Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
head wax, I was doing my Carrara work on a core 2 duo mac and my renderings were taking 8 days (24/7). Now with a quad core the time has halved to around 4 days. I go for realism all the time.
wow :)
ah, I am impatient, when I do a painting I want it finished before I start :) still I spent two hours today setting up a scene, when it finally rendered it took about eight minutes - 12inches by 20inches 300dpi. I was pleased. ;)
Holy cats! That's a looong render time. Your renders must be huge, but even so I have a hard time picturing why they would take so long to render. I'm guessing maybe you use blurry reflections?
The longest renders I do aren't more than a couple of hours at most, and most renders are less than 20 minutes. Actually most test renders (which are smaller) aren't more than 5 minutes. I don't have the patience to wait for days, which is why I never got into using Lux, and instead bought Thea as an unbiased render engine instead (even though it was one of the more expensive cg rendering purchases I've made).
I salute your patience, but can't help wondering if there is some way to cut your render times down a bit while still achieving the same max realism result.
wow :)
ah, I am impatient, when I do a painting I want it finished before I start :) still I spent two hours today setting up a scene, when it finally rendered it took about eight minutes - 12inches by 20inches 300dpi. I was pleased. ;) That's quick! Ya gotta Love Carrara's ability to do that, don't you?
I've posted my GC=2.2 results that I've been messing with over here since it fits with the Space theme. The scene is really jam packed with stuff. Seven Harpoon Starships, Seven Thunderbikes, Three heavy capitol ships, Starry Sky, and a volumetric cloud animated explosion test. Even the renders with the v-cloud in them still took less than three minutes at 1280 x 720, but that's at an object accuracy (and shadow) of 1, instead of 0.5
Plus, in order to render at 1 instead, I've created a spherical background image of the Large Scene Starry Sky at 10,000 x 5,000 with an accuracy of 0.5 for both. Stars certainly prefer 0.5 for object accuracy. ;)
(the image I threw in here was a scrapper test image as I set up the explosion - but I think it's a cool picture nonetheless. This was before I added the Deep Space Heavy Cruiser and was taken after the other six thunderbikes already flew out of view)
Edit: Ooops... I guess there are a couple thunderbikes in the image after all! Hard to see the little buggers in the stills!
Dart - very impressive! I will look forward to the completed animation.
I don't mind hours of render time but I draw the line when it starts getting near a day or more. I think my longest ever render was three days and that was in Vue. Things may have changed but I found I could render a similar setup in Carrara around ten times faster than Vue, which was one of the things that started me using it, all those years ago.
I can't help thinking that you are either doing incredibly large and detailed renders, or your render settings are over-specified and you could dramatically cut down on render time without noticeably hitting image quality - do you have any more info about what is taking so long?
I was reminded of one of the resources that I saw when I was originally researching this stuff before I first posted (thanks malbrecht!). This is an item on the Luxology website and is primarily aimed at users of Modo and Lightwave, but still has a lot of relevance to Carrara users. Keep in mind that when he talks about the de-gamma process, this is what I believe that Carrara is doing AUTOMATICALLY when gamma is turned on, so you don't need to go through every shader definition and make adjustments (as is required in some 3D software). The main exception to this is I think Carrara dynamic hair, where the hair shader is not corrected so you have to do a manual adjustment, but this it a small price to pay for the overall convenience.
http://forums.luxology.com/topic.aspx?f=36&t=39825
I'd really encourage you to watch the video, it is a very clear explanation of what is going on - and why using traditional non-gamma rendering can cause problems.
Most useful bit of explanation. Thanks for the link.
My final renders are 8192 x 4320 with Multi-pass.
With vegetation, replicators terrains etc I have to do many renders to get texture and lighting right.
V4.2 with very simple lighting. White color set in the Background thats all. No lights in the scene whatsoever
Zeep, Rocket launcher, helicopter and clothing done in Carrara.
Your other images are awesome, and the render size and complexity of the scenes go some way to explaining your long render times - but this V4 image really shows that you don't need complex lighting to achieve great results, thanks for sharing this!
Very Nice..
PhilW, you taught me everything I know so far about Carrara. Without your training videos and guidance I would have given up long ago.
I am very grateful.
Thank You.
Deleted
Thank YOU for saying so - I may have taught you something of the tools, but your creative use of them is entirely your own and I am very impressed!
Okay, this linear thing is more than it seems. I watched the video you've linked to... and that's what I was thinking it would do. But there's no way I could explain it as good as he does! :)
But when create a new scene and begin to render, it behaves as it always has. Remembering that I've made this new scene to test some more linear workflow stuff, I abort and turn on GC at 2.2, and sometimes indirect lighting too. For some reason the render just takes off like crazy. Like... a LOT faster. Maybe it's just me again - been a long day.
scottidog2, they were fantastic renders, well worth the render time, PhilW will be honoured to have such a world class pupil I'd say
scottidog2, my personal favorite was the war scene with the rocket launcher but they were all very impressive, just had to say. Great work.
Yes, "this linear thing" definitely IS more than it seems. Like I said, it's a lot more than just a single setting. And if you really already knew about gamma, then consider yourself in a MUCH better position than a whole lot of very experienced professionals who have been doing this stuff for a very long time.
It's a hugely complicated subject. Especially if you really want to know what you're doing, and especially if you really understand what "good results" are.
PhilW, head wax, Jonstark, thanks a lot for your encouraging words. They will energize me to keep going during the long periods of solitary work.
I am dong 24 cinematic Images using Carrara for my portfolio and my exhibition in 5 months time. This project is taking 2 years of my life to complete.
There is no budget which means no one is paying me. As a result I do not pay the models or actors, makeup artists and Hairstylists. I have been persuading people to collaborate with me without asking for money. Its difficult and very time consuming to find the right people to work with.
I shall post more images once they are done.
Outer space is an unusual context for engaging Indirect Light. Dare I say, it probably isn't essential in this scene. It doesn't surprise me that the results are fast rendering in this context. There is almost no information being gathered from the fully black sky backdrop. In fact the only "surfaces" that can "speak" to one another are the ship hulls. Generally, there is no atmospheric scattering in space so there is almost no indirect light. If a vaguely realistic results is the goal I'd say there is no need for IL. When you need IL is for interiors, landscapes, and pretty much any situation where the environment is colorful.
IL is slowed down by a couple of factors. First is the geometric complexity of the scene. In your case, there are only a few surfaces to consider so the IL doesn't seem slow. Second, as already mentioned, is the richness of the environment. In space, there is very little environment to consider.
Scottidog2....
In the years I've been bouncing in and out of this forum, I've seen maybe 3 people who have shown serious talent. And you're one of them.
I don't recall seeing many of your images (except for the motorcycle image you posted a while ago), but these recent 3 images you posted are impressive. And if you also did the photography as well as the graphics, I'm even more impressed. And personally, I really love your style.
Yes, it's a lot of work, but you're doing it exactly the right way. That's how you learn and how you make connections that, hopefully, will help you later in your career.
My only recommendation, for what it's worth. is this.....hang with the big boys. While you'll get a lot of "that's awesome" here when you post stuff, and that's good to hear, you need to hang around with people who really understand and appreciate what you're doing and can give you really constructive advice. And they will be very tough, which is what we all really need. Sounds like you're probably already doing that, but anyway....check out some of the professional graphics forums.
Oh, and one other piece of advice....be careful about posting your work. I noticed that you took most if it down, and IMO that's good. Don't give away valuable stuff, dude. Seriously, be very careful about what you post. You worked very long and very hard on it, and at some point you want to make money from it, so don't give it away....
pleasure, your work is top notch. Thank you for sharing it.
Can I ask a professional question? How will you be presenting your work? Large prints framed etc.
What type of prints? Or perhaps holograms?
I've been experimenting with digital transfers on and off for a while which give interesting effects. But wouldn't be suitable for your work as you lose a lot of the realism.
deleted
It's great work and you should be proud. It's also good to hear of people overcoming their adversity and not being a victim. For what it's worth, I'm duly impressed!
head wax, I approached Panasonic 2 years ago and they agreed to let me use their 152 inch 3D Plasma screen.
My images are being converted into stereo scopic 3D images by another company so that it can be viewed on a 3D TV.
thanks , great job you are doing, you have wonderful energy,
life's all about making things happen,
if we don't do it, then no one else will do it for us
you have this concept firmly in grasp I see :)
we had a multi media gallery here for a few years, but unfortunately they just did loops of paper falling endlessly, etc, great stuff for the first thirty seconds, ....
Oh I forgot to mention PhilW, I tried this this morning and noticed it really filled in some of my poorly lit areas without blowing out the highlights (which were on the verge of being blown out initially).
Very happy with the results thank you! Sorry can't post a picture of it as it is part of a 'work' project.
Glad you are finding it useful! It has certainly made a huge difference to my own renders.