PDA

View Full Version : R11 slower for me


daytona
09-01-2008, 07:48 PM
I was very relieved to receive my copy of R11 as I was in the middle of producing a QuicktimeVR bottle revolve. I had managed to forget to turn on a bit of displacement so all 36 frames had to be re rendered!! Frames with correct displacement were coming in at 21 mins each with 10.5, so I was looking for a slight improvement.
What I got was the reverse. Frames coming in at 28 mins.
Why should this be? No GI, just lights, reflection and refraction.
I had heard about great speed increases, is this just relating to GI renders?

Per-Anders
09-01-2008, 07:55 PM
Not all scenes will get a speedup, it's an average rather than an absolute, mostly scenes involving more raytracing heavy effects get a better speedup. You should check for any discrepancies between the render settings as they now operate in a different manner. You may also need to adjust your reflective/refractive materials as both reflection and refraction received new options and controls, turning some of which off can speed up rendering considerably in addition to improving the render quality (e.g. Exit Reflections in Transparency is one such example).

JoelOtron
09-01-2008, 08:40 PM
I have to say in my short experiecne with the R11 demo ---that every scene ive tried DOES render significantly faster (not GI scenes either)=--so that does correspod with whats being said about the rendering speedup. Im interested in learning more about which setups will see less of a render speed up. Will bookmark this thread.

daytona
09-01-2008, 09:27 PM
Thanks Per-Anders, when I get this job out of the way and I have a bit of spare time I will play about with the settings to see what difference different options make. As it stands the file I tried using in R11 was just bought in straight without adjusting anything, results looked the same, just slower.

LucentDreams
09-01-2008, 09:34 PM
considering theirs reflection and reflection there is definitely something odd going into play here, because those are exactly the kinds of features that should be faster. It might be something with the displacement

For reference, the main optimizations are in raytracing, particularly in handling scenes with large scale differences, overlapping/intersections. If a scene uses just shadow maps and standard shading with no reflection or refraction that its not going to change much if at all.

I'd say when you have more time to do direct comparisons literally rendering in 10.5 and then in r11 with no tweaking of the settings.

Also, turning off Exit reflections when they aren't supposed to be there will not only improve the result but also the rendertime.

Nanome
09-02-2008, 03:31 PM
It's slower for me too on the scene I'm currently working on. Huge disappointment. I'm using GI and AO and tried rendering with R11's defaults for "Full Animation" and got slower times than in R10. Tried tweaking it a bit and same thing.

Simon Wicker
09-02-2008, 03:45 PM
It's slower for me too on the scene I'm currently working on. Huge disappointment. I'm using GI and AO and tried rendering with R11's defaults for "Full Animation" and got slower times than in R10. Tried tweaking it a bit and same thing.

there was no full animation GI in R10 so you have nothing to compare to there.

the full animation with flicker free GI is extremely complex so the GI is calculating several extra passes to the cached solution (which is slower than using the standard irradiance cache on a still image).

if you want to compare R10 with R11 then try rendering using the same settings for stochastic mode GI in R10 with QMC GI in R11 and prepare to be amazed.

cheers, simon w.

Nanome
09-02-2008, 03:56 PM
there was no full animation GI in R10 so you have nothing to compare to there.
There is a mode called "Object Animation" in R10 that I used as a way of comparing the two.

Since all of my scenes are animated, should I assume that because of the complexity of the new Full Animation mode I'm going to actually see increased render times accross the board in R11?

Simon Wicker
09-02-2008, 04:17 PM
There is a mode called "Object Animation" in R10 that I used as a way of comparing the two.

Since all of my scenes are animated, should I assume that because of the complexity of the new Full Animation mode I'm going to actually see increased render times accross the board in R11?

object animation in R10 (and below) never actually worked correctly.

the only comparable GI mode is stochastic vs QMC.

the new irradiance map GI in R11 is infinitely superior to the old version.

before posting how disappointed you are you will have to spend a bit of time learning how the new GI actually works. it is completely different to the old GI in cinema.

in this respect the people that have been using vray are at an advantage because the irradiance map in vray is similar to the cinema implementation.

there are numerous ways of tweaking the GI parameters to improve the render speeds with little hit to quality but you will have to spend time time time to play around with things to get an idea of what works and what doesn't work.

it doesn't help that we have no idea what kind of scene you are trying to render and what settings you are using - all we have is: i'm disappointed because it is slower.

if you want help then please post a new thread showing the scene you are rendering and the settings you use. i'm sure someone could help.

so far i haven't found a single scene that doesn't render faster in R11.

cheers, simon w.

Srek
09-02-2008, 04:55 PM
object animation in R10 (and below) never actually worked correctly.
If the animations rendered were very short the old GI might actualy have an advantage. The big problem with the old GI and animation was that with every frame the time needed to calculate it increased nonlinear and fast. If you were only rendering a few seconds this is tolerable, but anyone trying to do a typical architectural flythrough of a minute or so would simply not be able to finish the animation in any reasonable time.
With R11 this has changed fundamentaly and GI calculation times are in general identical for each frame in an animation.

Cheers
Björn

Nanome
09-02-2008, 05:03 PM
Simon, for what I do I need to use Object Animation, not Stochastic. I don't do long sequences, just short 3-5 seconds product scenes and the like, and R10 was working fine for me other than some very small flickering here and there.
Like Srek said, "If the animations rendered were very short the old GI might actualy have an advantage."
So before posting how much faster R11 renders for you and sending me to "spend a bit of time learning", you might want to check your facts first.

Per-Anders
09-02-2008, 05:04 PM
Only use Full animation with GI if you rally have objects and lights moving around, otherwise it's far better/faster with just camera animation to just use the right mode, or even to use static image and build a cache using every n'th frame in a prepass then lock the cache before the final render.

Srek
09-02-2008, 05:11 PM
Nanome: R11 is very likely still faster than R10 even for short GI animations. You have to crank up the quality of the R10 GI very much to come anywhere near what R11 can do. If you run both with defaults R10 will likely be faster, but the result will be crap compared to R11.
Just for your information, Simon is one of the people i tend to listen closely to when he is talking on rendering. The simple reason is that he knows his stuff from years of professional experience.

Cheers
Björn

Simon Wicker
09-02-2008, 05:16 PM
i think we are talking in circles here. you said you compared object GI to full animation mode - this is not possible as the two are fundamentally different. the only valid comparison is between stochastic mode GI and QMC GI. i'm not saying that you should use stochastic mode, simply that if you really wish to see the difference that we are talking about then you should compare those two methods.

srek is actually posting about something completely different - he has mixed up object GI and camera animation GI.

in the old method of rendering an animated camera the GI in certain circumstances would slow down as it accumulated samples. this doesn't happen with the new irradiance map in R11.

however you are using object GI, not camera animation GI.

object GI in R10 (and below down to when it was first introduced) does not work - it is broken. even using the simplest of scenes (i tested using a falling cube animation) has flicker that you cannot eradicate. the flicker has nothing to do with the GI sampling, you can turn the sampling up to ridiculous levels and it is still there. i posted this off to maxon years ago. it has never been changed.

in R10 it was always quicker/better quality to use the single frame GI set to very high sampling rates to render you object animations.

in many ways in R10 if you were working with full object animations with motion blur etc. then the best solution was a low stochastic mode GI with high scene motion blur. this would render very quickly and the smb smoothes out the noisy sampling.

i'll bow out here and get back to work.

cheers, simon w.

LucentDreams
09-02-2008, 07:12 PM
you can render full animation with the Regular IR still image or IR+QMC still image. If the settings are high enough not much if any flicker will show up, I know MV and I both succeeded n this, the only issue is that you don't get a cache for your whole animation in case you need to rerender.

MorpheusMan
09-02-2008, 10:46 PM
I took a scene created in Rel 10.1 and did a GI render in Rel.11 and it came out slower for me too.
Only thing I can think of is that rel.11 is maybe optimized better for higher spec computers.


Morph

Per-Anders
09-02-2008, 10:52 PM
Try reducing the default settings in the GI in R11, R11 GI is many many times better quality than GI in previous versions, you can't actually compare the two in terms of rendertimes because they use vastly different algorithms for the most part (unless you just use QMC/Stochastic). If you wanted to compare you'd have to reduce the quality settings in the new GI massively and even then they wont match up. You can also import old scenes and still use the old GI engine if you uncheck the "Convert (Old) Global Illuminatino on Import" option in the preferences under renderer.

LucentDreams
09-02-2008, 11:07 PM
typically for animation I'm finding I use less than I would use for a still too.

Also try doing your prepass at a much lower resolution, like say 1/4 or even 1/8th.

noseman
09-03-2008, 10:33 AM
So, if anyone is experiencing slower rendering speeds with R11, PLEASE upload the scene in question, and I'm sure somebody will show you EXACTLY how to make it look better and render faster.
You are all using default settings, and that's the problem, not the new GI.

Just to summarize. Opening a version 10 scene, in R11, adding GI and rendering is NOT the way to do it.

LucentDreams
09-03-2008, 03:23 PM
well if you pen the scene without converting the GI, then you should get a 1 to 1 test that will indicate how much faster everything outside of GI. As for GI yes you can't simply through the defaults at the render time. the defaults will typically be much higher quality than the old GI.

If you do a comparison with stochastic GI to the new QMC, don't think that the GI is any faster really, just that the raytracing functions are which can greatly affect stochastic/QMC

I had a customer wondering about the transparency options the other day so we had him send one of his common scene examples and just opening it in R11 it went from 24 minutes to 16minutes, and tuning off exit reflections and adding some absorption took the time down to 12 minutes.

ChrisCousins
09-03-2008, 04:14 PM
Just to confirm that I've been testing a few non-GI scenes now in 10.5 and 11, R11 is generally quicker, often significantly.

... and adding some absorption took the time down to 12 minutes.

That's interesting - so adding absorption to glass can speed up it's rendering? I'd have assumed the opposite.

daytona
09-03-2008, 07:44 PM
There seems to be a lot of talk by others about GI renders and times not being really comparable in the new version.
I understand that but I was never talking about in the first place. My observation was just doing what I thought was a fairly simple bottle revolve. Glass, transparancy, reflection, displacement etc.
I've now done a few tests to see different times. Settings are default on R11.
R11 - Exit Rays On - 24mins 57secs
R11 - Exit Rays Off - 24 mins 48secs -- hardly worth writing home about
R10.5 19mins 47secs - a significant improvement

..I had a customer wondering about the transparency options the other day so we had him send one of his common scene examples and just opening it in R11 it went from 24 minutes to 16minutes, and tuning off exit reflections and adding some absorption took the time down to 12 minutes.
Kai I will happily send you this file if you would care to look at it. I would love to know what's going on here. Unfortunately I can't just post it as it has copyright issues.

LucentDreams
09-03-2008, 09:21 PM
Just to confirm that I've been testing a few non-GI scenes now in 10.5 and 11, R11 is generally quicker, often significantly.



That's interesting - so adding absorption to glass can speed up it's rendering? I'd have assumed the opposite.

shouldn't really affect it either way, its the exit reflection being turned off that speeds it up, consider it as cutting your reflections in half for transparent objects.

LucentDreams
09-03-2008, 09:23 PM
Kai I will happily send you this file if you would care to look at it. I would love to know what's going on here. Unfortunately I can't just post it as it has copyright issues.

I'm at Maxon tech support now so if you want to upload it through the support system that would probably be easiest. I'd like to explore what might be slowing it down.

daytona
09-04-2008, 07:18 AM
I'm at Maxon tech support now so if you want to upload it through the support system that would probably be easiest. I'd like to explore what might be slowing it down.

Hi Kai, I've uploaded it to the Maxon site and it says that a member of the UK support team will contact me soon. I hope you can track it down. I mentioned your name when I submitted it

LucentDreams
09-04-2008, 01:37 PM
seems you've found an issue in the new release regarding displacements alphas mixed on transparent materials. It is indeed notably slower, but only because of that very specific material setup. I've sent you a more thorough email including some advice on how to optimize your scene and cut its time down dramatically.


I should point out in regards to better quality glass form the new transparency, users should be aware that its not a matter of opening 11 and rendering you literally have to reconstruct your transparency channel While one can still work the way they used to, to really benefit from the more realistic results, you have to really change your mindset in terms of how you build glass materials. In the scene in question exit reflections didn't make much difference because a fresnel shader was being used in the transparency channel instead of the old fresnel checkbox. this means reflections are being handled by the reflection channel not the transparency channel so exit reflections isn't doing much at all.

rubyscooby
06-22-2009, 05:53 PM
Hi Kai,

First off would like to say the new render engine is a lot nicer. No more flickering in GI animations. I do wonder if my settings at medium are overkill. What would be the best way of using camera animation with a moving object. You had mentioned caching the nth frame.

Could you give us some more hints about using displacement with transparency on R11. I am working on a file now that has both. Once I add displacement the render times go way up.

I also noticed that the transparency works differently. When I use a transparency map with pure 100% white it seems to map also the reflectivity and specular also to 0.

There is a major difference also with Sampling Mode and GI Portal. I need to use oversampling to avoid my inner object being too dark.

Any tips or hints would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Ruby

rubyscooby
06-22-2009, 06:23 PM
Hi I just did some rereading and testing and noticed if I turned off GI Portal it cut my rendering time in half. Correct me if I am wrong but GI Portal needs to be on for transparent objects where a light is shining through them such as a window but not for glass or plastic objects.

Per-Anders
06-22-2009, 06:54 PM
GI Portals are just used to bias the rays towards them, they don't have to be on transparent objects, but generally you'll e.g. make a single polygon and place it over a window to get a good non blotchy effect without having to raise the samples dramatically in a scene. Don't place too many around the scene and make ure to use the right kind for the right situation, pixel samplilng is only necessary where you really need super crispy shadows from a lightsource. Oversampling will increase the number of rays and thus slow things down a little (depending on yoru oversampling settings). Glass and other transparent obejcts are generally not factored into the GI calculation unless they're opque enough (the control for when that is is under the Details tab of the GI settings), though you can overide that with a compositing tag of course.

flingster
06-22-2009, 10:17 PM
exit reflections Q
Why use it and in what context, what benefit does it bring?
thanks.

Sneaker
06-23-2009, 05:02 AM
I should point out in regards to better quality glass form the new transparency, users should be aware that its not a matter of opening 11 and rendering you literally have to reconstruct your transparency channel While one can still work the way they used to, to really benefit from the more realistic results, you have to really change your mindset in terms of how you build glass materials.

ok , I'm ready to change my mindset. Is there a sample or tutorial on how to build a proper R11 glass material?

-Michael

LucentDreams
06-23-2009, 06:27 AM
Hi Kai,

I also noticed that the transparency works differently. When I use a transparency map with pure 100% white it seems to map also the reflectivity and specular also to 0.

Thanks Ruby

Nothing changed on the transparency side, it was on the reflection side really. In previous versions reflections were additive, so they added on top of the rest of the surface, now there is an option for additive in the reflection that behaves like your used to, although technically not accurate, it will give you the old familiar behavior. Transparency also has an additive option and has had it for a long time.

The idea is the the default behave like a true material, Reflection and transparency balance each other, the less transparent the more reflection. Typically this is is balanced better with a fresnel effect that while it exists in transparency still doesn't exist by default in the reflection channel. there is a pluign in the goodies folder for real fresnel in the reflection channel.

rubyscooby
06-24-2009, 10:57 PM
Is it available anywhere else? I work at a big corporate firm and getting anything installed is like waiting for paint to dry... Also any tutorials you could point to would be appreciated.

ThirdEye
06-24-2009, 11:25 PM
exit reflections Q
Why use it and in what context, what benefit does it bring?
thanks.

I always keep it off whenever i need to make something look solid, ie a glass.

LucentDreams
06-25-2009, 01:52 AM
Is it available anywhere else? I work at a big corporate firm and getting anything installed is like waiting for paint to dry... Also any tutorials you could point to would be appreciated.

It doesn't have to be installed by an IT you can place it you to your preferences folder. Inside C4d go to Edit/Preferences, and in the common page at the bottom right is an open folder button click on that. You are now in your personal preference folder so this won't affect other users of this computer. Create a new folder in there called "plugins" and copy the plugin form the goodies zip into that plugins folder you made. Restart cinema 4D and you have the plugin inside C4D. If it is a matter of you not having the CD because IT has it, contact tech support and I'll make sure we send it to you, just mentioned what platform you need it for.


and yes Like alberto said keep it off for solid transparent objects, its for things like bubbles that are hollow between super thin edges, but for a realistic reflection it doesn't hit both sides of the glass so having an exit reflection produces an inaccurate result. Keep in mind though some glasses do seems to show this behavior depending on the type of glass and its refection index. really find a good reference if you see a double reflection then keep it on, I have some smooth crystal goblets that exhibit this but most my glasses do not.

soccerrprp
06-25-2009, 11:17 AM
this was just put up it's generous author. tutorial on how to use AR3 GI. should be helpful for glass, etc.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=47&t=778836

CGTalk Moderation
06-25-2009, 11:17 AM
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.