Hello community,
well I start working with terragen 2 now for two weeks and I'm really confortable with my results. Actually, I'm rendering with default render settings, only with max anti-alaising (11), detail (1) and custom resolution (1280x720). The render result is great, but maybe it could be a bit better? Render times: ~1-2h
Now my question to the experts:
Wich settings are you using to make these great renders? Do you have some advice? :)
There's plenty of info to find about this topic and I think the "ideal" settings are really depending on what you want.
Maybe you could show your results so far? Looking at your settings now (detail 1, AA 11) you already should have very good render results. (Especially for the rendertime of just 1-2 hours @ 1280x720)
It's then probably just a matter of WHAT you're rendering instead of HOW?
Oshyan wrote a short know-how about the rendersettings which you might find interesting as well:
http://www.terragen.org/index.php?topic=3386.0 (http://www.terragen.org/index.php?topic=3386.0)
Martin
Thanks for your answer. I'll check that know-how in a minute.
Well I added one of my last renders as an attachment, that you can see what I'd like to prefer. I don't want big virtual tree oder plant objects in my render scenes, just great sun and cloud panoramas. :)
I suggest you to increase your sample atmo to get rid of the grainy look of your clouds. ^^
Quote from: Seth on April 21, 2009, 07:17:14 AM
I suggest you to increase your sample atmo to get rid of the grainy look of your clouds. ^^
It's a bit difficult to see, but I think you mean to increase the cloudsamples instead of the atmospheresamples.
Anyhow, another suggestion is to adjust the contrast and gamma in the renderer to let's say ~0.6 for contrast and ~2.5 for gamma for starters.
How do these 2 suggestions work out?
Also, for extra nice-ness of your image you could always add more cloudlayers for variation and realism.
Martin
I hadn't set the sample rate for atmosphere and cloudlayer. So let me try a new render. :)
What's about GI? I shouldn't use it in my case, default settings match it right?
Quote from: Fabian on April 21, 2009, 10:26:56 AM
I hadn't set the sample rate for atmosphere and cloudlayer. So let me try a new render. :)
What's about GI? I shouldn't use it in my case, default settings match it right?
For an image like this the "regular" 2/2 for GI is probably fine.
AA is not going to have a huge effect on cloud and sky elements, so you could easily go down to 6 or 8 there. Detail would probably be fine at 0.8, and overall quality would be improved with an increase in cloud samples, which should end up with similar render time and higher overall quality.
- Oshyan
I'm usually using no more than 0.85 and 0.8 for most scenes. I wouldn't exceed this number, even for final-final render.
As for the clouds and atmosphere - I've got a rule of thumb for dense cumulus clouds to set their quality number at 2.5. For other types of volumetric clouds - 1 to 2 should be enough. 1 is also sufficient for flat clouds. Also keep in mind that turning off or lowering acceleration cache will improve overall look of your clouds - especially shadows. I tend to set acceleration cache to "Conservative" to have nice detail and reasonable render times.
As for atmosphere - 24 should be enough for basic scenes without clouds or when you have a camera with limited field of view (eg. when looking from above, under the horizon). When you have some volumetric clouds - 50, 64 or finally 96 should be fine. I've seen people having their atmosphere samples set as hight as 128 but you'll need really complicated scene (volumetric shadows in atmosphere enabled) for such hight setting.
GI: 1/2 or 1/3 for most scenes and 1/5 - 1/11 for dense vegetation and close-ups. Of course with supersample prepass enabled.
I've also found that high AA works fine with reducing some noise in the clouds. I'm using "Narrow Cubic" filter with at last 8 samples and obligatory soft shadows (1 degree with 9 - 12 samples).
I've heard others say this frequently here, but while some general settings can be a sort of "fit-all", you will oftentimes need to take each scene to calculate what works best in each scene. Whereas someone might find .8 works fine for Detail in one scene, another scene might benefit from 1 Detail. Same is especially true for clouds. I never use the Quality number; I use Samples, which depends upon the type of cloud, the lighting, the importance of the clouds to the scene and some extra stuff like if I want rays or not.
Experimentation will lead you to understand these general settings to better understand what works best for you.
I've seen beautiful renders that didn't follow any of these rules.
QuoteI never use the Quality number; I use Samples
This seems kind of backwards when samples are automatically adjusted when you change the overall quality. I usually go for a quality of 1 whilst balancing parameters keeping samples, usually, beneath 200 or so. This isn't the best approach if you have a specific, and highly sample demanding, cloud form to build, though.
I don't have to please anyone other than myself when I make stuff though, I'm not working to a bosses criteria, I just have to do the best I can, as conservatively as possible. ;)
Quote from: PorcupineFloyd on April 22, 2009, 09:35:20 AM
GI: 1/2 or 1/3 for most scenes and 1/5 - 1/11 for dense vegetation and close-ups. Of course with supersample prepass enabled.
1/5, I'd say ok...can imagine, but 1/11?? Are you serious, why do you do you it that way?
@dandelO - what I've found is that if I set the Samples, it stays where I set it. This only changes when I then adjust something in the configuration that directly affects the quality. But, if I'm ready to set the cloud, this is the last perimeter I change. It gives me better control. Besides, this is what I've been communicating with everyone for the last two and a half years - it's what makes sense to me.
@PorcupineFloyd - I agree with TU. The GI probably never needs to go over 3 in most cases. And I've never used more than 4.
Quote from: calico on April 22, 2009, 11:51:10 AM
@dandelO - what I've found is that if I set the Samples, it stays where I set it. This only changes when I then adjust something in the configuration that directly affects the quality. But, if I'm ready to set the cloud, this is the last perimeter I change. It gives me better control. Besides, this is what I've been communicating with everyone for the last two and a half years - it's what makes sense to me.
I think the "best" way to evaluate your clouds is to stick to one quality-setting and leave the samples as is. This way you'll always be able to compare the change in cloud- and cloudfractal-characteristics on a same level of quality. 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.
Once I've figured out the shape etc. of the clouds I start optimizing the quality setting by increasing samples and play with the rendercache.
I'm affected by hardware limitations, but these are my "by default" settings:
Detail .8
AA: 3
GI: 1/2 SS
Of course, as already stated the Samples in clouds and atmo affect the quality alot, so it's recommended you increase these as you see fit. I try to keep Atmo between 48-64, clouds anywhere from 64-256 depending on depth and density.
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.
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?
I haven't checked 2/4 but yes - it may yield some nice results. I'll have to try it on next vegetation render.
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.
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.