As a Brycer, I can be more than patient w/ my renders... However after several attempts at rendering a 40x30 300dpi image, I dont think "my" Carrara can handle it :(

The same file always fails or crashes my system just before it gets to 50% completed, and after making sure that it wasnt anything that I may have been doing, I am lost for a solution, if there is one.

Is this a common problem w/ Carrara? The same file, and always at the same time... Mind you, to get to this "almost 50%", takes well over a day, so I really need to find out whats going on before wasting any more time...

Anyone else having this probelm? Am I the only oddball trying to get 40x30 300dpi images out of Carrara?!?

Hi MatCreator, I do stuff like that successfuly all the time. However, I have created problem files crash at certain points - but are fixable. So here are some questions: Are you rendering using the batch queue? That will work better for large renders. (handles RAM differently) Also, since you mention that it always occurs at the same point, there may be a problem an object/filter/plug-in combination. Does the file crash in the same spot when doing a 72 dpi render or a 300 dpi render at a smaller size? Mark

Just out of curiousity, why do you need a 30 x 40 at 300 ppi. That seems like hi res for that size image. I do all types of large format printing for my business, and I don't usually find it necessary to be at 300 ppi for an image of that size. So far the largest render I have had printed from Carrara was 25' x 40', for a backdrop.

http://forums.polyloop.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=13732&d=1153109813

I was admiring this really incredible render by HowieFarkes (MAN! Carrara can do some really amazing landscapes in the right hands!) and a suggestion was made to increase his SWAP file to 4 GB (see link) to try and fix a similiar sounding problem...

http://forums.polyloop.net/showthread.php?t=8338

Personally, I would never attempt to render something that big- If you use Photoshop you can REZ-UP smaller files without losing hardly ANY noticable sharpness or details for purposes of large format printing. I have two wide format Epson's and do this all the time for art prints...

We got into a big discussion about this in the Vue Forum about six - eight months ago and this was the same conclusion- as Patrick_210 has said.

One of the other imaging pro's recommended Fred Miranda's photoshop action SI Pro 2. I went ahead and got it- and have been very happy with the great results. And I can tell- Photographers are VERY PICKY about details!

Taking image interpolation to the next level

http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/SIpro

Patrick 25FEET by ????  WOW

Is there any real advantage to trying to actual render that large seems like post process would be a better idea....that has got to be a loong render...for something that size.

I normally render at very high resolutions.  Poster size and some custom sizes like 36x42 at 300-600DPI.  It can take a week to get one good render at that size and resolution but it is more than worth it when you take it to kinkos to print on their lino machine.  As stated before watch just where it is crashing.  It is probably a bad misbehaving object or shader.  I notice that this occaisonally happens to me when rendering certain combinations of refraction, reflection and transparency.  It most often happens when I have 2 or more overlapping objects with some combination of those properties in certain proportions.  Check for that.  Also some objects don't seem to interact very well with shape primitives.  Also watch memory and virtual RAM, it fills up incredibly fast.

Veritas777

It looks like SI Pro 2 does at least as well as Genuine Fractals based on the comparison images on the site. Too bad there's no demo, but it is only $25.

Pixel Smart Scale has a slight edge on Genuine Fractals for line art or low color (toon style) art so I'd be curious how SI Pro 2 handles this type of art.

Chris 

Quote - Is there any real advantage to trying to actual render that large seems like post process would be a better idea....that has got to be a loong render...for something that size.

Well, If you render at a lower resolution then try to blow it up to a larger one to print it high res on poster stock, you lose a lot in the translation.  The software would have to interpolate the increase in res.  Rendering in a very high res to begin with means no loss of image quality.

There was a website where a guy compared 7-8 different programs that do interpolation- but I can't find it right now-- but SI Pro 2 came out just about on top as I recall- and it was among the CHEAPER methods. It uses what is actually a somewhat well known (among Photoshop wizards) of stair-stepping an image up- but SI Pro 2 automates the process.  I tried it along-side of a full working demo of Genuine Fractals- with a variety of different image types- and I could NOT see hardly any difference- but that SI Pro 2 seemed to have the slight edge. Of course- SI Pro 2 completely wins for the price difference.  I think Genuine Fractals has its biggest advantage in doing EXTREMELY BIG blow-ups- like City Billboards- with a relatively smaller file size based upon fractal compression. --- For my uses and needs I found SI Pro 2 perfect and very fast on my Athlon 64.

It's all a matter of personal preferences- but I think ANY 3D render that takes more than 24 hours is TOO LONG- I would rather use image interpolation with Photoshop. I personally believe that good commercial art can be made from any decent 3D image as small as 2K x 3K and REZ'ed up using Photoshop interpolation. Especially when you are printing on heavy watercolor paper (like 140# Arches) or Fine Art Canvas...

I tried the render again, didnt bother my machine for 3 plus days, and when i checked the render, it was frozen at 48.4%, typical for where this render usually stops (thats why I havent responed as yet)...

I render at that size because I print at that size. I dont believe or trust software to boost size, I am patient enough to wait for my renders (I have been doing this for a while you see, no problems w/ Bryce) and yes, sometimes a week or more. Necessary or not, if I want to produce output at that size, Carrara should do it, regardless...

My system has 2GB of memory, if thats not enough for what I do, Houston, we have a problem. So I guess Ill try the batch que. If this fails now..................................................

(Im posting the image, maybe you guys can see something wrong that I cant)

Well, I don't see anything obvious in the test image that would cause the problem.  I agree with you on using software to increase res.  Could you post the image again, with a small X or something to indicate exactly where it gets to before it hangs?  Also if you would like, I could send you my email address and if you wanted,  you could email me the file and I could try and see if it hangs here as well.  I have a dual core Athlon64 so it would go pretty quick.

  A lot of new people here seem to be having inordinately high render times. I'm not sure what they are doing. I produce images for large format on a regular basis and I've never had to render an image for more than a day. I think people are perhaps increasing the object and shadow accuracy or setting certain features to the highest setting which is unnecessary. Carrara can render to around 16,000 pixels in each direction. The larger you go, the less high the resolution needs to be. Anything that is over 3 feet does not need to be 300 ppi. When they first started printing billboards, the standard resolution was 7 ppi. That's right "7". Even now a billboard looks great at 35 or 40 ppi even though the printers are capable of higher res. Most people now set up a billboard at 1" scale and 300 ppi. Posters at 3' x 4' look good at 150ppi or 200ppi. A render that is 2500 pixels x 2500 pixels looks pretty good when printed at 4' x 4'.

Here's a photo of a Carrara render printed at almost 4' x 4' on plain paper. It is only a little over 2,000 pixels wide. You can't really tell but it is not pixelated and the trees in the far distance still have good detail. It is actually quicker to render at a higher res than to set everything on maximum and usually it will look better.

I too was wondering about the render times....... Honestly, I dont know enough about the settings, so I dont bother them "much"... The image does have/use 2 lights, both are using soft shadows, and the materials do have "some" reflection, but not much (anyway, these are concerns that a Brycer would worry about right? Not someone using C5Pro eh :P)...

Anyway, my antialiasing is set to fast, object accuracy is 2, and shadow at 4 (these were/are the default settings mind you)... Again, I dont finagle much w/ the render settings, not even using improved edges...

Now, I loaded the file through the batch que, and even set a file name for it, hoping this will be better. Its rendering now, at the 40"x30" at 300 dpi size. When/if it fails again, i will post where it stops...

I think its necessary to render at this size for many reasons... I like having a nice "solid" file to archive, and I can always go smaller (but never larger), and just in case I want to do some post work touch ups on it later, itll be ready.

Lets see how it goes........................

Thanks again.

That's fine, but I still think your problem is not the resolution, but an object. I don't know why you would want to waste so many hours without knowing if it will finish. I would track down the object at a very small res and be sure it would render before I waited to see if a 412 megabyte image is going to finish. I guess you aren't doing it for business so it doesn't hurt your bottom line.

well, i already did a low res version, worked fine...

i dont think anyone wants to waste time, business or not.

i didnt save the failed renders, as it froze carrara, so the only way to see the problem object is to try again. if you know a better way, im all ears, thanks...

Sorry to hear of your troubles. Good luck with tracking down/solving the problem. I like the image BTW!!

As far as the batch que is concerned. It is a good idea to use that option for anything taking more than a couple of hours. You never know when you are going to need that computer for something else.

I have a couple of dedicated render boxes. 4200+ X2's. But even with them being dedicated, there are times where one client takes precedence over another. If I need to shut a render down, then I dont lose anything.

Power outage is another thing to consider unless you have a dedicated UPS, but with a long outage it might not matter. The batch que is your friend. If you only have one computer, the batch que is even more advantageous.

Best of luck!!

It stalled big time, but I was able to see that I got something called an "noi error", and in the batch que it also claimed that there was a memory allocation error, or something of that nature... Again, I only caught a glimpse before Carrara "blinked out" on me...

I was able to save the render this time, I still dont see where the problem is, and dont know how large a render I can get before the crash. The 1st render was 2200x1650 at 72dpi, and I shrunk that down for show, but you cant do much else w/ something at that size...

Maybe you guys see something???

Im still lost... I thought maybe an object or something was causing the problem, but at the point where it crashed, there isnt even an object to consider...

How big is your Carrara file and what are the stats from the progress/statistics tab in the render room, texture map size etc? Are your seated figures instances or actual copies of the object?

The actual Carrara file is 520kb. The texture map surface is 5328, and the seated guys are copies of one of them. They all use the same shader too, as I set the master object and it was applied to all of them.

Quote - Well, If you render at a lower resolution then try to blow it up to a larger one to print it high res on poster stock, you lose a lot in the translation.  The software would have to interpolate the increase in res.  Rendering in a very high res to begin with means no loss of image quality.

That's a given, but what the real world trade-off is vs an ideal is what I meant. With high res image maps you might have a mem issue...this can really choke...I would watch commit charge. Might even have a multi-thread issue. Using a plugin? Did you test your ram fully w/ a ram test program? You are really gonna have to go thru and eliminate things...unfortunately.

Well, since the file is only 520kb, how about zipping it up and e-mailing it to me?  I can try rendering it on one of my PC's.  That would probably let you know if it's a hardware or file content problem.   Let me know if you'd like to do that and I'll IM you my home e-mail addy.

 Irene

How about setting up 4 cameras, render each one and stick them back together with your favourite image application.

In this case AndyClon I don't see how that would make a difference. One camera at a time is all that is rendered anyway. Multipass does not seem to be the issue unless there are gbuffers that are the problem. Even so finishing a render is necessary.
Checking the textures would be easy, just use default to see if that is it. Do make sure, regardless, that you remove master shaders and objects. This can bloat the file and can cause issues with file saving primarily, but good practice anyway. I would recommend all render options be turned off then turned on one by one. If you are loaded up w/ all the bells and whistle you are only adding to a possible resource issue.
The plugin question was not answered tho that I could see. Are you using any? How about advance pack? If you are using primivol it is probably the multithread issue I reported that is still unfixed. It does this very thing you are describing in the render if a custom shader is used as a volumetric primitive. If you turn off multi-threading it should work, but of course take longer.

Nope, no plug-ins or add-ons or anything of that nature...

Just curious... If something was wrong w/ a texture or object, how come I was able to get the 2200x1650 at 72 dpi version ok?!? Wouldnt a problem be detected early in the process? How come its always at the same point, but only on a larger, higher resolution version? Also, if the objects are based on copies, why do some render ok too?!? Also, at the point where the conflict starts, there isnt ant object or texture that hasnt already been rendered, so why be a problem only 1/2 way through?!?

I think what AndyCLon was suggesting was...  Since it renders it OK at a smaller resolution, then render the image in 4 parts.  Like the upper left, upper right, lower left, etc. of the scene and then stitch the 4 renders together in a paint program to get your final full sized image.  It might work.  Although, camera placement might be a little tricky. 

Quote - There was a website where a guy compared 7-8 different programs that do interpolation- but I can't find it right now-- but SI Pro 2 came out just about on top as I recall- and it was among the CHEAPER methods. It uses what is actually a somewhat well known (among Photoshop wizards) of stair-stepping an image up- but SI Pro 2 automates the process.  I tried it along-side of a full working demo of Genuine Fractals- with a variety of different image types- and I could NOT see hardly any difference- but that SI Pro 2 seemed to have the slight edge. Of course- SI Pro 2 completely wins for the price difference.  I think Genuine Fractals has its biggest advantage in doing EXTREMELY BIG blow-ups- like City Billboards- with a relatively smaller file size based upon fractal compression. --- For my uses and needs I found SI Pro 2 perfect and very fast on my Athlon 64.

It's all a matter of personal preferences- but I think ANY 3D render that takes more than 24 hours is TOO LONG- I would rather use image interpolation with Photoshop. I personally believe that good commercial art can be made from any decent 3D image as small as 2K x 3K and REZ'ed up using Photoshop interpolation. Especially when you are printing on heavy watercolor paper (like 140# Arches) or Fine Art Canvas...

Also, try IrfanView (irfanview.com).  It is freeware (unless used for profit) and is very highly regarded in its ability to resample images.  It uses uses B-Spline or Lanczos filters (as well as several others) to upsample images.  Both B-Spline and Lanczos filters seem to beat the stock Photoshop bicubic filters (I have PS CS2).  I print to an Epson 9800 giclee -- usually canvas, and I always do a 2x resample for my print files.  I target about 240 DPI as my print resolution.  My maximum render resolution is typically about 2.5x4K pix.

Incase you didn't get my e-mail, MatCreator...  It stops with a memory allocation error on my machine too. It was 42% done.   I had setup another try with some different render settings, but my husband wandered by, thought it didn't look like anything was going on, and shut down my computer.  Well, he tried to.  C5 asked him if he really wanted to cancel the render, and he said "Oh sh$t! My wife is going to kill me."  Since I run dual monitors, it seems to have removed my 2nd display window which is where the render que window sits.  Sheesh!  It didn't want to respond to anything, so I had to task kill it. :(  I'll try it again and my husband has been properly scolded to never touch my computers unless I tell him too. ;-) 

Quote - Nope, no plug-ins or add-ons or anything of that nature...

Just curious... If something was wrong w/ a texture or object, how come I was able to get the 2200x1650 at 72 dpi version ok?!? Wouldnt a problem be detected early in the process? How come its always at the same point, but only on a larger, higher resolution version? Also, if the objects are based on copies, why do some render ok too?!? Also, at the point where the conflict starts, there isnt ant object or texture that hasnt already been rendered, so why be a problem only 1/2 way through?!?

Well...a texture "problem" is a general term I was using that could cover several issues. Did you duplicate or use replication? Having the file you are in tthe best position to see what the issue is. The simple answer is bugs can come from a combination of factors that only when those factors happen cause the bug. Did you monitor your commit charge and your temp file and texture buffer settings? The texture buffer can really drive up the pagefile and not give back well. Resampling may be easier...wouldn't try putting that many camera shots together.

Just curious , what type of image file type are you saving as.  Sometimes a tiff file wont render while a jpeg will at larger sizes. 

Commit charge? Temp File?!? Texture buffer settings?!? I dont even know what those are to be totally honest. The dunces are duplicates, and the "other guy", is a dupe as well (even though there are only 2, 1 is a dupe). The master object was shaded, so the dupes follow the leader.

All my images are 1st rendered as .bmps, and I work w/ them from there, converting as needbe.

I didn't understand the commit charge and texture buffer settings either. I have no idea were such options are located???   

Anyway, I got your image to render at 40"x30" at 300dpi by deleting the infinite plane in your scene.  I'm guessing that there is something about your shader that's overflowing the memory. ?  Try simplifing the shader or pick a different one all together. 

Irene 

Well..that would make sense. Where it is stopping is on the plane. The texture buffer is under prefs in carrara were most things are. Commit charge is for windows. Task manager memory management. You are looking for how much ram you are using and patterns between virtual vs real ram. Might want to check the options for tiling for that texture. Check tile and make seamless, even interpolation .  Keep in mind that you often don't need to delete items either for a render issue. Can make them invisible instead.

Could you be more specific?  I see no options for texture buffer on any of the preference tabs.  The closest thing is texture spooling under imaging, scratch disk.  If that's what you're refering to, what setting do you suggest?  Under task manager memory usage, are you suggesting that MatCreator monitor the CPU and paging file usage while it's rendering?  What should you look for?  Carrara is rendering about 1/2 of the plane before it runs into the memory error.  Neither seemless nor interpolate is checked on the plane's shader.  It's just tiling at the default size (8x8).  Should seemless and interpolate be checked for use on an infinite plane?

Yeah. Texture spooling is what I meant. It depends. The default seems fine and doesn't drive up the paging file. I have noticed the paging file can go up alot and not back down when this is set high especially if using high textures and working on a render for awhile. This is not conclusive tho and will depend on real ram amts. Scratch disk in the same area might also play into it. How big it is. If you are running out of room that could be a problem. The cpu will be used no matter what tho. Watching the commit charge can be of benefit to see how performance is going based on these other settings also. If you have a charge higher than the actual ram for instance that already means you are giving it a work out. In theory it should just chug on tho, but much slower. I think seamless is a better idea for tiling and interpolation may help if the scene is pushing things. If you try that and don't get anywhere I would report it because it could likely be a bug.  It's possible a seam at a particular camera angle could be causing a rendering issue. Based on what was said and the error message seems like a bug to me, but it is different if you are really pushing something...we all know how that goes. Reporting these things is how they find bugs.

The texture spool is at the default setting of 1gb and 34+GB free on the scratch disk.  I let WinXP Pro manage the paging file.  But that's in my case.  I can't say what MatCreator's system is doing.  There doesn't appear to be anything heavy going on with the texture on the infinite plane.   2 texture maps are being used for the color and bump.  I did notice that texture #1 was tiling, while texture 2 was tiling and seemless.  Unfortunately, setting them both to tile and seemless didn't help.  The texture maps are both 1200x1200 which doesn't seem unusually large.  The whole scene appears to be pretty simple.  But then, I'm no expert at Carrara.  I only dink around with it now and then.  :)

I would report it. Also I would try jpg for texture to see if it makes a difference. Some of these image maps can really add up.

Yeah, I also told MatCreator that it should be reported.  It could also be a bug when you combine an infinite plane with fog or some such thing and have nothing to do with the texture at all.  Anyway, he's off investigating his infinite plane and I'm off upgrading one of my systems. :) 

Irene

I set the tile/seamless like that on the different textures on purpose. Im very anal :P

Thanks alot guys, i really appreciate all the help and info I received on this. Actually, I have another large format render going, and even though its moving slow, its at 84%, and no problems so far (keep your fngers crossed :P)...

We'll pray to the render Gods for ya! ;-)

Irene

Well, somewhere after 85%, I noticed the memory allocation error in the yellow bar of the render que :(

The partially rendered image "preview" totally vanished, no other error came up, and Carrara froze... So I saw nothing else w/ which to go by...

Oh well, thanks guys :P

I will go thru my preferences, and see what changes will help...

Any last words, thoughts, ideas, advice or suggestions from you guys?

Thanks.

MC, regardless of exactly what is going on...report it because even if it is a calc issue or resource usage it still seems like a bug. If you have a bug you have a bug. If you want the render finished you will probably have better luck with a procedural on the infinite plane tho or make it a plane....it doesn't need to be infinite from what I can see. Ialora seemed to have pinned downed the IP as a definite issue so that is the thing to address. Obviously infinite planes work, but there is something else going on with yours. No telling how large the resources are  being used on this.

Have you tried using a regular plane instead of the infinite plane. Someone mentioned before that removing the infinite plane solved the render problem. Just  a thought. , also  try rendering it to a jpeg with as litlle compression as possible.