Author Topic: Ocean  (Read 18620 times)

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Ocean
« Reply #105 on: July 25, 2016, 04:02:08 PM »

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

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

Offline Hannes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4436
Re: Ocean
« Reply #106 on: July 25, 2016, 05:31:03 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?  ;) ;) ;))


Offline DocCharly65

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3005
  • May the farce be with you...
    • Doc Charly on YouTube
Re: Ocean
« Reply #108 on: July 25, 2016, 07:32:31 PM »
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.

Offline Hannes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4436
Re: Ocean
« Reply #109 on: July 25, 2016, 07:57:39 PM »
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!

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Ocean
« Reply #110 on: July 25, 2016, 10:45:07 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.

Offline Dune

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15082
    • www.ulco-art.nl
Re: Ocean
« Reply #111 on: July 26, 2016, 06:33:27 AM »
That is a smart way, Kadri, I have to remember that.

Offline ajcgi

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 585
    • My little blogsite
Re: Ocean
« Reply #112 on: July 26, 2016, 10:45:54 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.

Offline Hannes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4436
Re: Ocean
« Reply #113 on: July 26, 2016, 12:54:25 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!

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Ocean
« Reply #114 on: July 26, 2016, 06:07:05 PM »
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.

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Ocean
« Reply #115 on: July 26, 2016, 06:19:05 PM »
...
 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.

Offline Hannes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4436
Re: Ocean
« Reply #116 on: July 26, 2016, 08:09:30 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.

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Ocean
« Reply #117 on: July 26, 2016, 09:48:00 PM »

How much frames will be in total Hannes?

Offline Hannes

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4436
Re: Ocean
« Reply #118 on: July 27, 2016, 03:44:13 AM »
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.

Offline Kadri

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8502
Re: Ocean
« Reply #119 on: July 27, 2016, 04:52:26 AM »

7 seconds. Nice.