Ocean

Started by Hannes, June 05, 2016, 06:05:20 am

Previous topic - Next topic

Kadri


"HD (1280 X 720px)" No cheating please. That is Half HD.

Ok...OK... that is good too Hannes, with those render times :)

Hannes

Quote from: Kadri on July 25, 2016, 12:02:08 pm

"HD (1280 X 720px)" No cheating please. That is Half HD.

Ok...OK... that is good too Hannes, with those render times :)


No, Kadri, this IS HD. 1920 X 1080px is Full HD. (I'm a smart ass, right?  ;) ;) ;))


DocCharly65

Great discussion  ;D ;D

Fill the glass up , Hannes... just upscale (either with a very good video editor) or with a graphics program. (I usually use XNView - quality ok and nice batch functions)

As I have understood some wiki's, Lanczos resampling seems to be the best.

Hannes

Thanks Nils and sorry, Kadri!!  ;D ;D ;D
I don't care about upscaling at the moment. I just hope that I didn't forget to activate or deactivate something accidentally after 100hrs rendertime!

Kadri


I thought a little about this Hannes. Not sure if this would work for your animation but for HD (full :D )
You could render the water for example in half HD and the ship in HD in separate layers?

And-or maybe rendering only half the frames (even frames only) the water part and the ship full frames etc.
With motion blur it could work maybe. Depending of the camera move-speed.

From one of my old animations i rendered the background  half HD and only the foreground in HD.
It had kind of the full quality HD feeling.

But it looks like you are already rendering.

Dune

That is a smart way, Kadri, I have to remember that.

ajcgi

All TG animation I've ever rendered is 1280x720 upscaled in Nuke to 1920x1080.
A lot of genuine HD footage looks softer than nice sharp HD renders, so it's kinda easy to get away with. Only a few have ever whinged about it. The jump from 720 to 1080 is pretty much double the amount of pixels, but in TG that could be a much higher than double render time.

Hannes

Quote from: Kadri on July 25, 2016, 06:45:07 pm

I thought a little about this Hannes. Not sure if this would work for your animation but for HD (full :D )
You could render the water for example in half HD and the ship in HD in separate layers?

And-or maybe rendering only half the frames (even frames only) the water part and the ship full frames etc.
With motion blur it could work maybe. Depending of the camera move-speed.

From one of my old animations i rendered the background  half HD and only the foreground in HD.
It had kind of the full quality HD feeling.


But it looks like you are already rendering.


Cool ideas. I don't know if rendering the ship separately would work, since there is the reflection of it on the water.
The only thing i could imagine would be rendering the spray cloud separately, but as you wrote, I am already rendering, but thanks for your suggestions!

@ajcgi - thanks, I'll keep that in mind!

Kadri

Quote from: ajcgi on July 26, 2016, 06:45:54 am
All TG animation I've ever rendered is 1280x720 upscaled in Nuke to 1920x1080.
A lot of genuine HD footage looks softer than nice sharp HD renders, so it's kinda easy to get away with. Only a few have ever whinged about it. The jump from 720 to 1080 is pretty much double the amount of pixels, but in TG that could be a much higher than double render time.


Yes it depends on how aware and caring the watcher is about the difference and the medium he-she watches.
With small TV's it is hard to see the difference for example.

Kadri

Quote from: Hannes on July 26, 2016, 08:54:25 am
...
I don't know if rendering the ship separately would work, since there is the reflection of it on the water.
...


It should work i think.
There is a checkbox for "Cast shadows and other rays" for the objects in the "Render Layer" node even if you hide the object.
But i haven't tried it Hannes.

If the render times are reasonable i don't bother with these settings.
But when you have insane render times you begin to search for faster ways of course.

Hannes

Quote from: Kadri on July 26, 2016, 02:19:05 pm
If the render times are reasonable i don't bother with these settings.
But when you have insane render times you begin to search for faster ways of course.


That's the point. At the moment I don't think, rendering parts separately would be faster. Of course you'd have more control in the end, but as far as I can see (after 54 frames now) it looks good so far.

Kadri


How much frames will be in total Hannes?

Hannes

179 frames. I started with 200 frames, but I had to cut off twenty frames at the start and the last one, because of the image sequence I'm using for the persistance of the foam.