27 Replies Latest reply on Sep 20, 2017 2:32 PM by Rich Fagioli

    Recommended Output Render Settings

    Alexander Smith

      Hi Everyone.

      Does anyone have any recommended render settings for 2d output? It would be really useful to get an idea of best practice so as not to overcook the settings and leave renders running for more time than needed to get the best results.

       

      I'm interested in both final output rendering settings as well as how it get the highest quality low rez' and size test outputs too.

       

      Any suggestions?

       

      Thanks.

        • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
          Chris Cunningham

          For web I use these settings

          no shadow, no floor reflections, included alpha, png, 1200 width, 5000 to 12000 passes depending on complexity and how many dark colors there are.

           

          For print I use these settings

          shadow, no floor reflections, included alpha, png, 3000 width, 12000 to 20000 passes depending on complexity and how many dark colors there are.

           

          I have gone up to 4000 width for large print materials. And I always keep DPI at 300.

            • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
              Alexander Smith

              Chris thank you. Thats a LOT of passes!

               

              Currently I'm outputting a glass bottle design, its got DOF, floor reflections, BLOOM!, No alpha and its a Tiff. It has lots of glass so its pretty complex. I'm rendering at 3507x2480px (A4) at 150 dpi and 2000 passes, its looking to take 10 hours with my P5000 card.

               

              I tried setting it to 300dpi but the time said somewhere closer to 30 hours.

                • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                  Chris Cunningham

                  Wow, that's a lot of effects and time. Do you need the render to be outputted to that exact size?

                   

                  DOF, floor reflections and Bloom all add to the render time. One tip, I always render it off at the exact size I want it, at 150 render passes so I can view it in place prior to committing to the render time needed. You wouldn't want to invest that time only to realize it needs to be moved or material changed.

                    • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                      Alexander Smith

                      Yes I know its a lot but the outcome is pretty awesome! I think its the bloom that adds most of the time but it really adds something special to the image.

                       

                      To be honest, when I bought this new system only a few months back, I was expecting that the P5000 would be much faster than it is, the time is a lot! But I think it might be due to my lack of knowledge more than anything else.

                       

                      To answer your question, no I don't need it to be that size but I figure its a oversize than my website requirement by a bit so the images will 'crispen-up' when I scale them down to fit. My website full scale image requirement is I think 2000 x 1350px. Come to think of it, perhaps its better that I just render them out at 2000 x 1350 x 300dpi x 5000 passes, maybe thats the sweet spot? Or just 72dpi for web, that must slash the time right?

                        • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                          Chris Cunningham

                          I would try that size output, good call. Don't forget to run it through Photoshops export for web png settings to get the size and load time for SEO value and embed the alt tag.

                          • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                            Brian Hillner

                            Alexander Smith wrote:

                            Come to think of it, perhaps its better that I just render them out at 2000 x 1350 x 300dpi x 5000 passes, maybe thats the sweet spot? Or just 72dpi for web, that must slash the time right?

                            I would render them at 2000 x 1350 @72dpi and see how much faster they render - you'll be surprised at the speed gain! Then also view it on your website to see how that looks. If needed, crank up the dpi to 150 max. If you know you aren't going to print that particular image, then no need to render higher than 150dpi. That's already 2x larger than what web can show.

                             

                            Honestly, I've never changed the DPI setting from the default of 96. I only change the resolution to be the exact size that I need (1920x1080 for websites and at most 4000px wide for larger displays). That probably because I'm not printing my Visualize renders. If I were, then I would re-render that specific image at the higher DPI setting when I know I need a print of it. This methodology allows me to keep my render size efficient and only the pixels I really need for digital viewing.

                             

                            Thanks everyone for the comments here! I love our tight community of Visualizers

                              • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                                Alexander Smith

                                OK Brian, Challenge accepted. I'll try it at 96 dpi and 2000x 1350 how many passes do you think? 5000? or more?

                                 

                                If they render out quickly and I'm unhappy with them I can always come back over the weekend and send them again at 150DPI, or more passes, though I'm not sure which one to increase if I do...

                                 

                                Thank you all for your help!!

                                  • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                                    Brian Hillner

                                    Pass count depends on 2 main aspects of your projects:

                                    1) LIGHTING: if you are in a fully enclosed interior, then 5,000 - 10,000 passes might be necessary.*

                                    2) COMPLEXITY: this is material complexity. Stacked transparent objects (glass bottles behind one another) and some metals require a bit more passes to achieve the subjective "it's done" look.

                                     

                                    I would try 2000 passes for your project. Then if that's not enough, max 5,000 passes. Tough to say for sure without seeing what you're trying to render.

                                     

                                    There's also this awesome trick I use in Adobe Bridge (comes with Photoshop). You can use the noise reduction tools to keep render time short with lower passes, and then 'fix it in post.' This little trick literally saves HOURS of render time!

                                     

                                    *NEW for 2018 are Area Lights that work in Fast mode! This translates to ~70% faster interior renders!

                        • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                          Alexander Smith

                          Written on Saturday 16th Sept.

                          Hi Everyone, thanks again for you help regarding this post. I was hoping to upload the two images to show you but to be honest there is so little between them that there is nothing to see. 2000 passes is plenty good enough. The clock on the queue said it would take 3 hours, it took more like 4 hours and the second one at 3500 passes too 8 hours. So it looks like I can start investigating reducing the time by reducing the passes until I hit a sweet spot. That mixed with your suggestion Brian Hillner should make for a pretty fast workflow and optimised output.

                           

                          Updated Monday 18th Sept.

                          Just done a 1000 pass test at 96 dpi and 2000 px wide. Used with the noise reduction workflow through Adobe Bridge is DEFINITELY the best workflow in the context of these renders. I am rendering out again and having uploaded them to my website I will leave the link to the project so that you can see the renders. Sadly they are too big I think, to include embedded images in this thread.

                           

                          Thanks again, everyone, as ever you recommendations are invaluable, and hopefully might enable me to finally get some paid work!

                          • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                            Alexander Smith

                            Hi Everyone.

                             

                            Please see the link to my site with the renders which were the subject of this thread.

                            http://as3ddesign.com/digital-imagery-/pearlfisher---rocca-patron- Please only view these items as I do not have rights to distribute or do anything other than use for my portfolio.

                             

                            These were all rendered out at 2000px wide, 96dpi and with 1000 passes. Then tweaked in Adobe Bridge Camera Raw.

                              • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                                Chris Cunningham

                                They look great! Thanks for sharing.

                                • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                                  Brian Hillner

                                  Those turned out GREAT!!! Can't even tell you used the noise removal feature of Bridge.

                                   

                                  Could you please post to this thread how long your latest render settings (2000px wide, 96dpi and with 1000 passes) took to render? Then also include how long it took to achieve the same noise-free quality without using the Camera Raw trick.

                                   

                                  I'm curious, as well as I'm sure our Visualize community, to see the crazy render time savings between the two workflows. Thanks!

                                    • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                                      Alexander Smith

                                      Hi Everyone,

                                       

                                      As per Brian's request.

                                       

                                      The renders at 1000 pass, 2000 x 1414px, 96 dpi take about 1 hour to render out for a single bottle image and about 1.5 hours for a triple bottle image. Thats going off the early predicted calculations stated in the queue after the clock has settled.

                                       

                                      When I send the same 3 bottle render with equivalent settings but 5000 passes the queue says it will take 7.5 hours after the clock has settled. 5000 passes was what I was doing to get really high definition results, though I should say that was probably massively over the top. I noticed when rendering out earlier tests that its pretty scaleable so if you double the passes you should expect to double the time and vice versa. *As I write this, this 7.5 hours has increased to 8 and now 8.5 hours, so take my initial 'scaleable' assertion with a pinch of salt.

                                       

                                      This is rendering out in GPU mode only on an Nvidia P5000 GPU.

                                       

                                      So in summary, and of course solely in the context of these images, for web, you can definitely get away with 1000 passes. You are likely to be putting the image through some post anyway so an additional bit of time in Camera Raw is negligible, especially given how much time you are saving in rendering time. If you wanted get a better result from the initial image then you can of course go up to 2000 or even 3000 passes, personally I'd not bother to go over that. I would assume that the benefit of 2000 or 3000 passes is that you can use more of the sharpening tool in Camera Raw to really crisp up the image without having to use so much luminance which does wash out fine detail whilst reducing noise. Though I use save for web to upload it to my website and that compresses the image and looses data as well.... So its a balancing act.

                                       

                                      I hope that helps and doesn't leave everyone more confused than when we started, but definitely the Camera Raw workflow works and significantly reduces the need for over the top rendering times.

                                        • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                                          Brian Hillner

                                          Thanks for the summary, Alex, with render time savings. 8 hours down to 1.5 hours is a huge savings.

                                          This is a great thread for newbies to read to better understand what Accurate mode render passes are really required to get the job done.

                                          Then add the nifty Camera Raw workflow and you're set!

                                           

                                          Cheers all,

                                          Brian

                                          • Re: Recommended Output Render Settings
                                            Rich Fagioli

                                            Alexander...

                                            I'd like to try rendering your single bottle on my 1080 card, for two reasons:

                                             

                                            1) Try a different workflow to get your result

                                            2) Compare your P5000 speed to the GeForce 1080Ti

                                             

                                            I have some large rendering projects coming up and it might be nice to have some performance data with which to compare your baseline info.

                                             

                                            It would also be useful for every user of Visualize if Brian had a running library of projects that users could run and post their results. Imagine a graph one could consult that had render speed vs. hardware for a given project (machinery, storefront display, office interior, glass fixture, etc.). I know that that information, in bits and pieces, lives in different parts of the web, but, at least for Visualize users, it really needs to be concentrated here.

                                             

                                            What does everyone else here think?