Loading...
> >

Image rendering for 2 1/2 days and only 23%

DkgooseDkgoose Posts: 1,451
in The Commons

So I had a render and cranked up the quality settings higher it's been going for 2 1/2 days and it looks good but it's only 23% done so curious if I should cancel it or let it.  The picture looks great but I'm not sure if it's grainy or if it's just the rain in the image.  How long have you guys let a single image render?

Comments

  • Worlds_EdgeWorlds_Edge Posts: 2,153

    My take is that if it looks good enough, you cancel the render.  Sometimes you can tell there really isn't much room for improvement so why keep going?

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 40,097

    is it worth cooking your hardware to go longer?

  • DkgooseDkgoose Posts: 1,451

    Ya that makes sense and I don't want to cook my hardware lol so I canceled it, it looks great just not sure if there could've been improvements or not 

  • MalandarMalandar Posts: 776

    I could not have let my computer sit and render for two  and a half days for one render...

     

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,859
    edited July 2017

    ...I take it you are rendering in CPU mode?

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • DkgooseDkgoose Posts: 1,451

    I believe it's CPU, the smaller sized render didn't take as long, it usually doesn't take that long to render but I cranked up the render settings and changed quality to 2 and max time to 0

  • kaotkblisskaotkbliss Posts: 2,914

    I had a render cooking for about a week before, but that was in 3Dlight, before Iray and I had lots of ambient light, water reflections and atmosphere effects.

    That render never did cook to completion because I didn't get my computer to stop auto updating and rebooting until after and with that much time invested in it, I didn't want to go back and redo it.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited July 2017

    Even if a part lacks detail, stop it.

    Save that image, then do a partial image: Click Partial Render > Tool Settings > Check New Window.

    Then select the area of the image that needs it. You should then be able to save it and add it to the main image in Gimp/Photoshop/Other.

    Edit:

    Just take care that you use the same camera angle (exactly the same) when doing the spot render.

    Post edited by nicstt on
  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    dkgoose said:

    I believe it's CPU, the smaller sized render didn't take as long, it usually doesn't take that long to render but I cranked up the render settings and changed quality to 2 and max time to 0

    You could also double the image resolution, put up with less quality, then reduce the image by 50% in Gimp/Photoshop/etc.

  • Worlds_EdgeWorlds_Edge Posts: 2,153
    nicstt said:

    Even if a part lacks detail, stop it.

    Save that image, then do a partial image: Click Partial Render > Tool Settings > Check New Window.

    Then select the area of the image that needs it. You should then be able to save it and add it to the main image in Gimp/Photoshop/Other.

    Edit:

    Just take care that you use the same camera angle (exactly the same) when doing the spot render.

    Very cool tip @nicstt I wasn't aware you could do that!

  • SpottedKittySpottedKitty Posts: 7,232

    It's important to remember that the completion percentage is not the same as "looks OK". I do a lot of test renders when I'm trying out newly bought goodies, and it's not unusual for me to see that the render looks good long before the percentage hits the default limit of 95%.

  • DkgooseDkgoose Posts: 1,451

    Thanks for the responses guys I'll post my pic hopefully soon 

  • NovicaNovica Posts: 23,924

    In my Art Studio thread, I've tested render quality two different times and IMO it's NOT worth the doubled, tripled, or quadrupled times. There wasn't hardly any difference. I tested shadows on a closeup for the neck, and even with the higher settings, there was still noise. I switched to a Mitchell filter and fiddled with the filter settings (for blurring adjacent pixels, etc) and that made more difference than increasing the quality number.  You might want to research the filter section (we discussed it on my thread this month, you'd have to go back and look, RGcincy tested Mitchell too.)  You could also just lower the Gaussian Blur in the filter section (default 1.50) and that will make your renders sharper. 

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Worlds_Edge said:
    nicstt said:

    Even if a part lacks detail, stop it.

    Save that image, then do a partial image: Click Partial Render > Tool Settings > Check New Window.

    Then select the area of the image that needs it. You should then be able to save it and add it to the main image in Gimp/Photoshop/Other.

    Edit:

    Just take care that you use the same camera angle (exactly the same) when doing the spot render.

    Very cool tip @nicstt I wasn't aware you could do that!

    Welcome.

     

    Novica said:

    In my Art Studio thread, I've tested render quality two different times and IMO it's NOT worth the doubled, tripled, or quadrupled times. There wasn't hardly any difference. I tested shadows on a closeup for the neck, and even with the higher settings, there was still noise. I switched to a Mitchell filter and fiddled with the filter settings (for blurring adjacent pixels, etc) and that made more difference than increasing the quality number.  You might want to research the filter section (we discussed it on my thread this month, you'd have to go back and look, RGcincy tested Mitchell too.)  You could also just lower the Gaussian Blur in the filter section (default 1.50) and that will make your renders sharper. 

    I find some noise makes an image more believable, as long as the difference throughout isn't too disparate.

    The way our eyes work, I believe, is that we focus in centre of our vision perfectly, so the rest is slightly blurred. It's why depth of field is so important.

  • IvyIvy Posts: 7,165
    edited July 2017

    I was going to wait to post this comment until i had released my iray animation it still has a little way to go But i saw this post. I have been working and testing iray settings for over a year in animation rendering use.. and let me tell you If you think 2 days is long time for rendering a Iray image. try rendering a iray animation.  I have more than a few scenes that have take more than 4 days,  98 hours  for one 7 second scene to complete and that is using 2- evga 980ti  gpu's running in a side by side external render server set up  with 16 gigs of gpu. & my iterations settings around 1500  and still have very grainy results. this can be very frustrating.  I am personally finding Iray is not practical for animation no matter what set up I have tried in the last year.  But anyway I got a Iray animation that is just a couple minutes long i'm about to release in a week or 2,  of a Asian girl flying a private jet. nothing fancy its taken longer than I thought it would because i did  it all in iray  and its taken me over 5 months over 2600 render hours logged to complete it.  Then I found i still could not archive the atmospheres effects or hide the rendering flaws & or have anymore control of shadow creation, as well I can in 3dl . using Iray with 5x the rendering times is not practical for animation. maybe its because i just have much more experience with 3dl. But I get much better results with 3dl  in a shorter rendering time and able to use far more resources to make larger scenes.than I can in iray. that is something to think about if your limited on gpu ram trying to make an animation.. .  I have been creating animation and rendering art with daz for about 8 years with  3dl & the last year or so with iraty &  I really have started to wonder who is really benefiting from us using Iray.   the hardware & software companies or the artist .. . because i just see no any advantages to iray that I can not do better with 3dl for cartoon animation use anyway.  but that is just my opinion, 

     

    Post edited by Ivy on
Sign In or Register to comment.