PDA

View Full Version : Render time predictor


sherridge101
06-22-2007, 08:16 AM
Hi all,

Is there a way of predicting how long a render is going to take given a certain scene and system setup.

Recently, I've set renders over night and found them to be only 60% complete in the morning. If there is a kind of rendering predictor saying the render will take 20 hrs, then I could go back in to the scene and tweak my settings.

When batch rendering, the percentage complete bar is handy but I'm looking for a predictor before I set the scene to render.

Oh, and I'm on Mac OSX

Cheers,

Steve

coccosoids
06-22-2007, 10:11 AM
Well I would predict them like this: first render out at 640x480... let's say I get something
like 5 minutes. Then if I would render my final resolution at 1280x960 I would say it would
take 20 minutes :)
Try and let us know. :)

sherridge101
06-22-2007, 10:47 AM
Well I would predict them like this: first render out at 640x480... let's say I get something
like 5 minutes. Then if I would render my final resolution at 1280x960 I would say it would
take 20 minutes :)
Try and let us know. :)
Cheers q_vazk,
121x300 is 4 minutes
242x600 is 13 minutes
so approx 3 times slower.
Could be useful but I'd like to know whether there is an app/plugin that can calculate the time.
Cheers

sherridge101
06-22-2007, 10:49 AM
Plus, my AA, samples etc. are lower on any test renders and so this would impact greatly on the render time.

fabergambis
06-22-2007, 10:51 AM
:thumbsup: that's right! Double resolution is about 3 times slower.

sherridge101
06-22-2007, 11:04 AM
:thumbsup: that's right! Double resolution is about 3 times slower.

Not if the test renders are set up with lower light and surface glossy samples, my AA is lower and my FG settings are lower and then I want to up my settings and my resolution. That's why I'm asking if there's a Render time predictor.

wizlon
06-22-2007, 12:51 PM
If you render it big, it will be slower (at the same render settings) and if you render it small it will be quicker (at the same render settings.)

So I predict your big render will be slower than your small render (aprox 3 to 4 times.)

:-)

http://highend3d.com/downloads/tools/time_calculators/

http://www.renderrocket.com/estimator.aspx

foggyball
06-22-2007, 01:31 PM
I find that I'm able to render HUGE lambert spheres like 24000 x 24000 at blazingly fast speeds, but very small multi faceted diamonds with mib_color_spread and caustics at 640 x 480 takes ages. So I guess the big / small rule of Wizlons is incorrect.

bmcaff
06-22-2007, 02:06 PM
Nope, it is right, just try rendering the very small multi faceted diamonds with mib_color_spread and caustics at 24000x 24000 and see. Compare like to like...
Of course scene size and complexity on both model and shaders paly a very important role as well as sampling. Then take into account Ram and disk swapping and you can end up with a lot of unpredicability. For a quick guideline I count the number of pixels (XxY)and get the ratio of small image to the big. Render the small image with same quality levels and then predict the final time (4 x the size 4 x the time) but that is still very rough. Or just sit by the pool until the damn thing finishes :thumbsup:.

foggyball
06-22-2007, 03:04 PM
If I render all my polygrames at 78 not 45, I could blow up my small render in Photoshop, because it's vector based compound paths init!

CGTalk Moderation
06-22-2007, 03:04 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.