PDA

View Full Version : Planets lose their maps in animation



Johnny
10-07-2009, 03:10 PM
I have a scene where the planets zoom thru. in my set-up, using fPrime and F9 test renders, the planets all draw properly with their maps, but in a test clip, they appear map-free!

the only theory I have now is that the object file is sourcing maps which are in another project folder. could this be enough to wreck the map linkage during animation, yet not wreck it during a still render?

wierd...thanks for any clues.


PS..

Even wierder, I tried a different camera angle, then again with the original cam and the planets have their maps. I don't know what to make of it.

gremlins maybe..

J

(Mac OS X install of LW 8.5 on Mac Pro)

shrox
10-07-2009, 04:22 PM
Memory. If you are using large maps that can happen. There are plugins and programs like Infinimap to manage large maps, but I have never used one.

Johnny
10-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Memory. If you are using large maps that can happen. There are plugins and programs like Infinimap to manage large maps, but I have never used one.

OK...by "large," you mean maps of more than a couple megabytes each?
or is "large" more like 40, 50 60 MB each? Times 8...is a big pile of bits.

is your workaround to save all objects, save file, quit lightwave and fire it up again, the idea being that you will "force" Lightwave to find all of those goodies?

In another situation, when resurrecting a file I hadn't worked on in awhile, I had to remove the map then re-link it, despite the fact that surface editor showed the correct map as linked to that object.

J

shrox
10-07-2009, 05:09 PM
OK...by "large," you mean maps of more than a couple megabytes each?
or is "large" more like 40, 50 60 MB each? Times 8...is a big pile of bits.

is your workaround to save all objects, save file, quit lightwave and fire it up again, the idea being that you will "force" Lightwave to find all of those goodies?

In another situation, when resurrecting a file I hadn't worked on in awhile, I had to remove the map then re-link it, despite the fact that surface editor showed the correct map as linked to that object.

J

40megs and up, some of my maps are 64,000 x 32,000 pixels, and that can be over 100megs, I am lucky to get a few frames with that load.

Lightwolf
10-07-2009, 05:29 PM
OK...by "large," you mean maps of more than a couple megabytes each?
or is "large" more like 40, 50 60 MB each? Times 8...is a big pile of bits.

A shrox mentioned, anything beyond 100MB per image can be wonky in LW, at least in 32-bit.
It seems to be able to handle 10 10MB images better than a single 100MB one as well (I can speculate as to why, but that won't help either).

It might help to turn of the mip-maps, but then you need higher AA settings to get rid of the artifacts visible in an animation.

Turning them to an 8-bit (palettized) format that LW can read can help a lot too. Last time I checked that was IFF and PNG with a palette.

Also, TGA seems to be one of the formats that uses the least amount of memory to load an image, PNG on the other hand uses a lot.

Cheers
Mike

Johnny
10-07-2009, 05:33 PM
It might help to turn of the mip-maps, but then you need higher AA settings to get rid of the artifacts visible in an animation.

Turning them to an 8-bit (palettized) format that LW can read can help a lot too. Last time I checked that was IFF and PNG with a palette.

Also, TGA seems to be one of the formats that uses the least amount of memory to load an image, PNG on the other hand uses a lot.

Cheers
Mike


thank you..that's good to know. I can easily switch to tga; these maps exist as jpg right now.

the maps I am using for this little scene total approximately 40MB. with that small of a load, will making the changes you advise produce any major changes in terms of working with the scene?...ie, will it load and render faster?

J

shrox
10-07-2009, 05:44 PM
What is your memory segment set to? It should be set as high as you can, 256 megs at least. It's under Render Globals, as shown below.

Lightwolf
10-07-2009, 05:47 PM
thank you..that's good to know. I can easily switch to tga; these maps exist as jpg right now.
I think JPG is allright as well, if I remember correctly.


the maps I am using for this little scene total approximately 40MB. with that small of a load, will making the changes you advise produce any major changes in terms of working with the scene?...ie, will it load and render faster?
Only 40MB? No, that shouldn't make any difference really. I easily use that much on scenes not rendering planets.

How are you rendering the test clip? F10?

Cheers
Mike - stumped.

Johnny
10-07-2009, 05:48 PM
heh..mine was set at 128MB...I cranked it up to 1024...


J

Johnny
10-07-2009, 05:50 PM
I think JPG is allright as well, if I remember correctly.

Only 40MB? No, that shouldn't make any difference really. I easily use that much on scenes not rendering planets.

How are you rendering the test clip? F10?

Cheers
Mike - stumped.


Yep. F10. the animation in question is of modest size, and since the planets whiz by, they just need to read as "Earth"...."Jupiter"..."Mars"...etc.

J

Lightwolf
10-07-2009, 05:53 PM
Yep. F10. the animation in question is of modest size, and since the planets whiz by, they just need to read as "Earth"...."Jupiter"..."Mars"...etc.

O.k., that's really odd then. LW "should" handle that just fine, and I haven't seen a case of it losing image maps if they render fine using an F9.

I can't think of anything else to check right now... How are you texturing the planets, plain spherical image layers or nodes?

Cheers,
Mike

Johnny
10-07-2009, 05:56 PM
image map mapped as spherical with the Y-axis selected.

another thing that might be tangling the kite string is that this is LW version 8.5 (for PPC Mac) being run on a Mac Pro, via rosetta.

mostly, things work great, but a few minor things are wierd. sometimes text in tool palettes runs off the palette. one can live with that.

I don't know how much other wierdness is due to running PPC software in rosetta.

J

Silkrooster
10-07-2009, 09:57 PM
Do you have any background programs running? I am wondering if something else isn't using up your ram.

Johnny
10-07-2009, 10:08 PM
nothing of any conseqence..such as Text edit and Quicktime, but both are just sitting there, waiting for me to use them.

my machine has 6GB of RAM and I do not believe that I am anywhere near to consuming that.

I'm also noticing that in adjusting these planets' maps, the connection frequently "breaks," in that I have to remove that surface and re-connect it.

annoying, but no fatalities as a result.

:)


J

JonW
10-07-2009, 10:57 PM
You haven’t accidentally done something bleedingly silly in graph editor?

Johnny
10-08-2009, 05:40 AM
You havenít accidentally done something bleedingly silly in graph editor?

I don't believe so. I have created an envelope for the maps such that the planets appear to be gently rotating as they whiz by.

I consulted the intertoobs on this. it seems that all planets, save venus and uranus, rotate counterclockwise when viewed downward at their north poles, so, my envelopes reflected this.

J

shrox
10-08-2009, 08:11 AM
Why not just rotate the planets? Set the pivot to the center of the body and spin away. The motion envelopes might be the problem, remove the envelopes and see if that works.

Johnny
10-08-2009, 08:52 AM
Why not just rotate the planets? Set the pivot to the center of the body and spin away. The motion envelopes might be the problem, remove the envelopes and see if that works.

originally, I did rotate the planets' geometry but in my test renders, they didn't appear to be rotating.

actually, some of them don't appear to be rotating now, even tho I've set up a hefty rotation/frame setting for them.

could part of my problem be running PPC LW in a rosetta environment?

J

Silkrooster
10-08-2009, 09:44 PM
Now I wonder if it is a world VS. local issue for how the images are applied to the spheres.

Johnny
10-08-2009, 10:05 PM
I did look at the World button several times, but my understanding is that with "world" checked, the object appears to pass through that map or texture.

is that the case?

I shud prbly set aside time to experiment on that very thing.

J

toby
10-11-2009, 02:13 AM
By ALL means get RID of those damn jpgs. It's been better lately but LW8.5 probably still has a problem with them, I've seen people (including myself) solve their memory problems a dozen times by switching from jpg to anything else. Not to mention their crap quality.

And *no* this is not a 'mac thing', digital domain had a rule against jpg for the same reason, they're all pc, as are some of the other people who solved their issue the same way.

Johnny
10-11-2009, 08:20 AM
By ALL means get RID of those damn jpgs. It's been better lately but LW8.5 probably still has a problem with them, I've seen people (including myself) solve their memory problems a dozen times by switching from jpg to anything else. Not to mention their crap quality.

And *no* this is not a 'mac thing', digital domain had a rule against jpg for the same reason, they're all pc, as are some of the other people who solved their issue the same way.

OK..good to know

wonder if it's anything to do with compression..I was warned away from using jpg in final cut as that app would be bogged down in constantly dealing with the jpgs' compression.


...tho there is, I believe, a jpg-based codec offered by FCP...

changing them to tga would take 2 seconds...


J

dwburman
10-14-2009, 11:10 PM
When you say your images are 40MB, is that the filesize of your .jpgs or is that how much RAM they take up?

If they fly by fast enough you might be able to get by with smaller resolutions (or index color (256 colors) as someone else mentioned), especially if you're using motion blur.

Johnny
10-15-2009, 12:25 AM
I mean they total 40MB...all of them..as measured in the fold where I keep them.

I prbly could get by with even smaller maps. worth looking into.


J

Lightwolf
10-15-2009, 01:28 AM
I mean they total 40MB...all of them..as measured in the fold where I keep them.

That doesn't tell you a thing though. Check in Layout how much memory they actually use. Remember that JPEGs are (usually highly) compressed and LW always works with uncompressed images.

Cheers,
Mike

Johnny
10-23-2009, 12:19 PM
That doesn't tell you a thing though. Check in Layout how much memory they actually use. Remember that JPEGs are (usually highly) compressed and LW always works with uncompressed images.

Cheers,
Mike


thank you for making that distinction...just got back from a few days of vaca and fired up this scene...it looks to me like the total is 61.6 MB for all of the image maps used in the scene. and I am looking in the Image Editor where it says at the top "Images in Scene."

J

toby
10-23-2009, 01:23 PM
wonder if it's anything to do with compression..I was warned away from using jpg in final cut as that app would be bogged down in constantly dealing with the jpgs' compression.

Nah, .png's and .exr's are compressed, no conflicts with those. It's that particular format that lw has always had problems with, they cause memory leaks or something.

60mb of textures is plenty small enough for lw to deal with otherwise.

Lightwolf
10-23-2009, 02:08 PM
60mb of textures is plenty small enough for lw to deal with otherwise.
Yup, no problem whatsoever.
I would stay away from PNGs in low memory situations as well.
While LW can in generally read images into its own memory on a per scanline basis (to conserve memory), the PNG loader first loads the whole image into its own memory (to facilitate the handling of interlaced PNGs, which do require that treatment) and then copies the whole image over to the actual memory used by LW. That means: Double the memory usage while the loading is in progress.
One reason to stick to TGA I suppose, even if they're not efficient on disk.

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
10-23-2009, 03:50 PM
Targa! Targa! Whoooo!

Oh how different Animal House might have been if they were all animators as well...