Quote - > Quote - With GPU rendering, its pretty much manadatory. 

I'm sorry but I have to make a distinction here. Texture collection is only necessary with SLG, it should not be used for rendering with Lux, even with GPU enabled.

SLG loads everything, geometry and textures in the GPU. Because of this, it is necessary to collect and reduce the textures because, at 2K or 4K per texture, you exhaust the GPU memory very easily. It has nothing to do with speeding up, it is a matter of fitting the textures in memory. There is, obviously, a degradation of quality but that's all that we can do until we can get GPUs with 4or 8 GB of RAM.

Lux doesn't use the GPU for the textures, it takes advantage of the extreme soeed of the GPU in crunching floating point operations to make the raytracing portion faster. All the textures are kept in the main memory and so they can be used at full resolution.

So, when using Lux with GPU acceleration you should turn OFF texture collection. Of course, there is another use for texture collection, and that is to make it possible to tramsfer your Lux scene to another machine. That has nothing to do with GPU or not and it should be used as you prefer but generally you want to set the size of the textures to the original.

Hope this helps.

Okay Paolo... I think I can wrap my algebra-battered brain around this info.  I guess where my next question would lie is in the bottom line.  If you use cpu-only rendering or gpu rendering, does texture collection affect the render speed or not?  I could probably do some testing myself to find my own info.. but I'm going to the guru(you) since I'm up to my ears in Vue tutorials.

Quote -  If you use cpu-only rendering or gpu rendering, does texture collection affect the render speed or not? 

No, there is no speed advantage in using texture collection. I don't know how this idea became even possible. Texture collection is about fitting the textures in memory and about moving the Lux scene. That all there is to it :)

Cheers.

Quote - I just ran a very strange extremely un-scientific test.  I ran the same image for 2 minutes, first with CPU only then with GPU acceleration.  

CPU only had .86 S/p at 21 kS/s.  GPU accel got 3.8 S/p at 102 kS/s.  

**But **the CPU only image looked better and was clearer.  Why did that happen? I don't normally use GPU accel because I like to play games while a render is running and I never saw much of a difference in speed the few times I tried it, but I can't understand why the image looks so much worse if it's running faster by the numbers.

Yes, it is the same for me. The CPU rendered image looks MUCH better even with a lot less samples. This have been the same for me since the first version of lux that supported it. That is why I don't use GPU accelleration. I'm using an nVidia 580, you?

Quote - > Quote - I just ran a very strange extremely un-scientific test.  I ran the same image for 2 minutes, first with CPU only then with GPU acceleration.  

CPU only had .86 S/p at 21 kS/s.  GPU accel got 3.8 S/p at 102 kS/s.  

**But **the CPU only image looked better and was clearer.  Why did that happen? I don't normally use GPU accel because I like to play games while a render is running and I never saw much of a difference in speed the few times I tried it, but I can't understand why the image looks so much worse if it's running faster by the numbers.

 

Yes, it is the same for me. The CPU rendered image looks MUCH better even with a lot less samples. This have been the same for me since the first version of lux that supported it. That is why I don't use GPU accelleration. I'm using an nVidia 580, you?

Radeon HD 6950 2GB unlocked and overclocked (so it's essentially the same as the 6970).

Well.. my fiddling around with Vue is starting to produce some results.  Made a pretty decent scene.  Nothing nice enough to share with the rest of the class; but, it was a decent try at my first full scene.  I have some full pre-made scenes that are pretty cool too; so, I'm using one of a desert oasis to try out as an IBL.  It's going to take a while as it's huuuuuge...  8096 wide.  I'll post the preview jpg when it's done and when I figure out how to compile a full ibl out of the render then I'll put it up in my freebies area here and post a link.

Finally put the kibosh on the new mega image. I'll have to add the 'virgin' version (sans post) momentarily. 

Voila, virgin version. Vrooom! (needed another v-word) =D

Quote - Voila, virgin version. Vrooom! (needed another v-word) =D

 

WOW, to both.  Very nice work....

Think KrazyHorse said it all

Quote - rayman.. it shouldn't.  with that vid card you should get a nice jump in s/s as well as having a huge jump in your efficiency.

Efficiency more than doubles.  But given an equal render time/scene, GPU acceleration has much more noise and are a little darker than CPU. 

It could be due to a driver problem, but the machine is fully updated. 

So, here's a question.  What is more important, C/s, or Efficiency?

(KC/s) / (KS/s) x 100 = %Eff

Quote - (KC/s) / (KS/s) x 100 = %Eff

Order of precendence being:

((KC/s)/(KS/s))*100 = %eff

or

(KC/s)/((KS/s)*100)=%eff

?

(sorry, in Calc class right now)

((KC/s)/(KS/s))*100=%Eff

Rayman.. I'm basically going by the luxmark benchmark page.  On the benchmark charts there is zero information about s/s at all.  The rating of different hardware setups are based on c/s.  Therefore, I'd allege that c/s are the more important factor.

Thank ya much, gents! It turned into one of those full-blown projects that quickly gets out of hand (kinda like the book its tied to!)  ;-)

This was meant to be the last in a series of images, but some other things have come up and I scrapped the rest and moved this to the front.  My Halloween themed render plans are gone, but at least it's for something good.  

Superboom,  those scenes are fantastic!

Bradhp..I had to hide my eyes but I'm pretty sure the glance I got was scary!

So....I redid my materials for the lab.  Got rid of almost all the glossy and what was left I set very low.  I changed my lighting to only 1 light, which I don't like as well but I was hoping I'd get less noise.  It's a disaster. The longer it runs, the noisier it gets.  I'm really confused.  How can this be?  It started getting worse at 500 samples, but I thoug ht I was imagining it.  Now at a little over 1k samples, it's probably 4 times worse than it was. Help?

well.. after 9 hours the pre-pass on that huge ibl render was only 30% done.  Am going to downsize it a bit and then re-try it tomorrow.  Too brain-damaged right now to do much.  Only 2 more weeks of this effing algebra class left and then i get to concentrate solely on drafting and my building materials class... both of those are brain-candy so i'll be able to compute some more intense stuff inside the ol brain-housing unit.

Quote - So....I redid my materials for the lab.  Got rid of almost all the glossy and what was left I set very low.  I changed my lighting to only 1 light, which I don't like as well but I was hoping I'd get less noise.  It's a disaster. The longer it runs, the noisier it gets.  I'm really confused.  How can this be?  It started getting worse at 500 samples, but I thoug ht I was imagining it.  Now at a little over 1k samples, it's probably 4 times worse than it was. Help?

Thanks Xandi. Quick query: in addition to the actual glossy polish, did you edit the specular values? 

Yes, I lowered them slightly from the 255. I'm getting the worst noise around the glass.  For instance, the test tubes.  The longer it goes the more reflection/noise.  I started again, this time changing some of the metal to matt.  I'll let it run overnight.  (sighs)

High specular settings are noise monsters/producers. On various pages I've read on Lux, all agree to get the best results, keep the spec under 84. Personally, I like 50 or under, except on skin, and that all depends on how glossy you want it to look. With other materials, you can also use the specular to give it a certain color tint in addition to the diffuse channel (aside from whatever the texture is). Where this comes into play more often is on non-uv mapped materials, where there is only geometry and the surface itself, like the test tube rack for example. Set your diffuse to whatever color you want, and glossy or matte, and try a specular around 15-45 and you'll do fine. If going metal, all you need to worry about is either a preset or the custom metal color (avoiding straight black or straight white) and your polish value. 

Do a test render with one material like this and from there you'll get the idea ;-) 

With a set that has so much glass, your specular settings need to be juuuust right to get a nice, clean render. Gloss can be pretty high without running into problems. 

Edit: Just for reference in this context, when I mention '84' or other numbers, that's for all three colors (red, green and blue). I use the color picker and the sliding bar to the right, then fine tune if I need to with individual colors. Example 55, 55, 55 or 21, 0, 0

I just wanted to remind everybody that the brightness of the specular color can cause noise issues. Often I see people lower the strength of glossiness while ignoring the specular strength. That is a mistake. The brightness of the specular color must be kept under control by either lowering it or by using a specular map. Generally, the brightness should not be more than 25%. There are exceptions to this rule but that number is a good limit to keep in mind.

Hope this helps.

Quote - This was meant to be the last in a series of images, but some other things have come up and I scrapped the rest and moved this to the front.  My Halloween themed render plans are gone, but at least it's for something good.

Well, subject matter aside, I like the colorization you've used on this.  It's intense.

Quote - Finally put the kibosh on the new mega image. I'll have to add the 'virgin' version (sans post) momentarily. 

Great atmosphere for a book cover.  Best of luck.

Does anyone get more than 100%GEff?

I'm thinking that my sub 60%GEff might account for low performance in GPU accelerated renders.

1.  If it's an interior scene with exterior lighting(i.e. inside a house w/your lights outside the house) use portals.

2.  If it's a simple scene like just model/clothes/hair/backdrop.. then put it in a cube and make sure that no portion of your light is outside the cube.

3.  If there's a lot of glass in your scene and you don't need the refractive effect of the glass; turn it to architectural.

I've attached a screenie of a simple model/clothes/hair/backdrop in a cube render that I did as a burn-in render for my new computer.  Note the efficiency.  Almost 3000%  That efficiency combined with decent s/s rate added up to a c/s rate of over 2 million c/s.  That equals a render clearing up in a couple hundred passes instead of a couple thousand.

Without adding the gpu into the equation; my effiency is usually half what a plain cpu-only render is.  Still respectable though.

Quote - Does anyone get more than 100%GEff?

I'm thinking that my sub 60%GEff might account for low performance in GPU accelerated renders.

My GEff% on the last scene I tried was 30% and I think that's about the same as when I've tried before.  That scene running on CPU right now has 195% Eff.

EDIT: Just wanto add that scene is outdoors and 195% is pretty low, I didn't bother to light some of my background since it's only there to block the nothingness beyond.  A good outdoor scene I'll be 400-500%.

I get the same 3000 in similar cube scene stetups.  Its ineresting that %GEff is also comparable in both our machines.

I'm just guessing, but I'd imagine for GPU acceleration to have a positive effect on render quality, GEff would need to be above 100%

Brad.. yeah.. my gpu eff is nearly always below 100%.. but iirr.. that number is only added to your overall eff.  As complicated as YOUR scenes tend to be... I'd say a couple hundred percent is pretty good.  Most of my stuff is pretty simple so I get huge efficiency totals.

My GEff% on the last scene I tried was 30%

I've tried web searches and have turned up very little info.

I don't worry about stats, I just render :lol:

Doc.. it's all in an effort to render FASTER.. in Doc terms.. faster rendering = more bewbies

Quote - Doc.. it's all in an effort to render FASTER.. in Doc terms.. faster rendering = more bewbies

It's a trade off as

More characters = more boobies

So has anyone had faster renders using GPU acceleration?

After reading about the specular amounts here I double checked mine.  All were below 50, but I reduced them to around 25%. I'm a little confused about the color values you mentioned, Super.  Why would the color need to be below 84?  The three rgb values, or cmyk values are what comprise the color. So I might need a value above 100 for a particular hue. Or, am I not understanding what you're explaining? If I'm understanding what Paolo said, the specular brightness needs to be set low, as well as the glossiness amount.  I have very few items that are glossy in the scene in an effort to reduce the noise. I'm rerendering again, for the umpteenth time.  Hopefully lowering as was suggested will do it this time.

And thank you both for the help ;)

Xandi, for color setup it's better to use either RGB or HSV instead of CYMK. The latter is best suited for print than display. A specular color that has 50% brightness reflects 50% of the light that it receives, which is a lot. You can keep your saturation unaltered but bring down the brightness and you'll get better, cleaner results.

Cheers.

Hi Paolo, could you give some insight in how best to use GPU acceleration, thanks.

Quote - Hi Paolo, could you give some insight in how best to use GPU acceleration, thanks.

There is really not much to do beyond enabling it. The rest is in the hands of Lux. 

Thanks.

New Windows dev build -

Noise Aware Lux

"shaken, but not stirred"

A little Bond inspired image.  Seeing some very positive reviews for Skyfall has gotten me excited for it, even though I probably won't get to see it until it's released on DVD.  

And this is probably going to be the last image I do for a while (it was almost that last chainsaw to the head one, but I managed to squeeze this one in).

I fell into a writing gig that's going to take all of my time for the next month or two, so Daz is getting bumped down on the priority list.   

I've been experimenting again with the settings.  Most of my noise is in the glass.  The brain bucket for instance. If I set the reflection color to 25 it looks black. At 50 it looks very dark grey.  It's supposed to look like glass.  At Reflection 65, 65, 65 and transmission at 240 240 240, it looks like a very dark grey, not glass at all.  Am I supposed to set the reflection and tranmission like this for glass?  I  had them both up at 230 or so and it looked like glass but there was so much reflection and noise it was just a blob.  When you were explaining the settings, did that just apply to glossy items?

Quote - New Windows dev build -

Noise Aware Lux

Which is here. Only for the brave :)

Xandi, reflection for glass is not connected to the specular for Glossy. I usually keep the reflection value quite high, 250 or more.

Quote - "shaken, but not stirred"

A little Bond inspired image.  Seeing some very positive reviews for Skyfall has gotten me excited for it, even though I probably won't get to see it until it's released on DVD.  

And this is probably going to be the last image I do for a while (it was almost that last chainsaw to the head one, but I managed to squeeze this one in).

I fell into a writing gig that's going to take all of my time for the next month or two, so Daz is getting bumped down on the priority list.   

Ooo, love that! Was his face a custom job? (or and Odd Job,har har)

It's this guy.  http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/sav-dante-/85265

I know it's off-topic as hell because it's not a reality render.. but it WILL be as soon as I can dream up a foreground that I can use this as a background for.  I wanted to make an ibl but this is not a fully immersive scene.  It's more a point of view scene and that doesn't work at all for a spherical ibl.  I DID however save the scene info as an hdr as well as a jpg.  Uploaded the full size render to my dA gallery as this one is huuuuge.  You gotta see it full sized to see how pretty it is for a first-ever Vue render.

Quote - It's this guy.  http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/sav-dante-/85265

Wow, good likeness. I have a few of the SAV characters, an lo and behold, haven't used a one of them for a render yet. Oops!