ader posted at 4:20 PM Sun, 2 April 2023 - #4460545

That's for the bit of clarification folks, I still don't see how this new no-buckets thing is different to the old progressive mode, but maybe there was some core wastage in progressive mode they got rid of?

In p12 sometimes I use bucket renders and sometimes I use progressive, and saw no time difference in render time with them previously. I did however a few times see a visual difference in the render when the same exact scene was rendered in progressive mode versus not in progressive mode - this may have been a bug that has been fixed?

I still think it seems disingenuous to try and compare render times of P12 with P13 if the render settings (pixel samples and adaptive sampling thresholds) are different. Comparing apples to oranges basically. Are the render times different with CPU renders or is it just GPU renders that have benefited?

 

There seems to be this assumption that lower pixel samples directly equates to render quality, while is is certainly true that more samples should improve the quality for a given render engine I am not sure it is valid across different render engines.  While Poser 12 and Poser 13 both are able to use Superfly the implementation is different.  To my eyes the quality of a 50 pixel render from Poser 12 is, as far as I can see, identical to a render with 25 pixels in Poser 13.  I also know that changing the bucket size does change the speed of the render.  I ran two renders last night with the same pixel samples and adaptive sampling but one with a bucket size of 1028 and the other 2056.  Both showed the completed render would have 625 samples.  Not only was the update on on each progression faster with 2056 each progression was two samples while the 1026 was a single sample in each case.

Now I am sure someone will be able to take my descriptions and use them to prove something very different but all I know is that the quality does not look massively different between Poser 12 and 13 but the renders do take less time.  If I try and run the the same scene in both versions with the same settings the Poser 13 looks wrong, the lighting generally looks blown out and the render times in Poser 13 seem to be longer.

That said a lot of that is subjective, what I find of good enough quality will be very different to someone else's.  My goal is to generate renders that look good enough in print as I have a photobook created each year, or at least I have done for the last eight years.  Renders for the book have a dimension of 3508 X 2480 at 300dpi which work for a good quality printed A4 page that I can push to A3.  Some of the renders are  7016 X 2480 and 600 dpi as I generally create books that are fold flat so that it will take a double A4 sized landscape render.

This is a Poser 12 render but shows the idea.

 

Not surprisingly my renders can take a while but if I go back to when I first started having books printed most of the renders were overnight jobs, by Poser 12 they were down to a couple of hours and Poser 13 appears to be on track to complete most in under an hour.   The end result is I am more than happy with Poser 13 for the work I use it for but, not only that, I am finding it fun as well.

 

 

I use Poser 13 on Windows 11 - For Scene set up I use a Geekcom A5 -  Ryzen 9 5900HX, with 64 gig ram and 3 TB  storage, mini PC with final rendering done on normal sized desktop using an AMD Ryzen Threadipper 1950X CPU, Corsair Hydro H100i CPU cooler, 3XS EVGA GTX 1080i SC with 11g Ram, 4 X 16gig Corsair DDR4 Ram and a Corsair RM 100 PSU .   The desktop is in a remote location with rendering done via Queue Manager which gives me a clearer desktop and quieter computer room.