Krisztian Gulyas Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I need to create a high-res (12000x6000px) image and it has to be (pretty) high quality. I thought maybe using Brute force as the primary bounce and LC as secondary. What do you think about it? I have always used Irradiance map as primary and Brute force as secondary, so I dont know how other combinations work, but with those the rendering would take days, so I need a faster method. It's a room with a lot of candels and one small lamp, no light from outside. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Brute force will give you the best quality and solve some of the problems that come with IR maps but it comes at a cost and that's time. BF will take many times longer than other methods and at a resolution of that size on a single machine it could take a week or more. You'd also have to adjust your settings to take out the noise that comes with BF rendering, this slows the process down a lot. You either need to figure out how to get it done using LC and IR maps or find someone who has lots of computers you can use. You will also need lots of ram to render something that big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Beaulieu Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Why do you need to render at such a high res? If it is for print you may want to look into the actually dpi that twill be used. If it is, say 150dpi, then you should be able to render at 6000x3000px. but anyways... You are right, Brute force will bump your time up to days. Irradiance with a secondary of light cache is your best bet time-wise. You should also choose your light types wisely. I have found that standard lights with no decay (just use attenuation) and vray shadow map is the faster. If this lighting style works, you may want to consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisztian Gulyas Posted January 14, 2013 Author Share Posted January 14, 2013 It will be a panorama image, that is why i need such high resolution. What do you think about making the image bigger in photoshop? For example 150% of the original size. Will it reduce the quality too much? I will try using IR and LC, I hope it won't take too much time (more than a day). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 The more you blow it up the more blurry and pixilated it will become but the way the image is used can be a big factor in what resolution it needs to be. At 300 DPI you'd be able to print that image out to 40" but at 150 DPI you'd get a 80" wide print and even at that resolution it wouldn't look bad if viewed from a distance of 5 feet or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Matthews Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I will add that to the naked eye, you will not be able to notice the difference between 150 dpi and 300 dpi at that size. You have to stand a certain distance from the paper so that you can see the whole image. It makes more sense to render at 300 dpi when printing to standard paper sizes (11x17 or below) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisztian Gulyas Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 *sorry, but i can't upload it to show you* The rendering took almost 24 hours to finish, but for a panorama i think that's not too much. I used IR (high preset) and LC (4000 samples, 0.01 as sample size) and rendered it at 8000x4000px, saved as a TIF file (1200 DPI) and it looks great. No noise or anything that would make the image look fake even when zoomed in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Penaloza Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 rendered it at 8000x4000px, saved as a TIF file (1200 DPI) and it looks great. There is something here that does not sound right. No noise or anything that would make the image look fake even when zoomed in a bit. There is other factors that make a image believable or not, is not about resolution only but oh well it it works for you that's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 *sorry, but i can't upload it to show you* The rendering took almost 24 hours to finish, but for a panorama i think that's not too much. I used IR (high preset) and LC (4000 samples, 0.01 as sample size) and rendered it at 8000x4000px, saved as a TIF file (1200 DPI) and it looks great. No noise or anything that would make the image look fake even when zoomed in a bit. Just a future tip. The higher res you go, the lower LC and IR settings you can use. Rendering a super high res image with super high settings is a waste of calculation time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisztian Gulyas Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 There is other factors that make a image believable or not, is not about resolution only but oh well it it works for you that's good.Yes, but I meant the shadows, colors, reflections etc look okay. Thanks Scott, I'll keep that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now