Jump to content


Photo

Feedback on large renders (Plus a request on fixing some issues that come along)


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Nofew

Nofew

    Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:44 AM

So, I've been playing around with Genetica. My computers can easily handle 20480x20480 and higher with anti-aliasing! No sweat about it. It actually goes a *lot* faster than I thought it would.

I started with using a single node, just a Noise Lab, to see how far I can go. Genetica stops me from starting a new render at about 22,000x22,000 complaining I won't have enough RAM, but that should be well big enough for my purposes.

The results of the first render were exceptional. There were no weird artifacts anywhere, smooth lines all over, just all around phenomenal. ...But, of course, this is just a single node.

Next I tried a more complicated node, Synthesize. When I supplied it with a large image (about 5,000x3,000) it was able to put out a 10240x10240 texture, no problem. Didn't try larger, since at this point I was only looking to see if it could handle gigantic output sizes rather than memory consumption. Again, the result was incredible -- No distortion, no pixelation, just downright awesomenes.

However, a problem appears when I try to synthesize from a smaller (300x500) image. I cranked the "scale" on the node all the way up to 4 (the cap) and it was still pixelated, but only because the source image was being blown up. So, my next request is to remove the limit on the "scale" setting on nodes, or at least make it larger. From the looks of things a limit of 5 should work for 10240x10240 in most cases, while 15 to 25 might be needed for 20480x20480.

After that I tried using a legacy preset, "African Ebony Boards". They rendered fine at 10240x10240, peaking at about 25-26 gigabytes of RAM. No problem, my laptop has 32 gigs and if I need bigger I can just throw it at my desktop. Can get up to 64 gigs there. Understandably, the output wasn't as good as one would hope. The boards were clearly defined and the grouting was great, but the coloring in the wood was somewhat pixelated. However, after playing with the scale (and converting a few lab nodes to basic nodes), I was able to get it on its way to an acceptable quality. I didn't finish yet since I didn't find every node responsible, but I'm sure that I can get it there. In other words, it's completely possible for end-users to "fix" textures that look blurry or pixelated when they're rendered at gigantic resolutions (AND, if new presets are made with large outputs in mind from the start, it'll render perfectly regardless of the output, be it 200x200 or 20,000x20,000). I may need more "scale" limits to be increased, though, along with some other parameters. I'll post details on any other things that need a bigger cap as I find them.


In short: Large renders work great! Please keep the limit really high, at least 25,600x25,600 (or none! That'd work even better!). Some other parameters ("scale" on the "Synthesize" node, primarily) need their limit raised in order to cope with large output textures, but it should be as simple as changing a single variable in the source code. Same concept as removing the limit on output size.

#2 MonsterMind

MonsterMind

    Guru

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,602 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 12:16 PM

Interesting!
I love swimming but more than that I love Genetica!


#3 Silkrooster

Silkrooster

    Grandmaster

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:15 PM

I agree. So how were the render times, seam a bit slow or comparable to some other app that can handle that size image? Maybe a node to add render times and other system specs would be nice to add in a later version(assuming this version is feature locked)

#4 Nofew

Nofew

    Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:16 AM

No, not even a little slow. The preset I mentioned (African Ebony Boards) takes like 3-5 minutes, with AA at 10240x10240. Seriously. I see absolutely no reason there should be a limit to the final output size.

#5 Silkrooster

Silkrooster

    Grandmaster

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,152 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 11:41 PM

That's excellent news, especially to the pro users.

#6 Atlas

Atlas

    Staff

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,508 posts

Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:49 PM

Thanks for the feedback. My computer only has 8 GB of RAM so it can't test those resolutions. ;)

We'll look into the scale limit.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users