277 hours of crazy materials rendering

it doesnt look like a real long render… i only wanted to experiment with some procedural textures…
I dont know why it has taken soo long maybe ambient occulsion in conjunction with highly complex spheres?!? and reflection too?

anyway i think its a nice image but the time wasnt worth it :wink:
what do u think ?

here is what ive done:

http://www.pixeltrap.de/gfx/crazy_procedurals_277h.jpg
(the image is a little too big for this form, so here the link)

Did you really rendered this pic. about 11.5 Days? Thats really crazy…
Anyway i like the one in the middle and last one is good, but my favorite is the one in the middle…^^

Yes its true ! 277hours was my pc at 100% cpu-power.

Additionally i wanted to know,

  1. is my pc stable enough (i was working everyday on it, while blender was rendering in the background)
  2. is blender stable enough to render soo long on only one frame

and the answer is YES ! :rolleyes:

oh ive forgotten to mention, that only procedurals are used in all 3 materials

Ohhhhh-ho-ho-ho. I can believe it. That’s really high-resolution ambient occlusion, coupled with the millions-of-polygons subsurf in order to make the displacement mapping work, PLUS the large image size, PLUS ray-tracing reflection on the floor and the middle sphere. I’m surprised your computer didn’t blow up or something. XD

^He’s right. Rendering at a high resolution like that will take forever no matter what you created, and Ambient Occlusion doesn’t help. You must have had the samples waaaay high, I don’t see a speck of noise. Displacement mapping isn’t very friendly either. And then there’s the fact you were working in the background while this rendered, taking up even more resources.

I like it… Definately not worth the time though.

Really good work with the procedural materials though.

Crits - Less specular power on the final one, makes it look less rocky (also maybe a small bump map to give it some more uneveness. Very good though and I espescially like the middle one.

thanks for all nice comments, this was really crazy :wink:
(and my system is not slow…)
some specs here:

  • res: 1260x787
  • Amb occ. 7 Samples
  • 2 Lights 8 Samples Ray Shadow
  • OSA 16
  • very complex spheres

thanks for any crits, but i think ill never render this again :wink:
hope you dont mind :slight_smile:

…I’d bet money I could get that down to an hour with not much loss of quality. Jeeeez… Work on optimizing! How many faces?

oh sure !! here is much much space for optimising =)
if you want to try it materials_crazy01.blend
will you share your tweaks? would be nice to see any quality/speed improvement

the time is mostly due to the Ambiant Occlusion and the fact that the Octree value is 64…even tho you have ALOT of polygons in there.

also try reducing the surface the grounds take in the scene when rendering with AO/raytracing. Speed it up a little bit.and level 3 of subsurf…level 2 should be enough

anyway…nice test…even tho, the 277 weren’t worth it

I’ll take the challenge. Gonna see how much time I can shave off your render. What processor do you have, btw?

http://uploader.polorix.net/files/pixel.jpg

my ‘entry’: 25minutes on a 2.4Ghz Athlon XP under WinXP, that’s 0.1% of the original rendering time… My guess is that parityb doesn’t work in the CG industry…

"hey boss, my pre-vis is done, i just need to have access to a 3000-CPU cluster for a month or two while it renders …D "

no offense parityb, just pulling your leg. Since i understand the main point of your experiment is to see how much stress your system and blender can take. But you actually started something inovative, i think we should all give the file a test and see what kind of optimization we can employ to reduce the rendering time. It’s a good learning experience.

Well from what I’ve read, some of the frames for Pixar’s “Cars” took 8-15 hours / frame ! :eek:

And they appparently have a ~1,000 machine render farm … I don’t know if more than one machine was working on a frame at a time though.

Have you seen the movie “The Wild” … done by Core Studios. Really stunning looking hyper-realistic rendering. Haven’t found any info on how long the renders took though.

Mike

My attachment : Not quite the same effect as the original, but it only took 15 seconds to render on my meagre 1.2g / 256meg machine :smiley:

Attachments


mpan3,

comparing them side by side - you loose a huge amount of the self shadow detail, and your non self shadowing shadows are much harder.

Other than that though they are quite comparable.

LetterRip

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/mstramba/rockMan1.jpg

“The Savage Currtain” :smiley:

Mike

Interesting I am not sure if I would want to wait 11 days for a render

@ mpan3
nice optimization, on the first glance i cant see much difference
what are your settings…?
my system is a AMDx2-3800 with 2GB memory

But to set one thing clear, please dont think that i couldnt optimise this, sure i can…
I dont know if it would be as good as mpan’s :slight_smile: okay
at first as my machine was rendering, it was not my intention to optimise all to have the best time/quality ratio. I just wanted to see this image in high resolution and to stress my system,
And to answer the question if it can run some days or not (for example i have cheap memory inside and the cheapest asus board which was available)
and my debian router is now up for over 1 year :slight_smile:

what i did was cranked up the octree resolution to 512. and lower the subdiv value by 1, (which lead to some artifacts as letterrip mentioned), i also turned off sud-div UV since it’s not used.

as for rendering, i disabled AA altogether and rendered the scene at 2x the original resolution. I then scaled it down in gimp which is much faster than using 16x AA.

In rendering it at 2x the size and scaling it down, what kind of quality loss is there? If any.

How much of a speed increase are you talking about? 100% 50%?