HOME | DD

Addicted2fractals — Into the Obscure PNG

Published: 2008-02-03 21:07:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 1216; Favourites: 2; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description New computer, new heights in render settings.
TEST 1:

Size: 1024x1280
Quality: 6000
Oversample: 11
Filter: 0.72
Buffer depth: 32-bit floating-point
Allocating 2,425.42 Mb of memory
Average speed: 3,703,207.94 points per second
Pure rendering time: 35 minutes 28.41 seconds
Total time: 36 minutes 44.72 seconds
---------
Next test will be the same image, but instead of OS, I will be manually rendering the image size as large as I possibly can.

I have used a WindowsXP hack to extend the 2GB maximum application memory limit to 3GB using the /3GB switch in the boot.ini, and it works! Yay!

Disclaimer: If you have 4GB of RAM, WindowsXP pro 32-bit, and are interested in hacking the boot.ini, it is strongly recommended that you search the Microsoft site for the /3GB switch and extensively read into the subject before applying the hack, otherwise you can render your system useless.
(Personal Disclaimer and advice: I recommend adding a seperate boot option with the /3GB switch in case it doesn't work, you can choose your previous or normal boot mode. I take no responsibility for any system loss or damages occured!)

With that said, using the switch was almost too simple, and 100% effective. Just look at my render settings and how much memory I was allowed to use for rendering!
-------

Enjoy!

Test 2 on its way! Stay tuned!
---------------------------------------------
UPDATE: So I cranked up the render settings as much as my system would allow, and these are what the stats would be:

Image size x10=10,240x12,800
OS=1
RAM allocated=2000mb+(2GB)
format=bmp (wouldn't let me render png at that resolution)
Estimated time to render with those settings:
56 HOURS on a dualcore AMD 2.6ghz!

I'm impatient...I just can't wait for that.

So I'm going with:
Image Size x2: 2048x2560
Quality: 4000
Oversample: 5, Filter: 0.72
Buffer depth: 32-bit floating-point
Allocating 2,007.04 Mb of memory
ETR=1.5 hours.

Whew, much better! And I bet the quality still rocks!
Also still trying .bmp on this render. I haven't before, so why not?
Related content
Comments: 5

Magoda [2008-02-03 21:37:11 +0000 UTC]

So lets say i have a website....how offended would you be if i used a few of your pieces for it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Addicted2fractals In reply to Magoda [2008-02-04 22:07:57 +0000 UTC]

I think I'd be more offended if you didn't tell me and just used them.

A couple conditions to use my art:
1. I of course get due credit somewhere on your website for producing the images, whether it be in a FAQ or whatnot.
2. If you plan on selling anything through your site, some royalties thrown my way would be most admirable of you.
3. Let me know which pieces you are using, just so I can keep track of them. This way, I could also throw a plug your way, saying something like "This image used on Magoda's website. Check it out! [link]"
4. You gotta show me what you make with them!

Disclaimer (yea, there has to be one):
1. If I find that either of the first three conditions aren't being met, I will do everything in my power to destroy you.
2. Another reason I'd like to know what pieces are being used, is because I plan on setting up a Shutterstock account to try and make some extra money, so all the images on DA will be non-downloadable from then on.

Let me know if any of this is unreasonable.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Magoda In reply to Addicted2fractals [2008-02-04 23:35:53 +0000 UTC]

k hen. Though i'm not making money from it, and therefore am not giving you money for them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Addicted2fractals In reply to Magoda [2008-02-05 13:54:08 +0000 UTC]

Exactly. You're welcome to use a couple pieces of mine, depending on what they are. Some of them I won't allow. So just let me know which ones you're thinking of.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Magoda In reply to Addicted2fractals [2008-02-05 16:38:47 +0000 UTC]

alright then.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0