Advice Needed on Rendering High Resolution Images

IsleenHIsleenH Posts: 0
edited December 1969 in Bryce Discussion

Hi, I would like to know if one of you Bryce users have tried to render at a resolution of 300 pixels and up with an image size say of 2500-3000 sq? Also, is there anything I can do to increase Bryce performance when rendering big size images? Right now I close as many programs as I can that are running in the background but maybe there's something more I should do inside Bryce as well?

Any pointers will be appreciated. I have Bryce 7 Pro.

Thank you :)

Comments

  • Eva1Eva1 Posts: 469
    edited December 1969

    I usually render out at a size of 2500-3000. A couple of tips I can offer is firstly to set the render priority to high (it's usually set at medium by default), and secondly a tip I read somewhere is to group as many objects as possible as Bryce processes the rendering groups quicker - I haven't tested this to it's fullest but you could give it a try.

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 1,942
    edited December 1969

    As Eva says, "Render Priority" is the obvious setting to alter, but also when setting up your scenes be aware that some materials have a much higher render time than others therefore careful choosing of materials can reduce the render times significantly.

    That said, the main reason I go for months at a time without using Bryce is because overall it renders really slowly as soon as you start to implement Premium Quality render options such as increasing the Rays Per Pixel, Depth of Field and TA lighting... Of course having invested that time in Bryce rendering, the results are far superior too, so it's swings and roundabouts. :)

  • HoroHoro Posts: 4,271
    edited December 1969

    IsleenH said:
    Hi, I would like to know if one of you Bryce users have tried to render at a resolution of 300 pixels and up with an image size say of 2500-3000 sq?

    The dpi setting has nothing to do with resolution. If you want to print your render 10 inch wide for a resolution of 300 dpi, you have to set the document size to 3000 pixels wide. It's the pixels you need. If you have your render processed on photopaper, there are 150 lines per inch at best so the render need only be 1500 pixels wide. If you have it printed on a professional printer with 2400 dpi, you have to render a document size of 24,000 pixel wide.


    Render speed is a bit tricky. Volumetrics, transparency, soft shadows, high frequency materials, many light sources (domes, HDRI), TA, high max. ray depth, high TIR, all increase the render time. In general, you trade quality with speed.

  • Kine_magiKKine_magiK Posts: 0
    edited July 2012

    IsleenH said:
    Hi, .....................Also, is there anything I can do to increase Bryce performance when rendering big size images? Right now I close as many programs as I can that are running in the background but maybe there's something more I should do inside Bryce as well?

    Any pointers will be appreciated. I have Bryce 7 Pro.

    Thank you :)



    On Bryce performance for renders?

    If you are new to Bryce or advanced 3D Computer Graphics in general, then my suggestions may seem a bit extreme.

    If you have a quad core processor and a modern machine with a lot of RAM then there are 2 options that i know of so that you can fully use all that power.

    (1) Divide your picture into 4 quadrants and render each as a separate file. Depending on the render quality the render of each of the 4 files will use either one or two of the CPU cores. You can render the 4 quadrants concurrently and either reduce your rendering time to 50% or even to 25%. It is tricky to set up the 4 scenes. Horo may be able to do a tutorial on how to set up camera for that. Later you join them together in Photoshop.

    (2) Divide your scene into layers starting with the background. Depending on the scene you could have 4 layers or many composit plates. They must be set up for compositing. Later you can composit them in Photoshop. Again you can render up to 4 layer planes concurrently thereby using all the power of the CPU. A 4 day render can this way be turned into a one day render and you have control over the final composition and atmospheric balance. I use this method very often but not in Photoshop - i composit in Bryce-ONLY.. But it does not work for every kind of scene. You could also end up spending a lot of time planing all the layers, composit plates, faking shadows and other tricks. Again some one might do a tutorial with an example scene.

    Kind regards

    Peter

    PS: The following picture would have taken 4 days to render. I had only 4 hours to do it [Christmas Eve was the next morning]. So i composited it in Bryce-ONLY. You could also do the composit in Photoshop. I used Photoshop for the text and lens flare. The original was very high resolution but unfortunately original files are lost now. The Trees were done in TreePro for MAC. All the trees were individual composit plates!

    xmascard.jpg
    640 x 452 - 183K
    Post edited by Kine_magiK on
  • cris333cris333 Posts: 107
    edited July 2012

    I hope you know the lights or shadows or textures or the atmospheric settings can increase the render time with 50% or 100% or even 300% if you set volumetric world and you have many shadows cast on ground too.If you don't need a texture on a house wall behind the scene or the trees are just shaped in the sunset then you don't have to add real textures, just colors.

    Some tutorials you might want to take a look :

    http://www.robinwood.com/Catalog/Technical/BryceTuts/BryceClasses/IBryce6/IBryceLesson6-6.html

    The lessons or tutorials are for Bryce 5 and some tips might not work anymore or irelevant for Bryce 7.1 but still there are great tips to learn and good to apply.

    Many thanks to robin wood for that website/work .This website is full with tutorials for Bryce.Moders or admins might take a look and include the links in the tutorials database if there isnt any from this website yet.
    I know, internet has lots of tutorials for bryce 5 or 6 but at least better than nothing :lol:

    Post edited by cris333 on
  • larsmidnattlarsmidnatt Posts: 2,767
    edited December 1969

    Sorry can't help with the bryce rendering part.

    Just wanted to make the comment that dots per inch (DPI) and pixels per inch are not the same thing. You can have 300pixels per inch and it will print perfectly on a printer that boasts 2400 dpi. Dots are not data like pixels are. Dots overlap during the printing process where pixels are absolute in a fixed place.

    Long and short don't worry about DPI, go for pixels. You don't need 24000 pixels for an 8x10, its a complete waste of pixel data.

  • Dave SavageDave Savage Posts: 1,942
    edited December 1969

    You can have 300pixels per inch and it will print perfectly on a printer that boasts 2400 dpi.

    Yup, that's the way I've worked it for 20 years.
    You've got to figure out your finished physical size and as long as it equates to 300ppi it'll print perfect.

    As Bryce will only render at screen resolution (72ppi), I usually just make the document 3 times bigger than I need the finished thing to be, so if the finished printed size is going to be 1200 pixels square, I render it at 3600 pixels square then reduce the physical size in Photoshop whilst increasing the ppi to 300.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 4,271
    edited December 1969

    (1) Divide your picture into 4 quadrants and render each as a separate file. Depending on the render quality the render of each of the 4 files will use either one or two of the CPU cores. You can render the 4 quadrants concurrently and either reduce your rendering time to 50% or even to 25%. It is tricky to set up the 4 scenes. Horo may be able to do a tutorial on how to set up camera for that. Later you join them together in Photoshop.

    Ah - it's not as easy as that - the four quadrants. At least, I think it is rather difficult to move the camera correctly sideways, up and down to "scan" the render. Doing it like in photography, i.e. rotating the camera, works more reliably. The caveat is that you need a stitcher afterwards. I have a tutorial about this stuff. Online http://www.horo.ch/raytracing/tuts/online/tut21/minitut21_en.html and here is the PDF: http://www.horo.ch/raytracing/tuts/pdf/minitut21_en.pdf perhaps this helps.

  • Kine_magiKKine_magiK Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Horo said:
    (1) Divide your picture into 4 quadrants and render each as a separate file. Depending on the render quality the render of each of the 4 files will use either one or two of the CPU cores. You can render the 4 quadrants concurrently and either reduce your rendering time to 50% or even to 25%. It is tricky to set up the 4 scenes. Horo may be able to do a tutorial on how to set up camera for that. Later you join them together in Photoshop.

    Ah - it's not as easy as that - the four quadrants. At least, I think it is rather difficult to move the camera correctly sideways, up and down to "scan" the render. Doing it like in photography, i.e. rotating the camera, works more reliably. The caveat is that you need a stitcher afterwards. I have a tutorial about this stuff. Online http://www.horo.ch/raytracing/tuts/online/tut21/minitut21_en.html and here is the PDF: http://www.horo.ch/raytracing/tuts/pdf/minitut21_en.pdf perhaps this helps.

    Good stuff Horo.

    I recollected that you knew about these issues because i have scanned your website. Yes those links will be helpful for many.

    But just think of how much rendering time could be saved be dividing an image smaller than 4000 x 4000 and using all of that CPU power.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 4,271
    edited December 1969

    But just think of how much rendering time could be saved be dividing an image smaller than 4000 x 4000 and using all of that CPU power.

    Ah yes, when stitching parts you always need overlap. Parts you render twice, which is a waste. If the document could be shifted into the render window the "tiles" could then also be assembled in a simple graphics application. I'm not sure but I think you can render to disk larger than 4000 pixels wide.

  • Kine_magiKKine_magiK Posts: 0
    edited July 2012

    Horo said:
    But just think of how much rendering time could be saved be dividing an image smaller than 4000 x 4000 and using all of that CPU power.

    Ah yes, when stitching parts you always need overlap. Parts you render twice, which is a waste. If the document could be shifted into the render window the "tiles" could then also be assembled in a simple graphics application. I'm not sure but I think you can render to disk larger than 4000 pixels wide.


    Horo, when i have some time i will get my head around it and look into it. I have not explored this idea of putting the camera exactly in the centre and then chopping the plane into 4 quadrants. It will take some time to figure this out. It may require some mathematics [think it may have something to do with Maurice Escher - perspective lines should be curved and in Bryce they are not]. First need to finish the IL tutorial series.

    Post edited by Kine_magiK on
Sign In or Register to comment.
Rocket Fuel