HOME | DD

KiraOnTheNetz β€” How to Improve Your Apophysis Renders Using GIMP by-nc

Published: 2014-04-27 21:58:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 1818; Favourites: 6; Downloads: 150
Redirect to original
Description Apophysis renders don't always come out perfect. Quality only goes up to 4000, which often isn't enough to eliminate all the stray pixels. The built-in filter settings aren't perfect, either, and very time-consuming for those with slow computers. If you have a slower computer, using quality 4000 just feels like a waste of time. I've found that this method keeps my renders looking good while getting rid of that awful pixel dust. It's quite possible that everyone but me has already figured this out, since I'm too arrogant to read guides myself, but I hope this can at least help one person.

***Please note: This only works if you have the render to begin with, and if it's a .png file or a .jpg or .bmp with a black or white background. I also assume that you have used GIMP at least somewhat before.


Β  Β  *Guide*
Open rendered .png file (if you're using a .jpg or a .bmp, skip to the red bullet)
Create a layer of black (or white, if you prefer. Whichever creates the most contrast with your render)
Merge your render layer with the black background
Duplicate the merged layer
Select the copy on top
Go to Filters -> Enhance -> Despeckle
Filter settings: Black level: -1, White level: 200-ish. If you just want to make a really cool derivative of the fractal, up the black level. If you want to keep your render as it is for the most part, keep it at -1. Radius ranges from 1-3, depending upon how bad the pixel dust is.
Behold your blurry marvel for a moment.
Still selecting the top layer, go to Layer -> Color to Alpha
Settings: select 50% grey as your color to remove.
Now you have no pixel dust AND a very colorful image!
Merge your two layers and go from there as if you had a perfect render.

It's not foolproof, since it adds a black or white background to your previously alpha-filled render (if you started with a .png), and it ups your saturation something fierce, plus you lose a tiny bit of detail, but now you can save a little time on your renders and you don't need to downsize just to hide that ugly pixel dust / graininess.

If anything here needs elaboration, clarification, or correction, please comment or note me.
Related content
Comments: 13

sragets [2014-04-28 19:26:09 +0000 UTC]

A simple oversample of 2 or 3 would correct a lot of these issues.
AkuraPare is also correct in the statement that Apophysis goes well over 4000. I routinely use 10,000 or 20,000 for my internal renders.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

KiraOnTheNetz In reply to sragets [2014-04-28 19:43:24 +0000 UTC]

I use oversample 3 or 4 and they still turn out all grainy. I have not been able to access any qualities over 4000 and with each increase in quality, there is an exponential increase in render time, to the point where it isn't even worth it for me to leave my laptop on for days and overheat.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AkuraPare In reply to KiraOnTheNetz [2014-04-28 20:47:13 +0000 UTC]

if you want send me your test params - i can do some renders with various settings and send you back results - btw, what are your scale/zoom settings in apo?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

KiraOnTheNetz In reply to AkuraPare [2014-04-28 21:15:39 +0000 UTC]

That would be awesome, but for now I think I'll stick with what I have. It's annoying, but it's annoying in a familiar way. And what do you mean by scale/zoom?

The example render for the before and after was quality - 2000, oversample 4, filter radius 0.7, in case that helps.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AkuraPare In reply to KiraOnTheNetz [2014-04-28 23:13:26 +0000 UTC]

check these resources for well explained scale x zoom and render settings in apophysis: ideviant.deviantart.com/art/Zo…
ideviant.deviantart.com/art/Re…

check comments with more explanations about os/fr etc.

quality 4000 should be enough in most cases (but i personally prefer higher settings). i never used os 4 - 3 was always enough but it does not take so much more render time so if you have enough memory use 4...

sometimes it is used variations what slows down render...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

KiraOnTheNetz In reply to AkuraPare [2014-04-28 23:24:40 +0000 UTC]

I generally go with the default settings for the image, though I suppose this will help.

My computer has enough memory, 4GB, but its CPU is extremely slow. That is the problem.

And yes, I've experienced this. A render without too many variations took about 2 hours at given dimensions, that same one with many variations was going to take 1 month.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

AkuraPare In reply to KiraOnTheNetz [2014-04-29 08:39:16 +0000 UTC]

do not be afraid of chaotica - check for yourself... it is worth to try

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

AkuraPare [2014-04-28 19:06:56 +0000 UTC]

quality in apo does not go up to 4000 only you can set any quality you want (or at least 80.000 is my own experience)... try chaotica if you are not satisfied with apo internal renderer! chaotica is great renderer and there can be fun even during render: you can tweak rgb curves while it renders and you can see changes immediately - great for relieving impatience + you can see when you want stop your render...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

deadened-glow [2014-04-28 15:17:55 +0000 UTC]

You can always use Chaotica or JWildfire. This usually helps out too. Apophysis is a decent flame renderer. A lot of the pro Apophysis users use other renderers.Β 
Thanks for the tips!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

KiraOnTheNetz In reply to deadened-glow [2014-04-28 17:03:52 +0000 UTC]

I've always been afraid to try anything bigger because my computer is so slow, though I suppose I'll see if they run on my computer with any speed at all... I generally don't have the patience for more than 4-6 hours per render.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

deadened-glow In reply to KiraOnTheNetz [2014-04-28 17:52:44 +0000 UTC]

JWildfire is free and you can get a free trial of Chaotica, but you can only submit parameters to it with a certain size.
Both have their pros and cons.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

KiraOnTheNetz In reply to deadened-glow [2014-04-28 19:45:16 +0000 UTC]

So those reading this with better computers might be able to access those resources and circumvent this problem in the first place. That's good.

But as mentioned, a lot of us operate on sub-par computers, though I'll try to use JWildfire (highly doubting it will run though)

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

deadened-glow In reply to KiraOnTheNetz [2014-04-28 20:18:23 +0000 UTC]

I know. Just was pointing it out that there are different renderers available.
I do not even think Xyrus uses Apophysis to render his flames.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0