Complex UV Layout in Maya
Over the last couple of years UV layout in Maya has changed for the better. In this course we're going to be taking a look at some of those changes as we UV map an entire character
# 1 04-03-2007 , 07:14 PM
farbtopf's Avatar
Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 520

HDRI render question

hi,

I've got a scene set up with an hdri dome. I've checked the emit light box under the image based lighting tab, so my hdr image is my lightsource. The scene is not very eavy poly wise, but there are a lo of high res textures. About ten or twelve 2048x2048 tga's at 24bit. Also the hdr file is quite heavy, about 18meg.
I am rendering in MR and Final gather. I left all of it at the standard settings except the min and max radius which I adjusted according to my scene.
The rendering times I have are a bit too high, it's about 20 min per frame in 1280x720. As I will have to render about 1000 frames you can probably see my problem. I was wondering if the texture resolution has a big impact on render time, same with the hdr image?
Also is it possible that maya writes a cache file?

thanks

# 2 04-03-2007 , 07:34 PM
publicFunction's Avatar
Senior Software Developer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 1,701
For the amount of texture info you are using at those res, then 20 mins is more that acceptable.


Chris (formerly R@nSiD)
Twitter
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will truely know peace - Jimmy Hendrix
Winner SM VFX Challenge 1
3rd Place SM SteamPunk Challenge (May 2007)
# 3 04-03-2007 , 07:50 PM
farbtopf's Avatar
Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 520
ok, thanks

that means, if I reduce my texture size to say 1024 it would cut render time. Would it also make a difference using jpg's instead of tga's?

# 4 04-03-2007 , 08:04 PM
publicFunction's Avatar
Senior Software Developer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 1,701
I dont think you will notice much of a difference between tga and jpg. its the content of the image. Yes if you drop to 1024 then times will drop


Chris (formerly R@nSiD)
Twitter
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will truely know peace - Jimmy Hendrix
Winner SM VFX Challenge 1
3rd Place SM SteamPunk Challenge (May 2007)
# 5 05-03-2007 , 03:51 AM
farbtopf's Avatar
Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 520
thanks so much:attn:

# 6 05-03-2007 , 09:01 AM
Alan's Avatar
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,800
try lowering your samples until you get something that isn't acceptable for what you want. Then start to raise the samples until you get to where you want to be (a nice balance between quality and speed). That way you don't have to resize all your maps down (which will give you blurry textures etc)

user added image
A


Technical Director - Framestore

Currently working on: Your Highness

IMDB
# 7 05-03-2007 , 09:36 AM
farbtopf's Avatar
Subscriber
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London
Posts: 520
thanks for all your help guys,

@alan
my max sample level is 1 and the min -1. I don't even now wether this is high or low. (sorry for my incompetence, but I am just figuring out that rendering is a science on it's own)


I've achieved a mildly satisfying render time. Mainly by taking most of my textures down to 1048 or 512. I don't plan any extreme closeups anyway. And not using final gather but global illumination instead. It renders nearly twice as fast with acceptable results.
The image below was rendered in 12mins, still a bit too long, but I will replace the textures of the background buildings with 128's. And play with alan's suggestion.

cheers

Attached Thumbnails
Posting Rules Forum Rules
You may not post new threads | You may not post replies | You may not post attachments | You may not edit your posts | BB code is On | Smilies are On | [IMG] code is On | HTML code is Off

Similar Threads