PDA

View Full Version : Lightwave 11 Speed



rcallicotte
04-06-2012, 05:20 PM
I know I've seen something about this here, but can't find it. Would anyone have some insight about this?

I upgraded to 11 from 10 and loaded the same scene I loaded in 10 (no changes) into 11. The scene rendered in about 10 minutes in 10 and is taking forever in 11.

Sensei
04-06-2012, 06:32 PM
LW 11 has unified sampling, completely different than older versions.
So, try reseting AA, to default settings, and try again.

I don't know what to tell you more, if you didn't attach scene so we can check it..

rcallicotte
04-06-2012, 09:43 PM
Thanks Sensei. I know it has something to do with an old setting because I tried a new scene and it rendered TOTALLY SCREAMING fast. I'll post back, after I try this idea and a couple of others.

I like 11.

rcallicotte
04-07-2012, 09:00 PM
Lowered the speed by using the Classic Reconstruction Filter, lowering the main rays from 300 to 150 and secondary rays to 150 and changed Maximum Pixel Spacing from 12 to 50.

The shadows are too sharp, but maybe it's because I'm using Point lights for the "lightbulbs"?

madno
04-08-2012, 01:30 AM
Regarding speed, check out the videos from RebelHill:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A1C0DB658775A63&feature=plcp
- Global Illumination Rendering
- Rendering, Sampling and AntiAliasing

Those ones helped me alot.

rcallicotte
04-08-2012, 06:37 AM
Just purchased the GI video last week. I agree - RH taught me so much.



Regarding speed, check out the videos from RebelHill:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8A1C0DB658775A63&feature=plcp
- Global Illumination Rendering
- Rendering, Sampling and AntiAliasing

Those ones helped me alot.

rcallicotte
04-08-2012, 10:06 AM
Here is the same image as above with 25 Maximum Pixel Spacing, which is half the size of the image above and the only other change is all lights were changed from Point Lights to Spherical Lights.

Image rendered in a little over 22 minutes, which is a little over three times longer than the one above (at a little over 6 minutes).

madno
04-08-2012, 01:24 PM
Hi rcallicotte,

I am no LW expert. But if you don't mind let me make a remark. Watching your nice room I am irritated by the lamps and the way they produce the light. It looks like the light sources are above the lamps and not within them. The material of the lamps looks like it should be somehow semi transparent, or better translucent. So me as viewer expects to see some light to shine through the material. I made an example (much more simple than yours), where I tried to use translucency on the lamps material.

As lights I used DP Custom Lights
(free at
http://dpont.pagesperso-orange.fr/plugins/lights/Additional_Lights.html).

So what I did was, I made a "bulb" ball in Modeler and used it as the light geometry for the DP Custom Light in Layout. The lamp itself is a sub-D geometry with some thickness. The material of the lamp has a 10% translucency. The DP Custom Lights are put into the lamp.
There is one more standard point light in the scene (with shadow off) to give a little more overall light.
The render took 4min 4sec (most of it for reducing GI splotchiness). There are still some splotchies left and some banding which I have not tweeked away. Unfortunately I think the translucent lamps are render hooks, so maybe you don't like that because of increased render time.

rcallicotte
04-08-2012, 06:26 PM
I don't mind constructive remarks. Telling me you're irritated was a bit abrupt.

But, anyway, go get the same room (Holiday Nook) at DAZ for 1.99 and have at it. The lights were placed in the lamps, but the material of the lamps I think are made of metal, but I've only messed about with them some. Mostly, I was trying to figure out why 10 was different than 11, but I'm all about seeing how to make this better. Go ahead and get this model from Jack Tomalin and we'll see if we can help each other.



Hi rcallicotte,

I am no LW expert. But if you don't mind let me make a remark. Watching your nice room I am irritated by the lamps and the way they produce the light. It looks like the light sources are above the lamps and not within them. The material of the lamps looks like it should be somehow semi transparent, or better translucent. So me as viewer expects to see some light to shine through the material. I made an example (much more simple than yours), where I tried to use translucency on the lamps material.

As lights I used DP Custom Lights
(free at
http://dpont.pagesperso-orange.fr/plugins/lights/Additional_Lights.html).

So what I did was, I made a "bulb" ball in Modeler and used it as the light geometry for the DP Custom Light in Layout. The lamp itself is a sub-D geometry with some thickness. The material of the lamp has a 10% translucency. The DP Custom Lights are put into the lamp.
There is one more standard point light in the scene (with shadow off) to give a little more overall light.
The render took 4min 4sec (most of it for reducing GI splotchiness). There are still some splotchies left and some banding which I have not tweeked away. Unfortunately I think the translucent lamps are render hooks, so maybe you don't like that because of increased render time.

rcallicotte
04-08-2012, 07:01 PM
@madno - per your suggestions...

It's smaller, though. Took 13 minutes with a 20 Maximum Pixel Spacing.

rcallicotte
04-08-2012, 07:03 PM
Here are my last render settings.

Sensei
04-08-2012, 07:19 PM
You don't have any transparent surfaces so turn off Use Transparency.
Use Bumps if you have slowly evaluating procedural bumps such as Renderman node/shader collection will also blow up GI speed (always mention how much of GI time is in comparison to full render time).
Angular Tolerance 12 degree is very small, so renderer will make a lot of GI samples for full range 180 degrees (12 samples, in default settings just 4).
Why to use Monte Carlo, and not just Final Gather?
Minimum Pixel Spacing 1 pixel means that samples will be in the worst scenario in every pixel. For Full HD it's 2 million of them.

rcallicotte
04-08-2012, 09:07 PM
I am using transparency. The clock, for one I can remember, has a glass face.

I followed the RebelHill tutorial on the Angular Tolerance setting and seems like I got away with the 1 with Minimum Pixel Spacing...not sure what you're saying about that, though.

As for Monte Carlo, I've always understood this is better. Why Final Gathering?



You don't have any transparent surfaces so turn off Use Transparency.
Use Bumps if you have slowly evaluating procedural bumps such as Renderman node/shader collection will also blow up GI speed (always mention how much of GI time is in comparison to full render time).
Angular Tolerance 12 degree is very small, so renderer will make a lot of GI samples for full range 180 degrees (12 samples, in default settings just 4).
Why to use Monte Carlo, and not just Final Gather?
Minimum Pixel Spacing 1 pixel means that samples will be in the worst scenario in every pixel. For Full HD it's 2 million of them.

Sensei
04-08-2012, 09:18 PM
Is not this thread about speeding up rendering of your scene?
So, I am just giving ideas how to speed it up..
MC pass is twice slower than FG in mine scene, without any difference to image.

madno
04-09-2012, 02:38 AM
Sorry for the abruptness ;-)
This "where the lights are placed" remark was mainly related to the first image, as I expected the shadows to go up instead of down.

Regarding to Final Gather vs. Monte Carlo:
http://www.except.nl/lightwave/RadiosityGuide96/index.htm

and the book:
Digital Lighting & Rendering Second Edition
from Jeremy Birn.

Don't have time to try that room - easter visits on the to do list ;-) - but come back to this the next days. Anyway, as said, I am no expert and learning each time I start up LW.

rcallicotte
04-09-2012, 05:30 AM
GREAT! That's how I was taking it. :) So, can you explain a little about Minimum Pixel Spacing? I am not sure this actually makes sense, though I have tried to follow directions from the video. I'm sure RH explained this some, but I still don't get what it is.

As for the FG, I'll try it. Thanks.

I'm planning to add a fire in the fireplace via TFD. This will be the next step.



Is not this thread about speeding up rendering of your scene?
So, I am just giving ideas how to speed it up..
MC pass is twice slower than FG in mine scene, without any difference to image.

rcallicotte
04-09-2012, 05:33 AM
@madno, COOL. It would be nice, too, if you have time to see if we could work on the same room to learn and have fun with it. I'll check the book and read the link.

You'll notice I followed your suggestions. :thumbsup:

kopperdrake
04-09-2012, 06:06 AM
Hi rcallicotte,

If I may suggest, in the Colour Space tab (File>Colour Space options), choose sRGB rather than Linear. You can then possibly set your Intensity to 100% and alter the gamma of the final render back up to the brightness you prefer, either in Photoshop or using the appropriate post-process plugin in LightWave (I forget the name but Exception has a lovely piece about this workflow on his website - searching this forum should find the link).

Lowering the intensity will speed things up. Personally, in that scene, I would also turn off Transparency, Ambient Occlusion, Use Gradients, Directional Rays, Use Behind Test and Use Bumps. I may drop the Indirect Bounces to 2, and judge whether the darker patches under chairs etc are really that bad, and drop by secondary rays to 20-50ish. I would also head on over to the Render tab in Render Globals and drop my ray recursion to as close to 1 as I can without degrading the image - I image you might even be able to get as low as 2 in this scene as I can't see much/any transparency. I'd also be tempted to drop the Shading and Ligh Samples to 4.

See how that goes :)

I do much prefer the softer lights - it might be worth looking at some IES lights (Photometric option in Light type), to add a touch more realism to the light cast. The shades look great now though :)

What is really missing for me at the moment are some lovely flames in the fireplace, and maybe a dog curled up in front ;)

tcoursey
04-09-2012, 07:56 AM
Also don't forget under the Render Globals -> Render tab the "Shading Samples" and "Light Samples" numbers. These are 8 by default, overkill for most of my animated Architectural scenes. Depending on the lights you use this can change the time dramatically. Try dropping to 2-4 easily. With Adaptive Sampling at .01 and a 1-30 min max samples under camera settings you should be pretty good. Plus all the GI you guys are talking about.

rcallicotte
04-09-2012, 08:59 AM
@kopperdrake and @tcoursey - Thanks guys! I love this help and I will try these tonight almost the first thing I do.

The fire is next, after I bake this scene of 180 frames without the fire. Then, the fire and then a simple animation of a simple character of some sort.

This Jack Tomalin's work on DAZ is worth a look. He has some pretty cool setups, like the library and the pub and this model I'm using here.

rcallicotte
04-10-2012, 08:49 AM
Okay, I've been experimenting with multiple combinations of everything being encouraged above, but I'm getting a lot more questions.

First, and most important (I guess), I question why the sRGB is better than Linear. I can see the speed difference, but the resulting flatness in the final render is not good. Someone mentioned postwork, but what could be done to enhance the flat render to make it look 3D again. It's pretty washed out with sRGB. Or maybe I set it up wrong?

DrStrik9
04-10-2012, 09:09 AM
First, and most important (I guess), I question why the sRGB is better than Linear. I can see the speed difference, but the resulting flatness in the final render is not good. Someone mentioned postwork, but what could be done to enhance the flat render to make it look 3D again. It's pretty washed out with sRGB. Or maybe I set it up wrong?

You probably set up your scene lights for Linear. Changing to sRGB in that case would look very washed out. sRGB is probably best for most situations. So set that, and then adjust scenes/lights/textures to look like you want. I'm not in a production pipeline, so I rarely use Linear, except when needing to process HDR imagery.

rcallicotte
04-10-2012, 10:28 AM
Thanks Michael. Why does HDR imagery favor Linear?



You probably set up your scene lights for Linear. Changing to sRGB in that case would look very washed out. sRGB is probably best for most situations. So set that, and then adjust scenes/lights/textures to look like you want. I'm not in a production pipeline, so I rarely use Linear, except when needing to process HDR imagery.

DrStrik9
04-10-2012, 11:39 AM
Thanks Michael. Why does HDR imagery favor Linear?

I'm no expert here, but here's my simple answer based on things I've tried: HDR image formats are floating-point with a gigantic color space, and not already squished down to sRGB, which is only 24-bit (256 values per RGB channel).

You can work in sRGB, which looks good on your 24-bit monitor, but save in an HDR format (like .hdr), using Linear. Then process the images in Photoshop or whatever, to get your 16- or 8-bit per channel images - with far greater control over the result.

Here are some examples from a scene I set up using sRGB:

image01: sRGB png (this basically is the way I want the image to look)

image02: Linear png - it's way dark (because the scene was set up using sRGB, but saved as Linear), and as an 8-bit-per-channel image, there just isn't all that much you can do with it, without destroying even more image data.

image03: Linear hdr processed to 8-bits per channel in Photoshop using default Tone Mapping settings. It's definitely a brighter, clearer image, from the SAME RENDER, although it's now 8-bits per channel (compare to image01). I know of no decent way using the tools I have to achieve this image quality from an sRGB image format.

Hope this helps.

rcallicotte
04-10-2012, 01:05 PM
:thumbsup:

Thanks so much. First thing tonight, I'm on this and photometric lighting (haven't tried it yet).

kopperdrake
04-10-2012, 05:35 PM
Okay, I've been experimenting with multiple combinations of everything being encouraged above, but I'm getting a lot more questions.

First, and most important (I guess), I question why the sRGB is better than Linear. I can see the speed difference, but the resulting flatness in the final render is not good. Someone mentioned postwork, but what could be done to enhance the flat render to make it look 3D again. It's pretty washed out with sRGB. Or maybe I set it up wrong?

The other reason it might look flat is you haven't corrected the gamma levels of your final render? You'll need to have saved out your render in one of the .exr formats? Most imaging software (like Photoshop) will display this as washed out as the hdri gamut is larger than your screen can display. You need to convert your image back to an 8-bit image from the 32-bit hdri format. In Photoshop you open your .exr format image, go to Image>Exposure and change the gamma to 0.5. This will look better.

To carry out the same process using only LightWave go to the link below - it's invaluable stuff.

http://www.except.nl/lightwave/hdr/index.htm

rcallicotte
04-11-2012, 05:22 AM
After following advice about various settings, I was able to cache a GI that takes about 1.5 minutes and this render took about 2.5 minutes. I exported as an EXR, ran it through Photomatix and then some levels and some gamma changes in Photoshop.

I don't appreciate the lights as much, so my next step is Photometric lights.

Thanks for all the help.

Richardas
04-11-2012, 06:06 AM
Now looks like 300% GI burns out image. As Dan Ablan says, that Gi is just addition to lighting, so i suggest to lower GI below 100% and combine with lights intensivity. Also make scene "clay" copy and adjust GI settings to get best and fastest result.

rcallicotte
04-11-2012, 06:50 AM
As I use the new lighting, I'll keep this in mind.

What do mean by "clay" copy?



Now looks like 300% GI burns out image. As Dan Ablan says, that Gi is just addition to lighting, so i suggest to lower GI below 100% and combine with lights intensivity. Also make scene "clay" copy and adjust GI settings to get best and fastest result.

Richardas
04-11-2012, 01:00 PM
All scene objects wit the same default material - no specularity, reflection, refraction. In this way you clearly can see how GI acts. Take a look at RebelHill''s GI and unified sampling vids. they brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFZ2av-BLg&feature=plcp&context=C47c5dd6VDvjVQa1PpcFO-6YPOczAIk0T9FPk7Dfr9uaAt3AybAp0=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgNB9tZWUmM&feature=plcp&context=C45cb057VDvjVQa1PpcFO-6YPOczAIk3CibGe5nB3XJMdCLFxaPXU%3D

Amurrell
04-11-2012, 04:04 PM
Here is a set of older instructions/information for 9.x radiosity. Many of the things in here still apply to the newer engine, so give it a once over (or more) and see if this will help you in any way.

http://www.except.nl/lightwave/RadiosityGuide95/index.htm

rcallicotte
04-11-2012, 07:42 PM
Oh, okay. I see. Yep, I bought his video and saw a couple of the free ones, too. A lot to take in.

Thank you.



All scene objects wit the same default material - no specularity, reflection, refraction. In this way you clearly can see how GI acts. Take a look at RebelHill''s GI and unified sampling vids. they brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFZ2av-BLg&feature=plcp&context=C47c5dd6VDvjVQa1PpcFO-6YPOczAIk0T9FPk7Dfr9uaAt3AybAp0=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgNB9tZWUmM&feature=plcp&context=C45cb057VDvjVQa1PpcFO-6YPOczAIk3CibGe5nB3XJMdCLFxaPXU%3D

rcallicotte
04-11-2012, 07:44 PM
Been studying it. I love what I'm learning from RH, too.


Here is a set of older instructions/information for 9.x radiosity. Many of the things in here still apply to the newer engine, so give it a once over (or more) and see if this will help you in any way.

http://www.except.nl/lightwave/RadiosityGuide95/index.htm