Best Render Settings?

Started by Fabian, April 21, 2009, 05:00:18 am

Previous topic - Next topic

PorcupineFloyd

I use high GI sample quality for close-ups with very dense vegetation with mixed properties like grass, flowers, etc. I've found that it doesn't have as high impact on render times like GI relative detail - that's why I'm almost always using it at 1.

I do agree that for most cases more than 1/3 is unnecessary. Especially if doing large renders (3000 x 2000px for example).

Probably we need to make a wiki entry with different scenes and different render settings (especially GI) to make visible comparable results for everyone.

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: PorcupineFloyd on April 22, 2009, 01:45:39 pm
I use high GI sample quality for close-ups with very dense vegetation with mixed properties like grass, flowers, etc. I've found that it doesn't have as high impact on render times like GI relative detail - that's why I'm almost always using it at 1.

I do agree that for most cases more than 1/3 is unnecessary. Especially if doing large renders (3000 x 2000px for example).

Probably we need to make a wiki entry with different scenes and different render settings (especially GI) to make visible comparable results for everyone.



Agree. I'd like to see an image which compares GI 1/3 with GI 1/11. Maybe 2/4 is quicker and even better?

PorcupineFloyd

I haven't checked 2/4 but yes - it may yield some nice results. I'll have to try it on next vegetation render.

Fabian

Great help, the new results are amazing. Thank you for helping me out and giving some tricks about the quality settings.

With 0.9 detail and 6 AA, I get little noisy detail in the dark areas of my clouds. I need to make some more renders to get the real perfect setting out. :)

Some comprihansion render results would be really nice.
DFI Lanparty DK 790 FX-B
AMD Phenom II X4 940 4x 3 Ghz
OCZ 8GB Platinum DDR2 RAM
AMD Radeon HD 4890
Windows Vista Ultimate 64 Bit

rcallicotte

This is interesting, which I didn't even realize until now.  Probably why I found cloud creation so frustrating.  Back to the drawingboard...

Thanks TU.



Quote from: Tangled-Universe on April 22, 2009, 11:56:15 am

For example, if you choose to increase density and depth quite much you'll get bad results if you keep the samples the same. If you keep the quality constant, which happens automatically (another advantage), everything is better comparable.

So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?