sun edges?

[dakiru]

Hi ZomB!
SkIndigo actually supports circular aperture..

I think we're talking about physical diffraction, not the PostProcess Filter my friend
No Extra RAM cost and physical correct, a feature I would recommend to turn on always for final renders!!

Can you make this clearer? I don't get you completely, sorry
There is a way to have aperture on without using the post-process filter?

Hi, Pibuz
Like here (all the same setting, except Aperture Diffraction):

Post-process (aperture diffraction - yes, post-process - yes):


Real (aperture diffraction - yes, post-process - no):


Refer to the current (2.0.x) Indigo Technical Reference, page 21/22

edit: View these renders in full size - they are a little bigger.

[CTZn]

I don't get you completely, sorry
There is a way to have aperture on without using the post-process filter?

Yes, there are two aperture diffraction modes Pibuz. Like with filters, I think that you are finding the topics tricky because the options are perhaps not showing in SkIndigo ? It might be clearer if you could access them in first instance...

Sorry if the assertion is wrong, I never tried other exporters at this time

[Zom-B]

SkIndigo actually supports circular aperture..

Just because is possible to set it up in the exporter doesn't mean that it gets exported correctly...
Simply check the exported file in a texteditor to check this!

[Pibuz]

@ CTZn
Oh, dear... In the skindigo export panel there actually IS a checkbox saying "aperture diffraction"... Since I didn't notice any significant differences, I thought it was the same thing to check that or to enable the diffraction directly in the Indigo GUI. Damn it. You mean that if I enable the REAL diffraction as an export option this should use no additional RAM? ...but the negative effect is that it is not possible to disable it while rendering... I get it. Thank you guys, I'm going to work a little more on this and make some tests! very useful information, btw: I always yell at the damn diffraction for sucking my memory dry...

@ ZomB
Alright. I'm sure it is supported only because Dale is wonderous!
I can't even think he's done something wrong. BTW I'll give you, only this time, the benefit of doubt and I'll check it out. Thanks!

[Pibuz]

So some tests done. I attach a summary jpeg.
http://www.box.net/shared/4rz7dcby88

Question1:
Did I underlined the right string, concerning the enabling of the REAL diffraction? I drawn that from the scene.igs

Question2:
I can see dark edges for the sun in both the REAL DIFF ON images and the REAL DIFF OFF images

Question3:
Top two images. First case I have 230 MB, then I enable the postfilter diffraction and I reach 1.012 MB. Right. If I dsable the postfilter diffraction, the memory consumption remains at 1.012 MB. Is that correct?

Question4:
Note the RAM consumption. Geez! The scene is empty, not a HUGE render (only 1000x1000), only two layers. And I reach 1 GB so easily. I really think this is something to work on, for the next releases.

[CTZn]

1 Yes that's the string wich enables/disables camera aperture diffraction.

2 Note that the first cause for an outlined sun is the splat filter used... Look at the technical manual, pages 23 and 24. Here you will find examples that you will be able to insert into your own rendering settings. These filter settings should prevent sun edges.

The gaussian is a bluring filter, while the Mitchell-Netravali is a (radical) sharpening filter. One cuts the pear in two by using Gaussian as splat, then after mn_cubic to resize/sharpen. The resize filter is of course not used if supersampling is disabled.

3 and 4 Did you use the same instance of Indigo for each test ? If yes then perhaps... redo ? Seems a huge difference, yes...

[OnoSendai]

So some tests done. I attach a summary jpeg.
http://www.box.net/shared/4rz7dcby88

Question1:
Did I underlined the right string, concerning the enabling of the REAL diffraction? I drawn that from the scene.igs

Question2:
I can see dark edges for the sun in both the REAL DIFF ON images and the REAL DIFF OFF images

Question3:
Top two images. First case I have 230 MB, then I enable the postfilter diffraction and I reach 1.012 MB. Right. If I dsable the postfilter diffraction, the memory consumption remains at 1.012 MB. Is that correct?

Question4:
Note the RAM consumption. Geez! The scene is empty, not a HUGE render (only 1000x1000), only two layers. And I reach 1 GB so easily. I really think this is something to work on, for the next releases.

Both types of aperture diffraction, post-process and not post process, are 'real', and should look the same.
I recommend post-process.

Post-process ap.diff. does take a lot of RAM, yes.

[Zom-B]

Both types of aperture diffraction, post-process and not post process, are 'real', and should look the same.
I recommend post-process.

Post-process ap.diff. does take a lot of RAM, yes.

It seems they aren't really matching: http://www.indigorenderer.com/forum/vie ... 011#p87011
(just DL the images, they are resized here!)

having a 5x multi in RAM usage is quite much... I'm sure there is some space for optimization!
Maybe (at least for PostPro ap. diff.) a checkbox in they layers would be a option!
Since not every light source/layer is interesting for this feature... this could save a lot of RAM for some scenes & users...

[Pibuz]

I really think that the weak point of Indigo is only the RAM usage. I have no idea how they do, but the Fry guys have found some tricky solution to this, and you can render incredibly huge scenes without running out of memory. I was testing a very simple scene, last night, a simple box with a hole simulating a window, two light layers (as usal for me: sun and sky). i treid to launch a render 2550x1750 or something and BANG: C++ blah blah blah. I work with a Q6600, win XP 32bits, 4GB RAM, so not a bad hardware after all. I really hope you Glare guys can improve the RAM usage. We all know you can do it, you always astonish us.

[Zom-B]

yes, Pibuz is right here...

My 8GB RAM 64bit system has no problems like this, but render slaves aren't this good equipped :/

Good old workaround for your problem Pibuz is rendering via Indigo console, this saves lot of RAM!
Also doing light layers for lower res preview renderings and adjustment, and rendering the final image without layers with Indigo console. Doing High Res renderings also reduces the need for SuperSampling

[suvakas]

@Pibuz
What's the point of having 4GB of ram and using 32bit windows?

I also have 4GB of mem and 64bit windows and i can render 5000x5000 just fine (with super sample set to 1 of course).

[Pibuz]

I agree with you Suv, but when I bought win32 I only had 2GB RAM and I didn't know either if Indigo would support 64bits versions and if a 64bits would have enhance some features. It is partially my fault, I have to admit. Money too was a limitation.

BTW I tested 2.2.8 and I have to say I've been impressed by the RAM optimization.
Win32, 2552x1708, 3 light layers and only 1.2GB or RAM used, pretty good. Gonna do some more tests, but I'm already quite happy!

[StompinTom]

The square glow around the sun still persists... Doesn't look right at all, especially because I've got Aperature Diffraction set to Circular. With Generated it seems to work OK, though it gives me a very colored result...

Will post example images soon.

[lycium]

This is a known issue; will be fixed for 2.6 stable, which should also reduce memory consumption when using supersampling.

[Borgleader]

This is a known issue; will be fixed for 2.6 stable, which should also reduce memory consumption when using supersampling.

Winnar!