When you render to the Renderosity gallery I mean.

normally 1600x900 for a standard sized render for me, sometimes 800x450 if its a demonstration or that sort of thing.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

So when people say the "render took 3 days, 22 hours and the like they are talking about 1600x900 or something like that?

What about 3000, 4000px ? How long would that take to render ???

 

 

 

 

honestly, my renders never really take that long...   The longest any have taken is about 5-6 hours in more recent times and that was a 4000x3000 job.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

I made a terrain with "Rock" as material, (the very first material in "Displacement Materials") and some transparent water over it, The terrain is 130K polygons, the waterplane only 1100. After 1 hour the 4000x2500 render was still on "0" and it said 678 h, 14 min left.

I have a fairly new Quad computer with 8GB memory and GeForce GTX 465 videocard. I was complelty baffled. I hadn't even get started yet!

As you know you can't print with less than 3000,4000px with any quality.

 

that is odd, try, just for a test, rendering it at a much smaller resolution, and see if it starts, and if not, try turning down the quality of the displacement.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

as a thought, are you using a procedural terrain? not sure that will work too well with displacement beucase it will try and infintely refine the displacement when its closer to the camera.

Just tried the scene myself, it was a non starter with procedural terrain, but fine with standard terrain

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

The Renderosity gallery is a great place to learn from each other. But people need to put up the resolution they rendered with and what computer power if it is to be any useful. It is like a white elephant in the room nobody dare talk about. Is it a secret?

 

For rendo 1024 x 768 at 72dpi

I use totally different values for my client work, usually in inches and at 300 dpi.

Injustice will be avenged.
Cofiwch Dryweryn.

maybe its time we did some benchmarks to see whats going on?

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

Excuse me I had to go out for a while. Here is the file, it is a standard terrain, not procedure, (8MB Vue 9)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10255731/RiverCanyon.zip

It will be very interesting to hear about other people's rendertimes. Don't forget the to give the computer spec! It is at the start, at the very beginning of the project.

"For rendo 1024 x 768 at 72dpi I use totally different values for my client work, usually in inches and at 300 dpi."

Well that doesn't tell us so much does it, for the ones iín inches and dpi was perhaps some simple logos? Without seeing what that is rendered size tell nothing.

Here is a render from 00AngelicDevil00's "First render of 2011", rendertime was 58 hours.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2155735&user_id=577773&member&np

 But she doesn't tell what was the rendersize! What I want to know is, is it possible to render pictures of such complexity in 4000x3000? And what will the rendertime be?

36" x 48"

2625 x 3450 pixels

300 dpi

Is that better for you?

I can't show the image because it's for a client and showing it before it's published would be against my contract with them.

Can't tell you the exact render time either but it was less than 5 hours.

It's all a moot point anyway, the atmosphere you use, the type of lighting you use will all make a huge difference, not to mention displacement and textures etc. the variables are too great to make comparisons.

TBH, if a render was going to take me 58 hours, I wouldn't bother, I'd look to make some changes to bring it down, you don't need long render times to make a good picture and you don't need them to make work for clients that pays money either..

Injustice will be avenged.
Cofiwch Dryweryn.

thefixer,

I hear what you are saying but 00AngelicDevil00 is one of the best Vue artists of all time. I don't think she would be rendering 58 hours and didn't need to.

The time is a moot point as you say yourself, as long as we don't SEE with our own eyes what is rendered.

If it was a practice to publish rendertime and size in the gallery everyone would benefit. Until proven otherwise, I don't believe 4000x3000 versions of 00AngelicDevil00's pictures is practical for anyone without a Disney renderfarm.

Another beautiful day!

Thank you for the overwhelming response to "Subject: What resolution do you use".

So the time and size will even in the future remain a secret.

I have a pretty good guess though!

;)

I hear what you are saying but 00AngelicDevil00 is one of the best Vue artists of all time.

Well that is open to different peoples views on art I guess, personally I really like some of the art this person creates, some I don't, but I would consider other artists better than others.

Each person will have different views on what great art is.

Injustice will be avenged.
Cofiwch Dryweryn.

I keep my renders down to 1024 or 1280 so that they fit on monitors.  If everyone here has 2560 then I'll keep that in mind when rendering my final stuff.

My renders can take from 20 minutes to 20 hours depending on what materials I use and how much of it is in view.  I try to bake textures in advance to speed up rendering.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Thatnk you Shawn, for you information. I think you are pretty mainstream in rendersize. How is your Pythons studies going?

I just tried your scene, It starts rendering after a few seconds for me, but gets absolutely killed when it gets to the terrain.  I think you render settings might be a little bit too high on the User Settings in my opinon.

Although having said that when I got to the terrain it also absolutely killed the render time, but im not sure why?  If i start another scene and use a terrain with the same material and same resolution it goes much faster.

Im using a 6 core 12 thread xeon e5645 by the way.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

Thank you Rich, your informationi is most helpful. If my settigs are to high, what particulat parameter needs to change? You see that the atmosphere is the simplest possible.. This is like a criminal investigation!

I started on it a year ago.  Then had to do some C++ for someone.  Then got hooked on other hobbies.  Python is still on my things to learn list.  Proably by the time I sit down and do it, we'll have Vue on our phones.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

:)

 

The render won't budge from the first terrain bucket.  This does indeed look like a crime of some kind. :)

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

ive tried turning down the quality on ALL settings, and its still a dog to render, I really dont understand!

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

Ive at lesat got 6% done!

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

When not even my experienced fellow peers can do it I must bow my head in defeat.

 

"Ive at least got 6% done!"

What did you do?

?

 

Something in the procedural material for the terrain kills things at 4000x3000.  1024x768 was walk in the park.  Check the terrain and make sure it's not going into an infinite loop damn near just for each grain of sand the camera thinks will be in focus that hi-res.  OVER-KILLA!!! :)

Did you plan of any depth of field for this render?  Or motion blur?

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

I turned down displacement quality, light quality, put the settings on final rather than user and sent it on its way, 8% now but you get some funny spikes at the top from dodgy displacement.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

turning off displacement speeds things up imensely, i suggest that is the issue.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

For the material "Rock" I unchecked displacement.  Now it is crusing again at 4000x3000.  Yey.  Murder solved.

Oops.  Solved already, by Rich.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

http://www.richard-potter.co.uk/RiverCanyon.bmp

here is the file, its pretty big so prepare to remember the 90s.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

Don't forget the PSD.

Just as I thought, rendering at 1024x768 with the camera close to the terrain material halts Vue also.  The fractal and displacement in relation to pixel is the culprit.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

http://www.richard-potter.co.uk/RiverCanyon.psd

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

Well thank you! So it was the displacement that was the culprit. But the mystery is not solved, as other terrains with the same material and the displacement not turned of works, but never mind!

After I disabled the displacement and added some minor enhancements it turned out like that (rendertime15 min!),

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2200506

Observe the water. The water texture has nice foams on it, but if I turn on transparency the foam disappear. The only way to have both (ie to have the cake and eat it) is to make two renders of water, one transparent and one with foam. Then I can in Photoshop exact decide where I want foam and where I want transparency. (not done yet)

 I am using a reference, and the Vue scene is positioned exactly as the ref.

 

 

since you are using a image for your river, and it has the foam already included, the best option, in my mind, is to make a transparency map based on where you wan the foam to be, so black (or white?) where the foam is and the white (or black?) where the water should be.   but the one you want transparent should be a grey really since it shouldnt be 100% transparent.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

Yes I could do that but that would implicate more work to ashive the exact degrees of transparency/foam wished for. Still I wouldn't mind the extra work if I thought it would make me able to render the whole enchilada with all elements and eco-systems + real atmosphere etc at 4000x3000px in one sweep. No chance of that!

 

 

hehe, i would imagine not.

Rich

http://blog.richard-potter.co.uk

I usually render at 2000 - 2400 wide and use custom settings, and rarely go over 10 hrs. of render time.
Renders of 20 - 30 hours or more are usually the results of lacking skills/knowledge, unless they are HUGE.
About Drea's render mentioned above, it shouldn't take that long. Sure, there are some low density clouds, which is notorious for producing heavy renders, but still... I've also noted that she often uses the Vue presets, e.g. the "Broadcast" mode, that's not particularly clever. She may be one of the most popular Vue artists, but certainly not among the most skillful. An example of a skillful and great Vue artist: Artur Rosa. That's a whole different league IMHO.

Well I think taste and style is difficult to discuss..

I put Drea as #1 here at renderosity, but that is only me. The only one who matches her is perhaps someone at cornucopia3d, like Daniel Respaud. Drea lives together with Michel Rondberg‎ aka da1imu who also is a good artist, albeit not in Drea's class. But he is a competent engineer - together they form a strong team. Quadspinner Dax Pandhi is a good friend of the couple that live near.

Last, technical knowledge is more than Vue. Proficiency in a highlevel modeler like 3ds max or Maya is important as is zBrush and VRay and others. There is more between heaven and earth than Vue's function editor.

Edit:Check out a typical profile for a professional CG artist,

http://baolongzhang.blogspot.com/2009/09/baolong-zhang.html

Well, doing what I can to bring the thread off topic...

What is the displacement for and if using one on a procedural terrain can't be done (if that's what happened), that would seem to suck.

I would hope Vue could handle 12 x 16 (inches) @ 300 DPI for a suitable sized piece to hang on the wall with ease. By, EASE, I mean done in single-digit hours.

12300 = 3600
16300 = 4800

You wont get a quality render in single-digit hours using any kind of beautiful atmosphere with a resolution of 4800x3600px

300 dpi is more for coffe-table books and art magazines like. For a painting that hangs on the wall and meant to be seen from some distance 150 dpi is sufficient. 2400x1600 is a more manageable resolution. But if you want a larger painting, say 32x24 inches, we are back to 4800x3600px again.

What I advocate, is that even as a beginner you should acustomate yourself to work in the larger format. It is a completly different workflow and if you don't do it from start you never will get into it.

Thanks for your reply. :)

I mentioned 12 x 16 as something big enough to hang on the wall and would hope I could do it without waiting for days.

I was looking into Vue as an aid to the paid work I already do. In that regard, it would need to be at least letter (8.5 x 11) in (near) size (for full page ads) and CD jacket/case sizes. Two weeks ago, I had to design a standing banner that was 32 x 81 (counting 3 inch bleed) @ 300 DPI.

I might render some stuff for fun for monitor viewing but ultimately, I was hoping for some quality print.

"I might render some stuff for fun for monitor viewing but ultimately, I was hoping for some quality print."

Exactly so. Who wants to have 300 pictures made over several years representing hundreds if not thousands of hours of toil which are good for nothing except printing postcards? Even if you don't plan to sell anything it is still pleasant to give away paintings to friends and family. And if the unbelievable happens that people begin to take an interest in your work and there is a demand, what a catastrophe if all this paintings are too small!

1680x1050, my desktop resolution ;)

also, it's the least you'd want for blow ups for large prints (1000+ pixels in smallest size)

:)

"I'd rather be a Fool who believes in Dragons, Than a King who believes in Nothing!" www.silverblades-suitcase.com
Free tutorials, Vue & Bryce materials, Bryce Skies, models, D&D items, stories.
Tutorials on Poser imports to Vue/Bryce, Postwork, Vue rendering/lighting, etc etc!

Quote - "I might render some stuff for fun for monitor viewing but ultimately, I was hoping for some quality print."

Exactly so. Who wants to have 300 pictures made over several years representing hundreds if not thousands of hours of toil which are good for nothing except printing postcards? Even if you don't plan to sell anything it is still pleasant to give away paintings to friends and family. And if the unbelievable happens that people begin to take an interest in your work and there is a demand, what a catastrophe if all this paintings are too small!

Absolutely !

Now, I'm not "putting on airs" or anything because I'm certainly a smal-time designer. I do "word of mouth" Photoshop work but I design for a small starup record production company. And Vue might be useful in generating something for use.

And I design for the US Government at the moment (retiring in a couple of years).

Personally, I don't have what it takes to become "big time" anyway--I'm not special. So worrying about "being discovered" isn't a concern...LOL. However, I might like to have some Vue-rendered "Kinkade-ish" landscapes on my wall some time wink.

Quote - 1680x1050, my desktop resolution ;)

also, it's the least you'd want for blow ups for large prints (1000+ pixels in smallest size)

:)

Heck, a 4 x 6 would need to be at least 1200 pixels wide ! :)

My renders tend to be in the 3000ish pixel (smallest dimension) kind of size, but mainly in case I want to try postwork but also for the "in case" occurrences of wanting them to be printable.

Dreams are just nightmares on prozac...
Digital WasteLanD

Quote - My renders tend to be in the 3000ish pixel (smallest dimension) kind of size, but mainly in case I want to try postwork but also for the "in case" occurrences of wanting them to be printable.

Certainly, postwork is easier in bigger resolutions. Adding stuff, etc.

Quote - Renders of 20 - 30 hours or more are usually the results of lacking skills/knowledge, unless they are HUGE.

My computer is old.  So it has a note from the doctor. :)

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

1920X1080 is an HD standard so I wouldn't do anything less save for special instances.

 

 

I remember when 640x480 was Super VGA.  Heck I remember when 320x192 with 16 colors was the bees knees.  Then there was the Decwriter II that could do 132 columns per line.  Then there was that teletype I used...

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Shawn

lol, yup I remember such: 800x600 was, wow, BIG! ;)

 

as for sizes for print, "Genuine Fractals", folks... ;)

"I'd rather be a Fool who believes in Dragons, Than a King who believes in Nothing!" www.silverblades-suitcase.com
Free tutorials, Vue & Bryce materials, Bryce Skies, models, D&D items, stories.
Tutorials on Poser imports to Vue/Bryce, Postwork, Vue rendering/lighting, etc etc!

I see Shawn's been around nearly as long as ME !  I bought an original IBM PC with single-sided 5.25 floppy disk as the only storage @ 160K per disk. And remember when I got a 20 MB hard drive for it and thought I'd NEVER need any more space than that !

I started in 1975 using mainframes that were built in the late '60s.  The first home computer I programmed was the TRS-80 Model I and saved on tape.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Quote - I started in 1975 using mainframes that were built in the late '60s.  The first home computer I programmed was the TRS-80 Model I and saved on tape.

I guess I have you beat by several years, then. ;)

I joined the ASA (Army Security Agency) in 1970 and was schooled on mainframes at NSA (National Security Agency outside DC) in 1971. IBM 360-30, 50, and 65. There were a slew of MFs at NSA.

I was still working on mainframes until 1992 at Wells Fargo and other banks.  They were the IBM 3090 model.  I know more programming languages than is practical.  But that was another life.

www.youtube.com/user/ShawnDriscollCG

Yeah, even COBOL is still around. I learned FORTRAN IV as my first language, then COBOL. And then CICS, Culinane's IDMS mainframe database system, and other stuff.

When micros came along, I did Pascal and Clipper. And both of those faded away...