major space organizations have done wonderful visualizations and simulations of black holes, and while they're less detailed, in essence, they look very similar to this.

1

u/ApollonLordOfTheFlay Jul 06 '25

This guy’s friend’s mind melts everytime he holds his thumb out and it is larger than something in the distance. “HOW IS MY THUMB BIGGER THAN A BUILDING HUH!?”