PDA

View Full Version : Render times in Rosetta thru the floor



Johnny
11-05-2009, 05:05 PM
..er..thru the roof...getting out of proportion longer.


I've been working with a scene in LW 8.5d in rosetta (MacIntel)
and mostly, things have been ok...more quits than I'd like....but...

suddenly, frames that have rendered in 45-55 seconds now taking 4, 5, even 21 minutes! I haven't added anything to make it take longer.

what is up?

I trashed the prefs and replaced them with my safety set...it looks like sometimes LW renders in 8 strips, and sometimes 2...

sometimes when it gets to those last few lines, it slows way down.

suggestions?

J

BeeVee
11-06-2009, 02:01 PM
I take it you are using the Classic camera? That cannot reassign processors to rendering so as your render nears completion fewer and fewer of your machines resources get used.

B

ingo
11-06-2009, 02:20 PM
Well what camera should he use, theres only one type of camera available in 8.5.

Since i render only stills i had this problem not, but me thinks that could be that you are running out of memory (rosetta needs a lot of ram, just like LW). Just use the activity monitor to watch how ram is allocated.

jayroth
11-06-2009, 03:38 PM
Honestly? The upgrade to 9.6 isn't too bad, and you can bypass rosetta and get full speed. Using Rosetta for production work is asking for a world of hurt...

Johnny
11-06-2009, 05:45 PM
Honestly? The upgrade to 9.6 isn't too bad, and you can bypass rosetta and get full speed. Using Rosetta for production work is asking for a world of hurt...

thank you for the suggestion to upgrade..I see the merits of your suggestion, but I decline to do so at this time. It would appear that I need to do Lightwave work on my older G4 minis, which enjoy a functional relationship with 8.5d.

My new mac pro...will occupy its CPU cycles with other 3D tools.

J

dwburman
11-10-2009, 08:50 PM
If the problem is with the camera not being able to reassign processors, would throttling down to 1 thread in the rendering panel help?

Johnny
11-10-2009, 09:39 PM
If the problem is with the camera not being able to reassign processors, would throttling down to 1 thread in the rendering panel help?

what would be the clue that the cam is not reassigning processors? the long render times?

menu meters shows that multiple cores are employed...just not all the time.


J

dwburman
11-10-2009, 11:03 PM
My suggestion was just a guess based on what BeeVee said. I'm not a software engineer. :)

ingo
11-11-2009, 01:57 AM
what would be the clue that the cam is not reassigning processors? the long render times?

menu meters shows that multiple cores are employed...just not all the time.


That doesn't sound good, normally Rosetta works very efficient. I render with FPrime and both cores are normally at 100 % when nothing runs in the backround. Have you checked the energy saving settings, just a guess.

toby
11-11-2009, 03:03 AM
what would be the clue that the cam is not reassigning processors? the long render times?

menu meters shows that multiple cores are employed...just not all the time.

J
Classic cam renders do not re-assign processors and never have, only the advanced cameras (9.x and up) do that. With the classic cam your procs will get assigned to one part of the screen, and when they're done they just sit there idle. If there was nothing to render in that part of the image, that cpu is wasted. Setting more threads in the render options than you have cores can help a lot. I almost never use less than 8 threads with the classic cam, and my machine only has 2 cores. It's faster 90% of the time.

No render uses 100% cpu 100% of the time, and fprime is a completely different animal, I wouldn't worry about that.

Johnny
11-11-2009, 07:51 AM
my energy settings are off...one of the first things I do when I get a new machine...

J

Johnny
12-15-2009, 11:50 AM
Using Rosetta for production work is asking for a world of hurt...


after several months of punishing tedium, I can honestly say that the sentance above is so pure, so true and so utterly real as to make shakespeare seem like a hack writing bathroom wall limericks.

using lightwave in rosetta is the most punishing software experience I've ever had, bar none...looking forward to the end.


J

toby
12-15-2009, 01:56 PM
after several months of punishing tedium, I can honestly say that the sentance above is so pure, so true and so utterly real as to make shakespeare seem like a hack writing bathroom wall limericks.

using lightwave in rosetta is the most punishing software experience I've ever had, bar none...looking forward to the end.


J
After using 9.x for years now 8.5 on anything sounds punishing... I noticed someone here selling 9.6, it should be cheaper, but there would be no Core membership with it -

ingo
12-16-2009, 02:28 AM
......using lightwave in rosetta is the most punishing software experience I've ever had, bar none...looking forward to the end.
......

Why, works fine here, it just uses more RAM than usual.

Phil
12-20-2009, 07:05 AM
One workaround for the threading limitations in older versions of LW is to add a transparent subdivided plane in the scene. Parent this to the camera and move it just enough so that the edges of the plane go out of frame (assuming you match the plane's aspect ratio to that of the sequence you are rendering).
Using trace transparency, you'll get each segment of the plane assigned to a thread as you render. This trick was posted way back with 7.5, I think, and served me well until the new cameras came online with full edge support with LW 9.3+

The other advantage is that volumetric effects get rendered immediately when you hit F9 - you don't have to wait for a post-process to draw them in.

It won't address the other deficiencies (and lack of support) for PowerPC LW on Intel Mac via Rosetta, but should at least ensure you get as much efficiency as possible.

Johnny
12-30-2009, 04:26 PM
One workaround for the threading limitations in older versions of LW is to add a transparent subdivided plane in the scene. Parent this to the camera and move it just enough so that the edges of the plane go out of frame (assuming you match the plane's aspect ratio to that of the sequence you are rendering).
Using trace transparency, you'll get each segment of the plane assigned to a thread as you render. This trick was posted way back with 7.5, I think, and served me well until the new cameras came online with full edge support with LW 9.3+



thank you..I'll have to try that!

J

avkills
12-31-2009, 11:56 AM
I say go the 9.6 route. It literally screams on a 8-core Mac Pro compared to PowerPC machines when you click *render*.

-mark

Johnny
12-31-2009, 12:53 PM
I say go the 9.6 route. It literally screams on a 8-core Mac Pro compared to PowerPC machines when you click *render*.

-mark

9.6 supports multiple cores now??? I had no idea.


J

toby
01-01-2010, 11:57 PM
9.6 supports multiple cores now??? I had no idea.


J
When did it not support it? LW has never been single-threaded as far back as I know, which was 6.0.

toby
01-02-2010, 03:18 AM
Ok just ran 8.5 on my new intel mac, and compared render times with a scene using all raytracing, and volumetrics:

8.5 CFM, classic medium AA, AS .04; 2min 1 sec.
9.6 CFM, classic - same -
9.6 CFM, persp AA, 1 AS .04 (identical quality afaik); 1min 29 sec.

9.6UB, classic medium AA, AS .04; 45 sec.
9.6UB, persp AA, 1 AS .04; 30.2 sec.

So not having to run Rosetta should cut your render times in half, at the very least.

Johnny
01-02-2010, 11:04 AM
When did it not support it? LW has never been single-threaded as far back as I know, which was 6.0.

that part I get..the multi-threadedness of LW, but I was under the impression that LW was yet to become multi-core aware in the sense of properly and efficiently alloting chores to the various cores so that the whole task would get done much faster than other wise.

isn't it correct that even single core machines can support more than one thread? so that, while threads can be related to numbers of cores, they are 2 different things?

Am I not understanding this, or the purpose of Newtek's naming of their future product with the word; "Core?"


J

toby
01-02-2010, 04:08 PM
that part I get..the multi-threadedness of LW, but I was under the impression that LW was yet to become multi-core aware in the sense of properly and efficiently alloting chores to the various cores so that the whole task would get done much faster than other wise.

isn't it correct that even single core machines can support more than one thread? so that, while threads can be related to numbers of cores, they are 2 different things?

Am I not understanding this, or the purpose of Newtek's naming of their future product with the word; "Core?"

J
I don't think so, afaik LW is as aware as any other multi-threaded app. One can always argue that it could be better of course, multi-threading is rarely applied to every single process, so it can be improved, but that's just like everything else in programming. For what it's worth, lw is the only 3d app I've seen that uses all cores at 100% for the duration of render passes.

But the name 'Core' is related to the core of the program, not cpu cores.

Johnny
01-02-2010, 05:35 PM
OK...so what remains for Mac Lightwave is for it to be better-written for OS X?

J

toby
01-02-2010, 05:52 PM
The 64 bit cocoa build, it's not out of beta yet. Other than that it will be only bug fixes from now on, anything new will be going into Core.