PDA

View Full Version : Largest render out of Cinema


FloydBishop
01-03-2003, 04:30 PM
Hey gang,

I've been away from Cinema for too long to answer my friend's question. I think he's using Cinema 7.

He's trying to render out an image that is:

11520 X 11520 pixels

(96"X96" @ 120 dpi)

He keeps getting "Out of Memory" errors on the render. Is there anything he can adjust to get the render out (other than addig RAM to his machine)? He's in a bind and needs to get the job out today.

Thanks!

PS: He's got around 150MB of RAM dedicated to Cinema and he's on a Mac.

twilight
01-03-2003, 04:35 PM
I've done a 12.000 x 12.000 pixel image in C4D once, on a PC with 512 Mb Ram, single processor.
No problems at all.

Try to batch render. That will save some memory because C4D won't have to load the scene.

medula
01-03-2003, 04:38 PM
Hrm . .

How much free disk space does he have? Cinema will switch off to virtual ram (scratch disk) when it runs out of ram (I think this is the case). Then again . . .

He should get at least get a gig of ram since it's so darn cheap these days. Check out this place for the best prices (Mac centric too): http://www.dealram.com

That is one big image. :eek:

FloydBishop
01-03-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by twilight
I've done a 12.000 x 12.000 pixel image in C4D once, on a PC with 512 Mb Ram, single processor.
No problems at all.

Try to batch render. That will save some memory because C4D won't have to load the scene.

How do you batch render in Cinema 7?

LucentDreams
01-03-2003, 05:20 PM
first make sure all the sttings are right in the c4d file. save it and close it

now go to Render/batch render and you see rows of entry boxes. click on the job1 button and open the C4D file.

Another option you have is two render the image in halves or quarters that may help.

imashination
01-03-2003, 05:20 PM
144 million pixels in 150 megs of RAM? I think the impossible is being asked for here.

FloydBishop
01-03-2003, 05:31 PM
We used to do HUGE renders back when I worked at Lucent Technologies. We would model microchips based on the actual schematics, and then render them so they could be printed out 6 feet high. That was with Cinema 5.3!

I know it can be done, but most likely with some work arounds.

I'll pass along the info you guys have offered.

I think he's started rendering at a lower resolution and then he's going to up it in Photoshop. Not the best solution, but whatever works in a pinch.

fer 3d
01-03-2003, 07:52 PM
2 months ago, I was on a i-book OS 9.1 with 270 RAM, C4d v 7, and needed a pretty large render (don't remember how large in pixels, but I believe it was 700 or 800 mg).

I opened the memory control panel, and turned virtual memory on. Gave the maximum (around 1 giga) and restarted.

Then I allocated 900 to Cinema (get info... memory) leaving almost 100 to the system.

I rendered. There were no problems.


fer

FloydBishop
01-03-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by fer 3d
2 months ago, I was on a i-book OS 9.1 with 270 RAM, C4d v 7, and needed a pretty large render (don't remember how large in pixels, but I believe it was 700 or 800 mg).

I opened the memory control panel, and turned virtual memory on. Gave the maximum (around 1 giga) and restarted.

Then I allocated 900 to Cinema (get info... memory) leaving almost 100 to the system.

I rendered. There were no problems.


fer

I hadn't thought of that. I remember now that cinema handles insanely well under Virtual Memory. I'll pass that along.

Thanks!!:thumbsup:

chris_b
01-03-2003, 08:10 PM
...another option would be to use a foreground object with an alpha mask and then recombine the slices in Photoshop. I think Lightwave has a built in render feature that allows you to render in slices (for those with low memory situations)

This Tutorial Dann Stubbs posted ar Renderking describes the process and provides an 8 slice matte sample file :

http://www.renderking.com/rkvisualtut1.htm


This is the thread at Postforum:

http://www.postforum.com/forums/read.php?f=6&i=52698&t=52686


c

FloydBishop
01-03-2003, 08:13 PM
There's too much interaction with everything in the scene. It's a prism with lights shining through on a plane.

It's an image that was signed off on already for an 8.5" X 11" ad, and now they want it on a banner. Cutting up the filme could be more trouble than it's worth.

Good solution though.

AdamT
01-03-2003, 08:50 PM
Dann's method doesn't use compositing of foreground/background elements, but simply splits the full-frame render into stripes that can be combined easily in PS. If it can forestall the machine hitting the disk cache it could save a lot of time.

FloydBishop
01-03-2003, 08:54 PM
Oops... I guess I should have followed the link he provided, huh?

Sorry!

FloydBishop
01-03-2003, 08:54 PM
Oops... I guess I should have followed the link he provided, huh?

Sorry!

greg3000
11-10-2005, 11:45 PM
I was just tasked with creating a 10 x 22 foot billboard... slicing the image into many frames is my only option here. I'll try and let you all know how it goes :-/
Greg

LucentDreams
11-10-2005, 11:49 PM
mash and I have both worked on a project with 2+hours of 4096x768 footage, not large size wize compared to a lot of print, but 4096x768 is huge for video animation.

dann_stubbs
11-11-2005, 12:35 AM
I was just tasked with creating a 10 x 22 foot billboard... slicing the image into many frames is my only option here. I'll try and let you all know how it goes :-/
Greg

it is much easier to use the tiled camera that is included with v9 and up now. not sure if you know about it. there are arch users here that render big files that way frequently.

just divide the total pixels into the number of tiles to get each tile dimension for the render size. (i.e. a 9 tile would be divide by 3 and a 25 tile would be divide by 5)

dann

dann_stubbs
11-11-2005, 12:39 AM
mash and I have both worked on a project with 2+hours of 4096x768 footage, not large size wize compared to a lot of print, but 4096x768 is huge for video animation.

i have no idea what this has to do with the original question? lots of people work on large projects - most just don't post about it all the time as some seem compelled to do...

dann

Archigraphica
11-11-2005, 01:09 AM
Is he using any post effects? I've found large format renders using certain post effects sometimes give that message. Especially DOF. At least it does under windows. (that's why Zblur rocks!!!)

FloydBishop
11-11-2005, 01:23 AM
Hey guys,

This thread is over two years old. I'm not sure how long his render ended up taking, but I'm sure it's done by now. :)

Thanks anyways! :thumbsup:

LucentDreams
11-11-2005, 03:20 AM
i have no idea what this has to do with the original question? lots of people work on large projects - most just don't post about it all the time as some seem compelled to do...

dann

the thread was ancient, a guy brought up a size he was rendering (heck most the thread wasn't about the question but about render sizes)

flingster
11-11-2005, 12:22 PM
surely the limit is 16000x16000 assuming you have the system resources available to cope with that...i've certainly been up there with that..however it then becomes a trade off with scene detailling and geometry and file size out and no multipass...there are better ways to do it...hence the calls for camera offsets in objects. with the low amount of system resouces he seems to have i'd go as advised and divide the image up with the camera method.
bucket rendering for release 10 please maxon...actually i'm having a dig...but c4d is one of the best around at this sort of thing...most tell you can do certain sizes but largely its impractical..so in my mind maxon is still the dogs nads at it...just can be improved.#

JamesMK
11-11-2005, 01:00 PM
This thread is over two years old. I'm not sure how long his render ended up taking, but I'm sure it's done by now. :)
ROFLMAO :D


er... carry on.


.

Janine
11-11-2005, 01:16 PM
Dammit! Ancient threads should come with a warning. :p

anobrin
11-11-2005, 01:54 PM
who keeps reviving thes old assed threads!
:banghead:

flingster
11-11-2005, 05:11 PM
hah hah...thats just to damn funny...
we still haven't got bucket rendering though...lol...
oh the irony of it all...is it finished yet...the render that is...or the software...or the hardware...somethings never change...bigger...faster...better...

kill this old thread...die thread... ;-/

acmepixel
11-11-2005, 05:48 PM
Well, since we're all here, I have a question;

I'm still on 8.5 and it has a limit of 4096x4096 for any post effects (object glow, motion blur, etc). Does 9.5 still have this limitation?

flingster
11-11-2005, 06:56 PM
Well, since we're all here, I have a question;

I'm still on 8.5 and it has a limit of 4096x4096 for any post effects (object glow, motion blur, etc). Does 9.5 still have this limitation?

as far as i know yup...but since i don't have it can't be positive about that..anyone?

CGTalk Moderation
11-11-2005, 06:56 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.