Well, for the first time, I'm finding hard to render a certain scene.  I have M4, he has clothes on and is holding 2 daggers, and I have Nike's Dark Forest.  I have an IBL light, a spotlight and a spec light.  That all rendered fine.

Then I decided I needed some leaves in the forest, so I added a prop from Daz (The Sentinels of the Forest) which is a bunch of leaves, a whole lot of 4-poly planes with trans-mapped leaves billboarded on.  Now I'm really struggling to render the scene, but I don't want to give up.  

I finally was able to render it at a small 500x500 by reducing the individual leaf textures from 1500x1500 to 375x375 and by taking off the AO from their materials, but I want to render it at at least 2000x2000, and that just ends up in one of those memory errors that suggests that I either reduce the bucket size or render as a separate process.

I am running windows xp professional with 4 megs of memory.  I restart my computer often.

So I'm looking for some information.  What exactly does rendering as a separate process do?  I know it greys out the "adaptive bucket "  which was not set by me at .375, and "bucket size" set at 64 window, which I've never understood either.

Would running it in the background using Glowworm help?

In my render settings I have fairly hefty, but not ridiculous settings.  2 raytraces, 4 pixel samples, 50 irradiance cache, and .2 min shade rate.

Shall I give up on rendering the leaves, or is there something amazing that I should look at that might help this thing render better?  I've never had an issue with Poser renders at all, so I'd like to understand what is making this such a bear to get out.

Thank you if you can help.

Indi.

Rendering in a separate process allows the render engine to access more memory, (and according to the manual is a bit more stable) so I would enable that and also reduce your bucket size to 32. That's pretty much how I have mine set, and it's quite rare for me to have a render fail. Does happen occaisionally, but thankfully not that often.

Dont know too nuch about the tech side but i have never really had a problem since i reduced my bucket size down to 20 !!

When i have a big scene to render i always save scene, restart pc, have NOTHING else running, click render and WALK AWAY !!!!  lol ..........it will be interesting to read what the tech heads suggest ;)

Hope you get sorted mate.

Vale

Hmmm... this is of some interest to me too. Thanks for the pointers, raven and leezace.

I've been having big troubles rendering a scene with a reflection of transmapped hair... even with only 1 raytrace bounce it stops as soon as it sees the reflected hair, and goes no further. The longest I left it was 4 days, and it still hadn't budged even one bucket. I gave up on it.

I've always used a bucket size of 50 pixels, but after reading this I'm going to leave the scene rendering overnight with a bucket size of 20.

(in a deep voice).... I'll be back!

I have my bucket size set to 16 - seems to work ok

Ok, I've set my bucket size to 20 and I'm going to walk away.  Thank you Leezace and Raven, very much.  I'll report back tomorrow :)

Indi.

isao, ISTR one of the developers said to use bucket size =2 n

Raytracing for hair is always a killer.  If you are using it for a portrait, set if and walk away for a few days.  If the image is smaller in your scene, then take raytracing off the hair.

In cases where scene rendering slows to a crawl, it may be a good idea to split your scene into fore-, mid-, and background and render those separately.  Save the renders as PNG and assemble everything in a 2D program (PSP, Photoshop, GIMP, etc).  PITA but it could save you the trouble of finding low poly substitutes and replacing everything in the scene.  Another alternative, if you have a background cluttered with objects, convert that background into a wallpaper image within Poser.  It would take the load off render time.

Render still running this morning. I can't see what it's doing though, as I sent it to the Queue Manager.

Thanks Miss Nancy, I'll try 16 next time!

My scene in this case is a close-up portrait. There is a marble wall directly behind the figure with shadows and reflection and probably some AO. I don't think I can layer the render, unfortunately.

My render quit. (no error message, no degradation of the render, nothing, just a stopped render)  I thought it was 2^n, so I will try 16 next time, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I'm with Isaoshi though, most of the stuff would be hard to render in layers, but maybe I can at least chop out the leaves, which seem to be the big offenders.

Indi.

You could always set the leaves to be not visible in raytracing, which will just stop them from apppearing in reflections, or casting ray-traced shadows. If you are using depth-mapped shadows, then set 'cast shadows' off for the leaves. If you are using depth-mapped shadows, have a try with the shadows set to ray traced to see if that helps. Depth mapped shadows can take quite a lot of ram.

i noticed that Daz M4 and clothes are very detailed. a lot of mesh.
IMO to much. it doesnt make it more smooth.

Quote - i noticed that Daz M4 and clothes are very detailed. a lot of mesh.
IMO to much. it doesnt make it more smooth.

...and Neftis hair.  :)

It seems there isn't a magic button in render settings I just missed pressing, so I'll try the tips above and make it work.

Thanks all.

If you are using AO, then transmapped hair can sometimes cause havoc. Definately worth trying removing AO from hair if you have it applied.

Bucket size and shading rate should be tuned together for most efficient memory usage. Min shading rate of 0.2 is very popular setting among Firefly users, but REALLY slows the render down.

If I set my bucket size for 16 and shading rate at 1.0, each bucket will have 256 pixels. If I set bucket size and shading rate for 20 and 0.2, then each bucket will have 2000 pixels. Which settings will use more memory?

Some users would argue that min shading rate of 0.2 creates a crisper render (especially for transmapped hair) but not if you use a box filter. I'm sure that I can get crisp renders using a shading rate 1.0 but with pixel filter type Sinc with a setting of 4.

Back from work and render still running after 19 hours. It's only 750x750. I think it is the AO being calculated on the reflection of the transmapped hair, as raven suggested.

I'm using AO on my IBL, not MBAO. Perhaps I'll try a render without IBL AO. If that completes, I might try it with MBAO on the figure and wall, and not on the hair.

But by the time I get an acceptable render of this image, I'll probably have gone off it anyway....

Quote - Bucket size and shading rate should be tuned together for most efficient memory usage. Min shading rate of 0.2 is very popular setting among Firefly users, but REALLY slows the render down.

If I set my bucket size for 16 and shading rate at 1.0, each bucket will have 256 pixels. If I set bucket size and shading rate for 20 and 0.2, then each bucket will have 2000 pixels. Which settings will use more memory?

Some users would argue that min shading rate of 0.2 creates a crisper render (especially for transmapped hair) but not if you use a box filter. I'm sure that I can get crisp renders using a shading rate 1.0 but with pixel filter type Sinc with a setting of 4.

i guess i am doing something wrong.
can you show some test renders?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1858995

This looks good, Raven.  Maybe I'm just trying to render too large, LOL.  The shadows look really sharp between the leaves, those are raytraced?

Thanks for posting this.  :)

Indi.

Oh bugger, I have to clear up an accidental mistake.
I only had one light turned on in the scene, the point light, so there's no IBL with AO at all. Doh! I've edited the info on the image page. I am currently now re-rendering it using an AO enabled IBL at a low intensity  as well as the point light to see how much time difference it makes, or even if it renders. Sorry again.

Yes, point lights can only do raytraced shadows.

Well, my render with an the AO enabled IBL took about 4 minutes more. So that wasn't too bad :)
Although to be honest, it doesn't look like there's much AO applied at all. :unsure:

Hmmmm, no Gamma Correction?

Not only no gamma correction, but also fighting a lava-demon with a burning stick.
It's like hitting a dog with a sausage.
I don't mean hitting a dog who happens to have a sausage.
After all, whoever saw a dog with a sausage long enough to hit it?
I don't mean a sausage long enough to hit the dog with.
I mean....
Oh, never mind.

(Sorry, I'm at work, and bored. Please just ignore.)

Btw, my render was still running this morning. I'm going to cancel it this evening if it's not done.

Actually the torch is for illuminating his journey home, no street lights in the forest,  the axe in his hand is what he's defending himself with! :)

And no, no GC, but then I find that not all images necessarily need it. I'm currently re-rendering again, this time with GC enabled and light intensities turned down to compensate for the GC to compare again.

Quote - Actually the torch is for illuminating his journey home, no street lights in the forest,  the axe in his hand is what he's defending himself with! :)

And no, no GC, but then I find that not all images necessarily need it. I'm currently re-rendering again, this time with GC enabled and light intensities turned down to compensate for the GC to compare again.

when will people get it? :) 
this is not a fancy effect. gamma correction is not a fancy effect.

you always need to gamma correct.

how do you know how long it takes to render? is there time displayed in poser?

Umm, no, I don't .  Just because I may have the toys in the box, doesn't mean I have to play with them all  :) 
No where did I say it was a fancy effect or that I didn't get it. Images I do are how I want them to look, which doesn't neccesarily mean physically or technically correct, sorry. Sometimes I may want the look achieved in a pic without GC as opposed to GC enabled. If I have a picture whereupon I want details in deep shadow without overlighting, then yes, maybe I will use GC. If not, I wont.
As an aside, this pic was done from an old P7 saved, pre-bagginsbill GC shader .pz3, and was rendered for the benefit of the original poster with regards to render settings being able to render a fairly resource heavy scene, hence the non GC. As it happens, I liked how it came out, and so posted it in my gallery.
Now I use PoserPro, I can do GC renders if I choose just by checking a box (and running the Python script to stop GC affecting bump, disp, trans maps). That's why I'm re-rendering for comparison. It doesn't mean I'm going to go through all of my old .pz3 files and re-render all of them gamma corrected.

So, back to render settings! :)

Oh, ice-boy, re the render times, there are a couple of Python scripts that show the render times upon completion of a render, I know there's one by stewer somewhere called (I think) TimedRender.py but the one I use is part of semidieu's Advanced Render Settings script, it's a very comprehensive post render info dialog. I've attached a pic of it.

thanks.

Attached Link: http://www.keindesign.de/stefan/poser/scripts/timedrender.py

On the subject of gamma correction:

I have Poser 7, not Poser Pro.  I just finished reading and compiling BB's post he made about a year ago about how to change materials to apply gamma correction.   There is some discussion there about the Pro's GC being "better than no GC".

So two questions.  Did anyone ever put together a script for that?  And, is it worth the upgrade to Pro for the checkbox?  I don't have a 64 bit OS (pretty sure), so the 64-bit compatibility is wasted on me.

And then... back to render settings.

:)

Indi.

i say whait  for poser 8

just wanted to mention that I gamma-corrected raven's lava-troll/freak render and it looks much better with no correction IMVHO.  wayyyyy too bright with any positive GC (on monitor with mac standard gamma).  it also looks somewhat better with no "auto levels".  would just like to add that the oak leaves appear too large, assuming they're in the mid-ground and not the fore-ground.  however, in general, a default poser user with an empty scene, default lites, default render settings and nude vickie will usually need to GC IMVHO.

The oak leaves are rather large (and don't really look like oak leaves to me! :) ), but that's how they load. I suppose I could have tried scaling them, but honestly couldn't be bothered :)

Re the gamma correcting, so as I said, whens needs dictate.  :)

Who's the avatar this time Miss Nancy? It reminds me of a Beatle.

They actually look like magnolia leaves :)  And yea, they come from Sentinels of the Forest, so they are meant to be huge and dense. They are gorgeous, just very resource intensive.  I like the Sycamore leaves because they look like Sycamores and are supposed to be enormous.  My neighbor has two very mature Sycamores and I rake up his leaves that come down into my yard.  Not many by count, but the coverage is impressive :)

Indi.

Quote - just wanted to mention that I gamma-corrected raven's lava-troll/freak render and it looks much better with no correction IMVHO.  wayyyyy too bright with any positive GC (on monitor with mac standard gamma).  it also looks somewhat better with no "auto levels".  would just like to add that the oak leaves appear too large, assuming they're in the mid-ground and not the fore-ground.  however, in general, a default poser user with an empty scene, default lites, default render settings and nude vickie will usually need to GC IMVHO.

no really??????????? 
it looks brighter?

thats the point of GC. when not using GC everything is darker. so all shaders and lights are designed for this. when you are usign GC you need to change everything. you need the changed material settings and lights.

i give up. i am officialy giving up. after 2 threads from bagginsbill and common sense i give up.
:) 

I've attached a picture showing the 2 versions to compare. The top is the original, point light at 75% intensity, the bottom gamma corrected (PoserPro 2.2 in the render settings) with the point light at 34% intensity. The non GC looks much better to me.

I've also read bb's threads, I know where you are coming from, don't give up, just don't keep trying to ram it down people's throats, and they'll all come around in the end :)  
I mean, hey, loads of people still use the P4 renderer! :)

of course it looks better since you are using in my honest opinion in the GC render the wrong settings.

let me guess: the light that is supposed to be fire is not orange or red. right? 

are you using the inverse square falloff? 
www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php

boy, don't forget to explain to them how to improve the render by adding true GI and indirect lighting fx.  they'll never get a realistic render in poser without those. application of GC settings prior to render will allow a greater dynamic range in the final render, but FFRender is still not up to specs in regard to other functions.  also, try to remember that the default user is still turning off shadows and using lowest-quality render settings, just to be able to churn out a nude vickie/girl/aiko before their render crashes.

raven, the avatar is the little-known "6th beatle", dwayne dibley.  I wish they would have allowed me more than 15 min on me lunchtime on apr1 to do it better, but that's the limitation of the genre :lol:

if there was the normal GI i wouldnt told him to use it.it takes to long.
i was watching some video from MODO and they have a fantastic GI . renders fast and gives fantastic results. not physical accurate but you dont notice it.

if we had some nice fast indirect lightign in poser then this would be amazing. but with some spot lights we can do magic. for example the irridiance caching in poser 7 was an amazing update. i can lower it and get fantastic results with low AO. when using darker AO i do 50.  never go to 90 because you would no notice the difference in my renders.

Actually, the light was orange-yellow to try and emulate the colour of flames. No I wasn't using the inverse falloff on the light, although I was going to mention that I could use that for more realism if necessary in my last post but didn't :)
So in your opinion, how am I using the wrong GC settings? Surely it makes no difference if it is 2.2 in the render settings, or set to 2.2 by using shaders, the gamma correction will still be the same? Ideally we need a test scene that is available to both of us so that we can both render the same scene, but that you could show me the 'right' way. I will admit I don't understand how I'm using the wrong GC settings, if you could explain what you mean, by all means, please.

Miss Nancy,  Dwayne Dibley? Dwayne Dibley? I can't be no Dwayne Dibley!
I must admit, I'm looking forward to the 3 brand new episodes of Red Dwarf on over Easter! :)

I tried using the ISF shader on a firelight and got some very strange bright yellow artifacts where one mesh met with another.

I too would be interested in correct GC settings.

i am sorry. i didnt meant the GC settings. your materual settings could be wrong. your lights settings could be wrong.

bagginsbill showed that with the inverse falloff and GC that you can make a good fire render.  and belive me the tree and everything would look better. 

plus i would make the bump bigger on the ground.