Why is my rendertime so long ? (60h for that)

Announcements, requests and support regarding the Blender Indigo export script
Post Reply
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
User avatar
op_ju
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: france
Contact:

Why is my rendertime so long ? (60h for that)

Post by op_ju » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:33 am

Hi, this is my first post here and I'd like first to congratulate indigo's team for their work.
I'm blender user and i'm enjoy of this new (for me) rendering feature.

So :
Maybe I do something wrong but I'm not able to decrease rendertime for this scene under 60 h. I find it really amazing. And even after that I'm not satisfied with result. (famous indigo noise).
My question : is how could I improve settings to render it again in relatively nice timing. (at least under 20h ;-))

Here are some details of my scene :
23303 p
Image
click to enlarge 800*600: http://opingo.free.fr/bordel/indigo-escalier1.jpg

I know that is not a really competitive computer but I'm using a Acer laptop celeron intel 1,5 GHz, 448 mo winxp sp2.
( Indeed I usually work on a apple G5 but I can't wait for an osx indigo port. )

And xml small part :

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<scene>
	<renderer_settings>
		<width>800</width>
		<height>600</height>
		<metropolis>true</metropolis>
		<large_mutation_prob>0.1</large_mutation_prob>
		<max_change>0.02</max_change>
		<max_num_consec_rejections>1000</max_num_consec_rejections>
		<bidirectional>true</bidirectional>
		<russian_roulette_live_prob>0.7</russian_roulette_live_prob>
		<max_depth>1000</max_depth>
		<strata_width>14</strata_width>
		<logging>true</logging>
		<save_untonemapped_exr>false</save_untonemapped_exr>
		<save_tonemapped_exr>false</save_tonemapped_exr>
	</renderer_settings>

	<tonemapping>
		<!--
		<linear>
			<scale>1.0</scale>
		</linear>
		-->
		<reinhard>
			<pre_scale>2</pre_scale>
			<post_scale>1</post_scale>
		</reinhard>
	</tonemapping>

…


	<skylight>
		<sundir>0.133772 -0.073133 0.988311</sundir>
		<turbidity>2.000000</turbidity>
		<sky_gain>0.005000</sky_gain>
	</skylight>

	<camera>
		<pos>3.641760 -5.782577 1.460978</pos>
		<up>0.052758 -0.060631 0.996765</up>
		<forwards>-0.654302 0.751950 0.080371</forwards>
		<aperture_radius>0.001000</aperture_radius>
		<focus_distance>2.000000</focus_distance>
		<aspect_ratio>1.33333</aspect_ratio>
		<sensor_width>0.035000</sensor_width>
		<lens_sensor_dist>0.038281</lens_sensor_dist>
		<white_balance>D75</white_balance>
	</camera>

…
Entire xml can be found here : 6,5 Mo
http://opingo.free.fr/bordel/escalier-TEX.xml

I'm working with the preconised v o.5

I know that indigo is in constant developpement and I'm conscient to work on a small PC configuration, but my scene is not so huge (i think).

Maybe you see evident tricks to optimize this, I'll be glad to ear it.
I hope I given enough details.

cheers

Ju :wink:

rikokun
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:44 pm

Post by rikokun » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:47 am

I think it's normal. You have lotsa indirect light in the scene, dark places, relativly slow computer... I have Athlon 2400+ and it still take a two days or so to do a relatively clean render.

rikokun
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:44 pm

Post by rikokun » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:51 am

plus you have set <max_num_consec_rejections>1000</max_num_consec_rejections>. change it to 200 or so.

User avatar
op_ju
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: france
Contact:

Post by op_ju » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:00 am

Thanx riko-kun, I'll try to play with the <max_num_consec_rejections> param.

So the time consumation could result form to much indirect lighting ?
It's true that here, the only light source is coming from ceiling (zenith lighting )
Could It help to have another artificial light source ( lamp or else) ?

Thanx for your answer.

rikokun
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:44 pm

Post by rikokun » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:28 am

I dunno. You can try. I can only show you this two pictures:
http://watashi.manganistan.com/blender/bed-vip2.jpg
http://watashi.manganistan.com/blender/bed-vip3.jpg
They are almost identical, both were rendered for aprox 5 hours, but the second one is in interior and is much more noisy then the other one.

User avatar
boweeb007
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:00 am
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)

Post by boweeb007 » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:35 am

Are any of your white phong materials set to rgb 1,1,1? If so, try turning it down to 0.9,0.9,0.9.

zuegs
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: switzerland

Post by zuegs » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:08 am

Very nice scene!
Your "mainwall" material is to bright. In indigo you should not go brighter than 0.8 0.8 0.8

Code: Select all

<material>
  <name>mainwall</name> 
  <diffuse>
    <colour>1.000 1.000 1.000</colour> 
  </diffuse>
  </material>
<material>
Because with 1 1 1 all walls reflects entire energie back in the room what produces much noise and bad contrast.
If you want to brighten complete image, you can play with rainhard tonemapping (post_scale = 3).

User avatar
op_ju
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: france
Contact:

Post by op_ju » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:21 am

Thanx a lot for your explanations,

@boweeb007 & zuegs > i'll change my pure white color for my wall.
[quote]Very nice scene! [/]
thx, this is a part of a project from the architectural agency I work with.
:wink:

riko-kun your example confirms what you have supposed. It seems logical that indirect lighting is more complex to render and bounces are taking more time to calculate.

Lets try tonight.

:) thanx a lot for your precious the time.

User avatar
konr8
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:33 am

Post by konr8 » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:17 pm

:shock: Man, I was so used to using full white Materials. I reduced the brightness in a scene I'm working on and it renders five times as fast!

This is really important, I wonder why this tip is nowhere to be found in the docs.

User avatar
manitwo
Posts: 1029
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 4:50 am
Location: Tirol - Austria

Post by manitwo » Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:25 pm

This is really important, I wonder why this tip is nowhere to be found in the docs.
But 100 times in the forum. But you are right ... it should be in the doc :wink:

Post Reply
10 posts • Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BLEXBot [Crawler], Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest