Net Render scenario

[imashination]

Do you have either the xl8 or studio 8 bundles?

[C4Dan]

No, I've been buying them 1 at a time. Looking back, I sure wish I had gotten one of the bundles. I didn't realize how hooked on 3D I would get!
:hmm:

[dann_stubbs]

Originally posted by C4Dan
Hello,

Lately I've been toying with the idea of upgrading to a dual G5 system. Right now I'm on an 800 Mhz iMac. My main reason for the upgrade is render times. Right now I'm rendering a simple 3 second hair test at 30 FPS. It's just a capsule with hair (shave 2) bouncing around.

As you can see it has taken 19+ hours and its only on the 60th frame!

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! :wavey:

how big is that image? it looks like a full size render (i.e. not reduced quality or size settings)

the one thing i see all the time is just plain old inefficiency of time. if you are just rendering a test - render it out at 320x240 with low or no AA (or even smaller if you just want to "see it move") to see the motion and if you need spot check a few stills at full res to check texture and hair quality etc... as you get closer to "perfect" up your settings etc until your last final render is the real deal.

why people just render full res - with really high AA settings as a test is beyond me. i find it funny people want to use the same tools and various software features that the big studios use but nobody bothers to take the time to learn or use any technique

as always be aware of differences in processor architecture - amd, intel and a mac could produce slight variations in frame renders (may not always but good to be aware of that possibility) - but yeah, net render will save you some processing time. better workflow would save you so much more...

dann

[C4Dan]

dann_stubbs

Yes, I did do a test render at 320x240 in editor mode, but you can't really get a feel for the motion of the hair. You just see the guides moving.

I was trying to somewhat mimic the hair of Sully (Monsters Inc.) for fun. This isn't a pro project, I'm just messing around.

The total render time was 34 hours and 15 minutes. It was at a resolution of 800x600. It turned out pretty cool, and I would like to do more stuff like it, but 34 hours is ridiculous! :eek:

I went ahead and ordered Net Render. The xp 1700+ in my pc should be at least twice as fast as the iMac. We'll see how that helps before I get another pc.

To answer your slam about why idiots like me try and render like the pros without learning any technique... I wanted to see how "professional" it would look. This project in itself was a good learning experience.

[dann_stubbs]

Originally posted by C4Dan
dann_stubbs

Yes, I did do a test render at 320x240 in editor mode, but you can't really get a feel for the motion of the hair. You just see the guides moving.

I was trying to somewhat mimic the hair of Sully (Monsters Inc.) for fun. This isn't a pro project, I'm just messing around.

The total render time was 34 hours and 15 minutes. It was at a resolution of 800x600. It turned out pretty cool, and I would like to do more stuff like it, but 34 hours is ridiculous! :eek:

I went ahead and ordered Net Render. The xp 1700+ in my pc should be at least twice as fast as the iMac. We'll see how that helps before I get another pc.

To answer your slam about why idiots like me try and render like the pros without learning any technique... I wanted to see how "professional" it would look. This project in itself was a good learning experience.

it wasn't directed at you totally - i see it all the time. i just cannot figure it out. especially the almost guaranteed followup - geez why did this? questions such as yours and the others that flood the internet... i find it strange that people just aren't resourceful anymore. i don't see anywhere where i used the word idiots... it seems that was the bent you decided to take from my post...

if it isn't for a deadline then you should really have no concern for the time it takes honestly. i also see MANY people that just don't even look at the render settings and sure really high AA may look great but what for in some instances?

why not do a full quality render at 320x 240 instead of just the editor mode? or you could possibly have tested some lower settings on a single frame to find a reasonable quality level and then rendered with probably 95% or even the same render quality in easily 1/4 the time. it is silly to complain about render times yet make little to no effort to try to reduce them other then throw more horsepower at it. as well as 800 x 600? you could have probably shaved 1/5 off your processing time by rendering to a 640 x 480 or 720 x 486 res which is what broadcast is - i'm sure it would have been just as nice to look at and probably saved you 8 hours.

apologies if you took the comments as only meant for you, they were more of a generalization - thinking out loud stuff... but as a tip - take the time and explore the render settings you will gain so much more speed in your tests that you can experiement much more, produce more renders efficiently and therefore learn even faster.

good luck with the tests,

dann

[C4Dan]

Thanks for your reply dann,

I'll have to admit I did take offense at your initial comments... I was more looking for advice on Net Render than a critique of my rendering method.

I DO see your point however. I will do as you recommend next time. I just wanted to see how detailed the hair was at a larger resolution. The hair dynamics is really neat as well.

You'll have to admit, this iMac is dog slow for this type of computation!

Thanks again for your advice :beer:

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.