HOME | DD
Pret-A-3D — Portrait of Reality
Published: 2011-03-11 20:11:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 6010; Favourites: 30; Downloads: 150
Redirect to original
Description
The official image for Reality 1.2. Reby Sky, LuxRender 0.8, Reality 1.2 ( [link] )Related content
Comments: 18
I just got Reality and Lux render and was wondering what the average render time is for most pics. And is there a setting for the resolution? Thank you for the information 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello.
There is no "average" time. It all depends on your scene. In addition the speed is based on the number and speed of your processors. Lux is about realism and computing the real, physics-based, effect of light and materials.
The resolution settings are based on the Studio resolution. You can then change the percentage of the frame in the Output tab.
Cheers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you so much for the information!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How long did you let this render, and what kind of hardware are you using? I just got Reality 1.25 & Lux Render yesterday, and it seems excruciatingly slow!
Gary
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't remember the time, honestly. I rendered so many images for the promos and it was months ago. It wasn't too long though, just a few hours. My hardware is a 8-core MacPro , late 2009 so not the latest. I currently have 14GB ram but when I rendered that image I had 6GB.
Cheers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yikes...
And it still took hours?
Oy vey.
Gary
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, it's a high-resolution image and I render all my promos to around 2000 up to 5000 samples per pixels. Even when I don't see noticeable differences with half the amount of samples. Because these are representative of what you can obtain from the product, they have to be flawless. Several hours or rendering are not unheard of with 3Delight or Carrara's renderer when creating images that use similar level of realism. Simulation of Ambient Light and other effects take a long time even on biased renderers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand. There is an awful lot of number crunching happening to make renders like these, but I can't help but think if the programs were written in lower, faster languages, they'd run much faster. That how they've gotten CT and MR scanners to 'reconstruct' their images so quickly. They've actually retrograded to a lower computer language, and compiled the program. Less junk, less BS lines in the software, less everything except initial time and grief.
Let's face it, C++ is not a fast language. Even Basic wasn't fast--although it would certainly be faster than some of the stuff that's around now.
Oh, well...
Thanks for the information and your time!
Gary
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
