Tutorial on how to render high res without pain

[Thomas M.]

Well, a way I found which saved my behind a while ago. Hope I made everything as clear as possible, though a newbie might have a view problems in getting the whole idea. But then, a newbie won't render high res.

Please report any mistakes (grammar, spelling, content) so that I can come up with a final version.

Cheers
Thomas

[Sensei]

We're working for month on Virtual Render that will allow render any resolution image without using phisical memory.. The only limit will be your disk space and LightWave internal limits 16000x16000 (such render takes almost 1 GB disk space for RGBA 8 bit pixel-format)..

[Thomas M.]

Hi, everybody.

I made some changes, so it's more screen friendly and added a few sentences.

Hope it will help somebody one day.

Cheers
Thomas

[MooseDog]

i found it fabulously useful. many thx for the effort pancho!

[sammael]

Originally Posted by Sensei

We're working for month on Virtual Render that will allow render any resolution image without using phisical memory.. The only limit will be your disk space and LightWave internal limits 16000x16000 (such render takes almost 1 GB disk space for RGBA 8 bit pixel-format)..

Sounds very interesting, I couldnt find any more info on your website. How far into development are you with this & will there be any limitations, can you still use plugins etc? How much slower than the native renderer is it?

Thomas M. thanks for the tut, im working on a couple of things atm where this could come in handy.

[Thomas M.]

There are no drawbacks at all. It just takes the time to set everything up. This way you can even go beyond 16,000 pixels. You can render every resolution you want. It just takes more single areas to render. It's purely Lightwave. As long as the advanced camera itself doesn't have any drawbacks (Bugs, anyone?) this way is foolproof.

Cheers
Thomas

[Sensei]

Originally Posted by sammael

Sounds very interesting, I couldnt find any more info on your website.

Website will be updated the last, when VirtualRender will be working perfectly..

How far into development are you with this & will there be any limitations, can you still use plugins etc?

Unfortunately it can't be used with Pixel Filters & Image Filters because of current LW SDK limitations, but works fine with Volumetrics, LW9's latest features ACT, APS and nodals are also supported..

How much slower than the native renderer is it?

Speed should be quite the same as with Perspective Camera (ray-tracing is used to render image) with the same image resolution.

Please subscribe to our TrueArt news mailing list and you will be automatically informed when it's released.

[toby]

Originally Posted by Sensei

Website will be updated the last, when VirtualRender will be working perfectly..

Unfortunately it can't be used with Pixel Filters & Image Filters because of current LW SDK limitations, but works fine with Volumetrics, LW9's latest features ACT, APS and nodals are also supported..

Speed should be quite the same as with Perspective Camera (ray-tracing is used to render image) with the same image resolution.

Please subscribe to our TrueArt news mailing list and you will be automatically informed when it's released.

This sounds awesome, make sure all the guys on the Architecture forum know about it!
Can you tell us the price?

[DHP]

Hi Thomas, thank you very much for this workaround!

I tried your trick and I'm quite stuck concerning two points:

1) I cannot enter, in the camera panel, numbers more than 16.000 pixels. every time I enter bigger numbers LW automatically cuts them to the limit. ???
How can I avoid this?

2) How can I use the result of the last division for scenes that have more than two rows?

I interpreted your tutorial like this:
In your example you divide your scene in 2 ROWS and, finally, you explain we have to divide the HEIGHT by the WIDTH and divide the result by two.

The last divison by 2, I imagine depends on the fact you choose to divide the scene into two rows, isn't it? so, if we divide the scene into three rows the last digit should be 3.
I am interpreting well the functionality of the trick?

well, so lets think about the matrix of values:

11200 x 16000 pixels divided respectively into fourths and fifths.

HOR Values: -1,5; -0,5; 0,5; 1,5 (values always separated by 1 and simmetrical from zero point)
single VER Value (result of the last division): (my example): 0,2285....

Now let's go for the vertical distances (THE PROBLEM)

VER Values: -(0,2285x2); -0,2285; 0; 0,2285; (0,2285x2);

OR

VER Values: -2,2285; -1,2285; 0; 1,2285; 2,2285;

Thank you very much for your attention
(I'm preparing an OOCalc spreadsheet for this).

DHP

[JonW]

I have used this tutorial before. & have set the render up as a 4 frame animation to send off to 4 nodes with Screamernet. Works well.


Using these camera principals. One can do a fly through & shift the camera up or down for example rather than tilting the camera. Or a combination of both ,tilt & shift. To get the ultimate camera flexibility while flying around a scene.

[lertola2]

Thomas,

This is very interesting. Thanks for your tutorial. I was amused by the way you gave your contact info at the end.

-Joe

[Sampei]

thanks for making and sharing this

[Nangleator]

Originally Posted by DHP

I cannot enter, in the camera panel, numbers more than 16.000 pixels. every time I enter bigger numbers LW automatically cuts them to the limit.

You don't enter the full size of the finished piece, just the size of the individual tiles.

I've used this technique for a 19k x 17k picture. The only limitation I ran into was keeping my poly count to about a million. I've got 4 gigs RAM, but use Win32.

It was awesome to stand next to my printout and have it stand two feet over my head, at 200 dpi. And I'm 6'2".

[Ztreem]

Thank you for sharing this trick! Saved me big time when I did a 21000 by 21000 pixels render months ago.

[Hieron]

*cough*

http://newtek.com/forums/showthread....&highlight=30k


That's alot simpler (wasn't possible in 2006 I believe).. ok no sexy .pdf but it is so simple it doesn't even need one.