How long are you willing to wait?

[M V]

How long are you willing to wait for a final still to render? 2 hours, 5, 20? Just curious how people feel about this.

[evilios]

My longest time spent on waiting was 36 h ! Eestimated time at the begining of the rendering was about 5 h, but then it started to grow continuously. That was the absolute max time I'm willing to spend

[Jonathan Sanchez]

Personally for me it depends on deadline and quality req'd. If it's one of those "I need it 'yesterday'" jobs, I have trouble with my images taking more than 1 hour. If it's a job with a patient client (my favorite), I've had renderings completed overnight. I'm running a 5 machine render farm which really helps though.

[RyderSK]

I am honestly not willing to wait anything. I continually buy render nodes so I can eventually crush render times into minutes. That's when I'll be happy. Rendering is the biggest wasted time.

[Scott Dombrowski]

For a "final" render, overnight or over the weekend if the timing works out. I have a couple of render nodes at my disposal now, so I'm willing to up the quality and let them crank away while I work on another project.

[Nic H]

if time permits (for final full res image at 6k wide with good AA / dirt pass / etc.) ill leave it overnight so its done before i get in the next morning.

otherwise DR it in a couple hours!

[marius e]

I also hate waiting for renders, think the longest I am happy to wait is bout 2 hours...depends on lots though, could go over sometimes, but anything longer than that is a waste of time, the quality is hardly noticeable and clients cant even see the difference...Chances are that there will be changes to.

[RyderSK]

Exactly, clients almost never appreciate the "technical" quality of render, I don't even use AA in most of my renders, rather use higher resolution, more detail can be seen and clients are happier with "bigger" pictures.

Archviz is endless array of changes, so you need to keep it flexible and don't put all your horses on one render. 5minutes after you finish 3 hour render, your client will call you and ask to move that tree to the left.

As for finals....I am almost never sure which is final ;- ) But I still imagine better spent time than waiting for render, even if it's on different machine.

[Tommy L]

I also hate waiting for renders, think the longest I am happy to wait is bout 2 hours...depends on lots though, could go over sometimes, but anything longer than that is a waste of time, the quality is hardly noticeable and clients cant even see the difference...Chances are that there will be changes to.

 

Depends on the client and I think its a little irresponsible to just deliver lower quality product because the 'client wont notice'. One day the client will see a slick image and know he likes it more than what he gets from you. They may not know why, but you will.

I try to deliver to print res @ 300dpi, but thats not always possible. Finals usually cook overnight at settings I know will not blow deadlines. The real trick is to be testing at low res with DR. Who cares about the final rendertime. Its the machines doing the work, not you. So I guess, counter-intuitive answer, I render for as long as possible!

[vincentg87]

Exactly, clients almost never appreciate the "technical" quality of render, I don't even use AA in most of my renders, rather use higher resolution, more detail can be seen and clients are happier with "bigger" pictures.

Archviz is endless array of changes, so you need to keep it flexible and don't put all your horses on one render. 5minutes after you finish 3 hour render, your client will call you and ask to move that tree to the left.

As for finals....I am almost never sure which is final ;- ) But I still imagine better spent time than waiting for render, even if it's on different machine.

 

I work in an arch firm's internal 3D department. Although i've never tried this kind of workflow before, partly agree with you on disabling AA and using higher resolution instead, especially during the early stages tendering a project.

 

But when you say you "don't even use AA in most of my renders", do you mean even including final renders? I'm interested in seeing how much (minor) difference it makes using, and not using AA. Do you have some examples?

[Tommy L]

I work in an arch firm's internal 3D department. Although i've never tried this kind of workflow before, partly agree with you on disabling AA and using higher resolution instead, especially during the early stages tendering a project.

 

But when you say you "don't even use AA in most of my renders", do you mean even including final renders? I'm interested in seeing how much (minor) difference it makes using, and not using AA. Do you have some examples?

 

AA is always a balance. Are we talking filters here or rendering fixed 1/1?

[RyderSK]

Just additional filters. I consider sharp filters everyone seems to like (like Mitchell-Netravali) to be waste of time. I either use none or just Area 1.5 (from Peter Guthrie's advice) for finals.

And I don't think it's noticeably lower quality result, at 2500+ px wide pictures, people don't zoom in to notice such differences.

There are so many more important factors to contribute to image "true" quality than simply boosting settings. Adding the extra cleanness and crispiness is nice last step though, but even then, I would rather trade in additional resolution and shadow quality then AA.

[Tommy L]

Just additional filters. I consider sharp filters everyone seems to like (like Mitchell-Netravali) to be waste of time. I either use none or just Area 1.5 (from Peter Guthrie's advice) for finals.

And I don't think it's noticeably lower quality result, at 2500+ px wide pictures, people don't zoom in to notice such differences.

There are so many more important factors to contribute to image "true" quality than simply boosting settings. Adding the extra cleanness and crispiness is nice last step though, but even then, I would rather trade in additional resolution and shadow quality then AA.

 

yes, but this depends on the usage. My interior design clients tend to have these printed at 34" wide boards which are viewed up close. As one of the main issues at hand is fabrics, patterns, finishes etc then they are scrutinized. For these clients I need to reduce noise as much as possible and keep clarity in the detail. This means a long render, I just dont know any other way of achieving what I want.

My usual settings for final on these is : No AA filter, adaptive DMC 2-10, .005 at around 7k. Depending on material settings it usually takes about 10 hrs on an i7 2600k.

Architects are viewing a bigger picture, where light, composition and form are much more the emphasis. Noise and sharpness are less of an issue.

[RyderSK]

yes, but this depends on the usage. My interior design clients tend to have these printed at 34" wide boards which are viewed up close. As one of the main issues at hand is fabrics, patterns, finishes etc then they are scrutinized. For these clients I need to reduce noise as much as possible and keep clarity in the detail. This means a long render, I just dont know any other way of achieving what I want.

My usual settings for final on these is : No AA filter, adaptive DMC 2-10, .005 at around 7k. Depending on material settings it usually takes about 10 hrs on an i7 2600k.

Architects are viewing a bigger picture, where light, composition and form are much more the emphasis. Noise and sharpness are less of an issue.

 

34" wide print, 7000px resolution.... someone should already educate these people :- ) They heard about "300DPI" and now demand it even on bigboards next to highway. No one would expect 7k photography, but render yes.

 

I love how you described what architects want though :- ) I wish I could come across such.. Lot of my clients seem to nit-pick weird things (like a type of microwave, electric outlet?!, etc... ), I need to get away from development, and back to proper architectural offices.

[Tommy L]

I actually agree with the client on this one. When you see these boards, the difference is apparent. I am relatively expensive, so I have no excuse to do the shortcuts.

And so far as 7k photography, thats low res with guys I work with. I do print work for advertising industry here in Chicago. We do comps at 11x17 @300dpi, final is always bigger.

[RyderSK]

I don't get it, 7K low-res ? Mark III shoots 20megapixel, which equals to 5616 x 3744, so 5K, and that is super high-res to me. There are cameras that shoot 200megapixel even more...but there is no point for additional quality, just zoom-detail. But it is never-the-less interesting ! I would love to see some of those high-res if you ever publish them somewhere :- ).

 

Whole industry seems obsessed by DPI to me.

[Tommy L]

Well, ok, 7k is standard res

Re-purposing images happens all the time, POP-POS for example. They will just pull art-work made for a magazine print run and blow it up for in-store signage. Ive seen it happen with arch-vis renders at street level curtain walling for a whole block, just a block long stretch of bad pixelation.

The photographers we use tend to shoot on PhaseOne, which is phenomenal. And zoom in detail is indeed a good motivation. Ive yet to meet an art director that didnt want to crop, or a print production guy that didnt ask for bleed.

Largest I had to render was a 60k pixels wide image of the sea, because Corona couldn't find an image big enough or a photographer that could shoot it. It was for a hemispheric booth.

Anyway, point is, render as big, clear, crisp as time allows. I dont set a limit, the schedule does.

 

edit:

Oh, and 300dpi is a well used number for a reason. Print runs dont come out of an Epson 1400....

so a 5k image is only really perfect to be printed up to 16 inches wide. With bad AA you will have no chance of lowering the DPI for a larger print. A pre-press guy is going to throw a layer of noise on it just out of precaution to make sure nothing bands, noise on noise is horrible.

Sit down and have a chat with a commercial retoucher (a good one) over a couple of beers. They are an interesting and dying breed, especially the ones that go all the way back to traditional retouching (film, sytex etc). Arch-vis is such a niche, poke your head over the fence once in a while, you learn loads of stuff that applies to the industry.

 

edit2: A good example is the Miller bottle thats on my website. Thats HUGE, rendered out at 30k high, with some monstrous settings. We have it printed 8 foot tall in the studio. I mean, you've already DONE the hard work. To render it badly is akin to under-developing a shot.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Tommy L

[rayneonx]

My preference was 8 to 10 hours overnite...........

 

Start the rendering after everyone has left office.......so no one would bump the machine.........then get there before anyone got to curious and tapped something.

 

Also, it didn't tie up the computer for next days work. Now everyone has two machines and three screens........

 

Problem was....something went wrong........you had to wait an entire day to run the next night. That's why I go with low resolution untill you absolutely sure of the final design ....or close to it.

Edited May 13, 2012 by rayneonx

[Tommy L]

I really hope someone from one of the big studios like Hayes Davidson or DBox chimes in on this. That would be really interesting.

[RyderSK]

I understand where you're coming from, but still, poster isn't going to be seen from distance magazine is read (it's also not printed with same quality). I understand you consider clean high-res render a quality trademark for both you and client, I agree on that ;- ), but I still think it's just overdone for the sake of it.

 

I agree on your tip to talk to retoucher, one is joining me soon over summer to work together, and hopefully, we wish to enter advertising market too :- ). I want to stay close to archviz, but I want to broaden skills.

 

Maybe I should have wrote you in pm (it's slightly off-topic), but it's good to have nice discussion finally on forum.

[Tommy L]

You wont regret entering the advertising market. Its a lot of fun and good CGI skills are so rare...hence highly compensated.

[Sketchrender]

Can I ask how many you have and what do you buy?

[felipesosadiaz]

I even feel sorry for the question im about to ask.. but what is exactly AA? lol thnaks in advance

[marius e]

You can crit my work in any way you like, but if you were to look at my render settings they will be very low compared to other MR users, its about finding the right settings for a specific rendering, and its not only about render settings. If your lighting is setup in what ever fashion your render settings wil be influenced, and higher or lower settings might then be pointless in some cases.

 

Once you get to know your engine you start to understand its strengths and weaknesses.

[layip]

I think it depends on the size of your file and the resolution of that picture~~so 5minutes is possible, 50 hours is also possible~

once it took me over 24 hours!

 

http://foxrenderfarm.com