PDA

View Full Version : Dual G5 - my first render times.



themaxx
10-12-2003, 04:27 AM
I finally got my dual G5 and I took it out of the box, installed Lightwave 7.5, and ran a couple of renders. Thought someone might be interested.

Skull_Head_Newest.lws:
170.2 seconds - 1 thread, 8MB segment
108.1 seconds - 4 threads, 8MB segment
94.7 seconds - 4 threads, 500MB segment

This absolutely smokes my previous machine (as expected). My dual 533 G4 took more than 3 times that long!

Ge4-ce
10-12-2003, 05:18 AM
You should try to slowly reduce the segment memory. You should give it as much as it need to complete 1 frame in 1 segment. Giving it more than necessary, will only reduce the amount of memory for the rest of lightwave, the system etc. It is possible that you will see even better results setting your segment memory to about 80 MB (for example... depends on scene)

Try posting the default benchmark scenes from lightwave and post your internal memory of your new G5.. (and you can also post the default benchmark results at Blanos.com)

Julian Johnson
10-12-2003, 09:42 AM
Hi Ge4-ce - segment memory post 6.x is intelligent enough to only use what's required to render in one segment if it's set high. So in the case above, even though 500Mb is allocated, it will automatically only use what's required by the resolution (I think the formula is width x height x 32)...there's no need to slowly reduce the segment memory.

- Julian

Ge4-ce
10-12-2003, 10:33 AM
Oh, then.. :) good to know :) Always learning :)

CaptainKirk
10-13-2003, 09:06 PM
More proof that a dual G5 cannot keep up with even a single Athlon 64

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

finearts2
10-13-2003, 09:43 PM
Always a good laugh, that PC rag..(er, mag)

How about we just have a down and out render contest, same file for everyone and anyone to use, same set up, same scene file, then do a screen capture of the time rendered just to show what our systems can do.

By the way PC lovers, I have but a little old g4 at home and one of those impressive PROFESSIONAL Dell computers at work with way more power, way more ram, way more bugs, WAY more viruses, WAAYY more down time, and WAYYYYYY more knowledge of what the control-alt-delete buttons are used for than any man, woman or child should have to endure. I guess my little computer will just have to live with the fact that it hasn't crashed in over 13 months and counting, is MUCH better at color proofing and print, has a community just as supportive and creative as the Lightwave community and basically has the best operating system and ease in which to work with.

How I pity those PC owners that have not seen the light


By the way, God do I love reading those who flame our Mac forum. It's like watching a bird trying to fly through a closed window again, and again, and again...

Whew! I feel better now....:)

js33
10-13-2003, 09:49 PM
Too bad the Mac has crappy video cards. :(
This is the only major thing holding it back for 3D these days. ;)

Hopefully this will change soon but who knows.

Cheers,
JS

Ade
10-13-2003, 09:56 PM
I propose admin bans Captain Kirk , im sick of his deconstructive posts. Pirates should be banned!

CaptainKirk
10-14-2003, 01:12 AM
13 months without crashing? That's all?

My Windows 2000 hasn't crashed since 2000.

What is this control-alt-delete you speak of?
Viruses?? What is that. The only one I really remember is when a friend who uses a Mac gave me a zip disk with a virus on it ( which my Anti-virus caught and deleted )

And by the way G5 tests were done by Mac world and then compared to tests done by PC world. I know that the truth can be sickening, but that is exactly my point, to show you how sick a liar Steve Jobs is.

Dell is not a professional computer and neither is a Mac.

Professional computer is the one you put together yourself, or have somebody like BoXX or Game PC people put together for you using exactly parts you decided to use. Then you load it only with software that you need. That is a professional computer. Dell or a Mac which come loaded with useless cpu bogging crap software and cost cutting hardware parts are not professional machines.

themaxx
10-14-2003, 01:40 AM
why must every single ****ing thing degenerate into a platform debate? who ****ing cares what kind of computer you use?

Darth Mole
10-14-2003, 01:40 AM
Utter rubbish. I could happily quit my job and make living off the back of this dual G5 - if that's not professional I don't know what is. I could make TV programmes on it, or edit a film, or produce a music video - including the music. Man, how 'professional' do you want to get?

The software I run I chose myself; I didn't choose the components or build the machine myslef, though, because I figure Apple's engineers might be able to do a better job than me. Besides, I was all out of aluminium.

I don't doubt the prowess of your machine... I'm sure the Athlon 64 runs rings my lowly G5 - in fact, now you mention it, I'm ashamed of even buying a $3,000 Mac. What the hell was I thinking? I'll give it away, that's what I'll do!

Thank God for you Captain Kirk, for I have sen the Wintell light. Come with me Brothers and Sisters of this forum and throw of the mantle of Jobs and his foul Macintosh! X is the evil that lives within! It must be banished! Banished I say!!!

Oh, yeah - Kirk? Bite me. Dumbass.

luka
10-14-2003, 02:15 AM
how the hell could they drop the ram down to 128mb in the dual 2Ghz? That doesn't make sense:confused:

toby
10-14-2003, 02:26 AM
Notice this?

"Most of the PCs used dual, RAID-striped hard drives; the Apple systems did not."

Oh pity poor CaptianKirk, he's got such a pathetic life he has to find any pathetic reason to act superior.

Don't be so threatened, don't be so defensive, GROW UP, and post something constructive for once.

"My Windows 2000 hasn't crashed since 2000."
Well you should turn it on once in a while. What a load of CRAP. "you're still living in a dreamworld, Neo"

Paul Lara
10-14-2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk
13 months without crashing? That's all?
My Windows 2000 hasn't crashed since 2000.


You are now entitled to take your perfectly-running PC to another forum, since you're not able to discern that this forum is appropriately titled "LW - MAC" and NOT "MAC - PC Flame wars".

You have lost your priviledge to post in the MAC community forums, Captain.

:rolleyes:

paintboy
10-14-2003, 07:50 AM
its about time!!!!:D good riddance.

Ade
10-14-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Paul Lara
You are now entitled to take your perfectly-running PC to another forum, since you're not able to discern that this forum is appropriately titled "LW - MAC" and NOT "MAC - PC Flame wars".

You have lost your priviledge to post in the MAC community forums, Captain.

:rolleyes:

Best news Ive heard all day, good bye looser try doing some work instead of telling others what to do...

Tronam
10-14-2003, 11:03 AM
It's a shame that people place so much emphasis on the legitimacy of a platform based on a few percentage points. Is anyone forgetting that people have been getting professional work done on computers for over 10 years now with machines that were far more expensive and 10-100 times slower than any current PC or Mac? It all seems kind of petty to me.

-Tronam

Darth Mole
10-14-2003, 12:02 PM
Shame - someone beamed him up... :D

tallscot
10-14-2003, 02:18 PM
More proof that a dual G5 cannot keep up with even a single Athlon 64

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...749,pg,8,00.asp

Premiere 6? PCMagazine showed Avid DV Express was much, much faster on the dual G5, as was Squeeze, and Acrobat.

I'm not surprised about Word. It's MS.

Photoshop - which 10 filters? RAID on the PC but not on the Mac? G5 plug-in? LOL

The Quake 3 numbers are very suspect, since other sources show the G5 getting 339 FPS with the Radeon 9800 at 1024 x 768 "High". barefeats.com

spardacus
10-15-2003, 08:04 AM
I don't want to touch the flame ... but may I humbly eneter to ask for advice on upgrading my Video Card?

toby, you responded with the following to an entry I made to another thread involving crashes ...


Keep in mind they may have had a bitchin' high-end graphics card in their machine. GeForce4MX isn't even a bitchin' game card. They probably also had a lower monitor resolution, and OpenGL works a little better on PCs too.


Any suggestions on finding a no holds barred, hi-octane, quick off the line first to the flag ... you know "that thing got a hemi?' type fast card for my

G4 - Dual Gig
OS X (10.1.5)
Built in Memory = 1 Gig
L2 Cache = 256k
L3 Cache = 2 Mb
NVDA, GeForce4MX
Dual Monitor
Wacom Tablet

working environment!?

thank you, I'll just go over here in the corner now ...

i am spardacus

toby
10-15-2003, 10:50 AM
yes I meant to get back to you - GeForce 4 Ti is apparently the end of the road for Macintosh, it is much better than the MX but it's still basically a 'game card'. At the moment there are no high-end cards for the mac.

Julian Johnson has done a bunch of tests that show that the Ti is way faster than the MX at low poly levels, but when you get past 40k polygons it's only like 5% faster.

3DLabs is working with Apple right now to bring their high cards to us though.

I don't think ATI is even worth mentioning, personnally.

I'd get a GeForce4 Ti myself if I wasn't saving up for a G5 :D

anieves
10-15-2003, 11:35 AM
Is it confirmed that Panther is going to have drivers for this card? I bought one a while back just to find out that I couldn't use it to its full potential because of the drivers.

tallscot
10-15-2003, 11:44 AM
It's not just a question of drivers. It's the firmware of the card. If it was just drivers, you would see video cards on the shelf that support both PC and Mac. You don't.

xlr8yourmac.com has some instructions for flashing the firmware on PC video cards and then loading them with Mac firmware. Supposedly, you can do this with a GeForce 3, but I don't think it applies to the latest cards.

Again, how many LW users here are going to go out and spend $1K-$2K on a 3D Labs video card? (guessing on that price).

I did a poll in the LW PC forum a while back asking what video card they use. The vast majority of them had a gaming card. I think maybe one guy had a Quadro, and an old one at that.

anieves
10-15-2003, 12:00 PM
I have a GeForce Ti for the Mac... so I don't have to flash the firmware but it is using GF3 drivers therefore not tusing the card at its full potential; Pather was supposed to fix that but I haven't heard anything about it.

tallscot
10-15-2003, 12:26 PM
I noticed a GeForceFX driver on my OS X 10.2.8. It's weird that there is no GeForce4 one.

mlinde
10-15-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by tallscot
Again, how many LW users here are going to go out and spend $1K-$2K on a 3D Labs video card? (guessing on that price).

Well, the problem here is information. The Wildcat cards range from $199 - $899, depending on features. The VP 880 is $499, with 256 MB of texture memory. The VP 990 (top of the line) is only $899 with 512 MB of texture memory. Their entry level card (at $199) still has 64 MB of texture memory. Assuming Apple doesn't screw this up with overpricing, the cards should be similar in price if released on the Mac, and are competitive in price with the higher-end game cards. ($399 for a GeForce 4 Ti, I wish I could have spend $499 on a VP 880)

mlinde
10-15-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by anieves
I have a GeForce Ti for the Mac... so I don't have to flash the firmware but it is using GF3 drivers therefore not tusing the card at its full potential; Pather was supposed to fix that but I haven't heard anything about it.
I find this interesting. When I load up the OpenGL tools from the developer set, my GeForce Ti is using the GeForce 4 drivers. 10.2.6

tallscot
10-15-2003, 01:22 PM
I thought they were much more expensive than that! Thanks for the info.

With that bit of info, why isn't everyone on the PC using those cards?

eblu
10-15-2003, 02:28 PM
my co-worker has a quattro (is that how you spell it?) at work and a Geforce4MX at home (both pcs). according to him, the 4mx which is about $500 cheaper, is faster. I think it could be a subjective thing, but if its not obvious that the quattro is unbelievably faster, then why get it?

Hes pretty much convinced of the viability of gaming cards, and has decided that going forward we won't "waste money" on the higher end cards.

tallscot
10-15-2003, 02:33 PM
I would definitely have to try one out before paying $900 for one.

256 megs of texture memory is needed by some 3D artists. But I would want to see if my use of LW warrants more than 128 megs. I'm thinking it wouldn't. I'm not making Lord of the Rings here. :)

spardacus
10-15-2003, 02:57 PM
I don't know about the Lord of the Rings - love the movies nearly as much as I loved the books - but I must say that I am already seeing the need for more muscle for LW renders.

I have owned LW for nearly a year. After throwing out my back from picking up the manual and after the initial intimidation from the robust/powerful environment, I have committed myself to learn the program.

Now having worked with LW for two months I a moving toward some scene renders that are already taxing what otherwise should be a relatively powerful computer arrangement ...

G4 - Dual Gig
OS X (10.1.5)
Built in Memory = 1 Gig
L2 Cache = 256k
L3 Cache = 2 Mb
NVDA, GeForce4MX
Dual Monitor
Wacom Tablet

I have two primary scenes I am focused on at the moment ... one is an industrial scene with two sets of barrels included (amongst other objects). One set has 213 clones of the barrel, the other set has 71 clones of the barrel.

I have also made what I believe is an exceptional fire (if I do say so myself) which I included in the scene last night and put to render while I watched the Curse of the Billygoat sabotage the Cubs !!




This morning after rendering all night (Approx 9 hours) the progress still indicated 1/9 passes !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have 512 assigned to memory ... this is unacceptable. What could I possibly be doing wrong? Or where could I possibly

My second scene is of a house my wife and I are to build. It takes over 30 minutes to render the scene at 1024 with Low anti-aliasing !!!!

I do a lot of print work. These render times are going to kill me if I have to scale up for brochure, poster, let alone billboard size????????!!!!!!!!!

I'm as stunned as a Billy Goat Non Believing Chicago Cub Fan right about now.

i am spardacus

spardacus
10-15-2003, 03:19 PM
I don't know about the Lord of the Rings - love the movies nearly as much as I loved the books - but I must say that as a two month rookie I am already seeing the need for more muscle for my LW renders.

I have owned LW for nearly a year. After throwing out my back from picking up the manual, and after the initial intimidation from the robust/powerful environment ... I have committed myself to learn the program.

Now having worked with LW for two months I am moving toward some scene renders that are already taxing what otherwise should be a relatively powerful computer arrangement ...

G4 - Dual Gig
OS X (10.1.5)
Built in Memory = 1 Gig
L2 Cache = 256k
L3 Cache = 2 Mb
NVDA, GeForce4MX
Dual Monitor
Wacom Tablet

I have two primary scenes I am focused on at the moment ... one is an industrial scene with two sets of barrels included amongst other objects. One set has 213 clones of the barrel, the other set has 71 clones of the barrel.

I have also made what I believe is an exceptional fire (if I do say so myself) which I included in the scene last night and put to render while I watched the Curse of the Billygoat sabotage the Cubs !!

http://www.creativeresource.org/lw/samples/samples.html

This morning after rendering all night - Approx 9 hours - the status window indicated no progress beyond "1/9 passes" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have 512 assigned to memory ... are these render times normal? What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Has anyone used an outside rendering farm for their images?

My second scene is of a house my wife and I are to build. It takes over 30 minutes to render the scene at 1024 with Low anti-aliasing !!!!

I do a lot of print work. These render times are going to kill me if I have to scale up resolution for brochure, poster, let alone billboard size????????!!!!!!!!!

I'm as stunned as a Billy Goat Cursed Chicago Cub Fan right about now.

i am spardacus

mlinde
10-15-2003, 04:18 PM
Spardacus, are you using radiosity? Caustics? DoF? Hypervoxels? Volumetric lights? These things bring down ANY system, Mac or PC, when used liberally. In addition, a graphics card won't help with rendering. That's all about the processor and RAM.

In addition, after looking at your scenes, I wonder what your polygon counts are in Layout.

claw
10-15-2003, 04:29 PM
Spardacus:

Don't blame the renderer / the hardware here, blame your self. Sorry it sounds hard, but thats the reality if your into 3d. You just can't thru in every cool part from the renderer into your scene and expect it to render in normal speed. You have to be smart, know the fall backs etc. Learn vertex/texture baking, have good understanding about multipass rendering. And sheet! Don't expect LW on it's own to make nice images for you, because if you do, it will take some serious time to render.

tallscot
10-15-2003, 04:54 PM
In any case, your 3D card isn't going to affect your render speeds.

spardacus
10-15-2003, 04:57 PM
I'll take all the blame where blame is do ... but "Don't expect LW on it's own to make nice images for you, because if you do, it will take some serious time to render" What's that!

I can do all the compositing in the world when it comes to laying in fire and whatever else I don't have to have environmental lights and shades on ... but if I need LW to render mulitple objects - well, I need LW to render mulitple objects!

"You just can't thru in every cool part from the renderer into your scene and expect it to render in normal speed" What does that mean?

I have touched on baking in a tutorial and have used it once or twice for skies. I do need to understand better how to incorporate baking into my scene builds ...

claw, any valuable suggestions or is the sniping all I get?

mlinde,
no caustics, no radiosity (i learned the hard way on that one), no volumetrics,
no depth of field.

I did have the fire object in my nightmare render scenario previously described, but I pulled it and placed it separately in PShop this morning after another abbreviated scene render.

The fire object is made with Fresnels - which apparently are time consuming as well.

On the poly count ... can I selectively reduce the number of polys and/or points in an object once it is modeled?

Sorry for the apparent inconvenience ... I am just into this afterall.

out

pdrake
10-15-2003, 05:03 PM
you can selectively reduce polys. select the object/polys you want to reduce and use qemloss. i works pretty good. keep reducing until you notice an unacceptable difference. i had to reduce an engineering model from 2million to less than 2k. worked great and even the engineers couldn't tell.

spardacus
10-15-2003, 05:12 PM
nice!

toby
10-15-2003, 10:49 PM
Pretty harsh, Claw

I don't think he complained about render quality - and he's obviously new to the game so cut him a little slack

Nice fire Spard!

I have a few tips tho -

It probably doesn't matter, but you might want to mix up that 'Crumple' procedural with some other textures, LW'ers can spot it a mile away :D Better than I've done tho -

You can make the oil tankers look bigger by turning up the 'diffuse sharpness' in the advanced tab of the surface editor, and only cast shadows from the main 'sun' light.

As far as render speed, I think my Dual 450 would render those images faster! - hit the 'w' key in Layout to find out how many polys are in the scene, set Multi-threading to 2,4, or 8 (you'll have to experiment for the fastest times), if you're using ray-traced reflections turn 'ray recursion' down to 3 (or 8 if you're using refraction for that fire), for 'skytracer', render the sky by itself then map the image on a poly, and try shadow mapped shadows instead of raytracing.

On the hardware side, 2 gigs ram would be nice, but I only have 1 -


I have 512 assigned to memory
???
OSX doesn't let you do this - you're not using OS9 LW in Classic mode are you?

Darth Mole
10-16-2003, 02:38 AM
Actually, it sounds like a problem I had once. If you have your energy saver settings wrong, as soon as you leave the machine unattended, it goes into sleep mode and stops LW from rendering - if the hard drive spins down, LW can't save the file.

I used to have a dual 800 and when I first got my Cinema Display, I think I had it set up so the screen would sleep quite quickly to save the backlight. However, this automatically puts the computer to sleep too, unless you tick the box for separate hard drive/screen options. (In 10.3 the panel has changed so I can't say for sure).

Anyway, I had the same same thing - I'd wake up to find the thing had managed a frame or two - instead of the entire rendered sequence I was hoping for. But as soon as the screen woke up, it started rendering okay.

Hope that helps...

(Looked at your pics and there's nothing in there to make me think it's your's - or LW's fault. Those scenes are't particularly poly- or SFX-heavy)

Darth Mole
10-16-2003, 02:54 AM
On another matter - the scene wth the oil fire looks all wrong. Your lighting's terrible (no offence).

For starters, it looks like you have several light sources (hence the multiple shadows) when it should have a soft sun/sky light (that sky doesn't look very bright at all), a few nice fill lights and a big red or orange source from your fire. Fire is bright, agreed?

The shadows are too sharp for the kind of ambience you're after, and everything is too evenly lit. I'd remove all your lights except a sun source, and turn off the Ambient (it's in Lights>Properties>Global Illumination. Crank it down to 5 or even zero %).

You could probably try turning your sun into a spotlight rather than a Distant source, and turn on soft shadows. Ordinarily, sunlight casts quite sharp shadows, but your sky looks dark and overcast. (You will need to move the Spotlight further away and increase the cone angle covers your entire scene).

The try turning down the sun's strength and altering the colour to pale yellow or even bue, to match your 'late evening' scene.

Then I'd start illuminating the objects with orange red or yellow lights to really bring the fire into the scene. In fact, the fire should probably be the key light source, given the time of day.

Then start putting some lights on things - spotlights on poles and somesuch, to add some scale, and to add other highlights to your objects.

You also need to start looking at textures - everything in your scene looks brand new. An oil depot is one of the grungiest places you can imagine - get dirty!

claw
10-16-2003, 04:36 AM
Sorry, it was pretty harsh. But I just want him to understand that you need to learn every fallbacks in LW's renderer to succeed.

spardacus:

When I talked about LW to render nice images for you, I meant render with HDRI, radiosity and stuff, that more or less fixes the lighting for you. If you want to render fast and in production speed, you have to fake all that. And that's include baking / spinninglights etc.

But hey! LW's renderer isn't the fastest either, but its very easy to get what you want from it.

spardacus
10-16-2003, 04:52 AM
Awesome!

That's something I can work with.

toby - actually the memory I referred to is the segment memory ... oh how I miss those days of assigning memory, it truly made an immediate impact.

Currently I'm running with 2 threads, my ray recursion was at 16 (now down to 8 per your suggestion), I love the diffuse sharpness for the shadows - I'm headed there right now.

Darth Mol - you are exactly right, my lighting is pretty lame, and it appears that lighting is one of - if not theeee - most important elements to photorealism (which is what I am shooting for in my LW attempts). Photorealism in the master painters and now in the 3D world always blows me away.

Well I'm off to print your comments and work through each of them for training. I can't thank both of you enough for your tangible, direct and productive comments ...

Any thoughts on professional LW trainging classes? Who does it, who does it well? I'm hooked on this LW stuff and I want to master it!

Excellent community and active participation - this reminds me of the "We're Here" forums for Flash I used to visit. To me, community is a vital key in the success of software packages. .

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, for being there!

i am spardacus

mlinde
10-16-2003, 09:53 AM
Spardacus, don't feel tough about the lighting. You should realize that a lot of guys who do lighting for a living in 3D do nothing but lighting. There's an old book out there called "A Method of Lighting the Stage" by Stanley McCandless that talks about real-world stage lighting, and a DVD called "Visions of Light - The Art of Cinematography" that talks about lighting in the movies (as well as other cinematography issues). Although I love the McCandless book, it's not really useful for 3D lighting, but the DVD is. Rent it or buy it to check it out. In addition, any books on cinematography or lighting for cinematography would be worth a glance. I don't have the time to list them all, but these two are the first and most recent pieces I've studied on lighting and cinematography.

anieves
10-16-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by mlinde
I find this interesting. When I load up the OpenGL tools from the developer set, my GeForce Ti is using the GeForce 4 drivers. 10.2.6

humm I wish I could check it out but as you know my Mac is taking a vacation until I resolve the 10.2.8 hard disk issues... maybe 10.2.8 broke something that has to do with OGL and my Ti card...

js33
10-16-2003, 02:36 PM
spardacus,

There is an excellent book out for 3D lighting called "[digital] Lighting & Rendering" by Jeremy Birn. It is not specific to any program and applies to all.

Cheers,
JS

spardacus
10-16-2003, 05:19 PM
mlinde ... most appreciated.

The DVD sounds great!

The lighting is certainly something I am going to move toward finer study ... I have noticed also that surface values make a BIG difference. The surface values in LW are apparently very powerful and I need to learn more about surface compositing and all the nuances of surface and environment interaction.

Long way to go - and life's too short

Thanks for the input ... hope it helps my output!

:)

i am spardcus

spardacus
10-16-2003, 05:21 PM
Excellent!

I'll have to add a new wing to my house rendering for all my 3D books!

Thanks js33

mlinde
10-16-2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by js33
There is an excellent book out for 3D lighting called "[digital] Lighting & Rendering" by Jeremy Birn. It is not specific to any program and applies to all.
Hey JS -- have you read this one? It's on my list, but as it is specific to digital, it's lower because I find that often these kinds of books (when targeted at digital FX) still discuss features from specific software packages. If you've read it (and it's good), let me know. Thanks!

js33
10-16-2003, 07:12 PM
The writer touches on 3D max and Lightwave but discusses the background and techniques of lighting not how to light with any particular program so it is helpful to anyone wanting to hone their lighting skills. I have read some of it but got interupted and plan to finish it soon.

Cheers,
JS

Ge4-ce
10-17-2003, 04:48 AM
I believe that book is from the same series as [Digital] Cinematography & Directing by Dan Ablan. Wich I'm reading at the moment. I don't know how to feel about this book. This one is a book maybe too general for me. It touches camera setup, angles, ... Like 90% of the book I allready knew. That can offcourse be a good thing :) but I'm also looking for more specific books. I'm also planning to buy [Digital] Lightning and Rendering. And there's also another one called [Digital ] Surfacing and Texturing, I believe.. They are more specific and you can thus learn more from these books I presume.. Has anyone read these books?

erk
10-18-2003, 03:43 AM
Another good lighting book to have a look at is "Lightwave 3D 7.5 Lighting" by Nicholas Boughen ISBN 1-55622-354-4

Zarathustra
10-18-2003, 10:07 AM
I disagree. My complaint about Boughen's book is the same as G34-ce's for Cinematography and Directing by Ablan.
It's TOO general and it annoys me that he includes articles like Eki's and the high precision rendering article which you can find online for free.

I'll gladly buy Ablan's next Inside [8] when available, even though I felt 70% of his [7] was reprinted [6].

Now, uh, can we get back to talking about G5s? Since it's something we're all going to have to deal with eventually if we stay Mac-based I want to know as much as possible. I'm especially interested in HIGH END video card options.

redlum
10-21-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by CaptainKirk
13 months without crashing? That's all?

My Windows 2000 hasn't crashed since 2000.

"meow!"




And by the way G5 tests were done by Mac world and then compared to tests done by PC world. I know that the truth can be sickening, but that is exactly my point, to show you how sick a liar Steve Jobs is.

Double "meow!"



Dell is not a professional computer and neither is a Mac.

Professional computer is the one you put together yourself. . .

That one is a real gem. Maybe we should frame it for the office party. hehe

Johnny
10-30-2003, 05:59 PM
where does one download this test file Skull_Head_Newest.lws?

thanks!

Johnny

themaxx
10-30-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Johnny
where does one download this test file Skull_Head_Newest.lws?
Johnny

It came with Lightwave. Look in Lightwave/Content/Scenes/Benchmark/

tallscot
10-30-2003, 06:14 PM
Johnny,

Lightwave:Content:Scenes:_Features:Radiosity:Skull _Head_Newest.lws

Fire it up, buddy! Let us know! :)

Johnny
10-30-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by tallscot
Johnny,

Lightwave:Content:Scenes:_Features:Radiosity:Skull _Head_Newest.lws

Fire it up, buddy! Let us know! :)

Sorry..I didn't look 'high up' enough in the directory..

OK..I didn't change any settings to the file, and got 89 seconds.

Johnny

*Did it a second time and got 88.8 seconds. Increasing threads pushed me up to 93 and 123 seconds..can't remember which time for which # of threads.

tallscot
10-30-2003, 06:34 PM
Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz HT = 170 seconds.
Dual Xeon 3.06 Ghz = 110 seconds
Dual Opteron 1.8 Ghz = 99 seconds

From Tom's Hardware and PCMagazine.

Wow, Johnny, the dual 2 Ghz G5 looks really fast with that benchmark!

Johnny
10-30-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by tallscot
Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz HT = 170 seconds.
Dual Xeon 3.06 Ghz = 110 seconds
Dual Opteron 1.8 Ghz = 99 seconds

From Tom's Hardware and PCMagazine.

Wow, Johnny, the dual 2 Ghz G5 looks really fast with that benchmark!

cool! I hope I did it right...just opened it up, linked the files it asked for, and hit F9...right? (didn't change anything about the file or its setup)

I was able to get a time of 88.8 seconds twice in a row with the file's as-is settings.

this is with 10.2.7

Johnny

tallscot
10-30-2003, 06:55 PM
Yep, that's how you do it.

It's interesting to note that PCMagazine didn't have a clue what they were doing when they benchmarked the G5 with LW. They rendered the scene with a single thread, on a dual processor system. So their results for the dual 2 Ghz G5 were around 170 seconds. Isn't that hilarious?

A dual 2 Ghz Opteron should get around 90, assuming it has a linear speed increase with Mhz, which is doubtful. Correct me if I'm wrong on my math.

Johnny
10-30-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by tallscot
It's interesting to note that PCMagazine didn't have a clue what they were doing when they benchmarked the G5 with LW. They rendered the scene with a single thread, on a dual processor system. So their results for the dual 2 Ghz G5 were around 170 seconds. Isn't that hilarious?


huh...to me, it smacks either of incompetance or sheer desperation to make the G5 look bad..

either way, it doesn't speak well.

Now...on to setting up Screamer Net for my Empire of 'inferior' computers.

;-)

Johnny