PDA

View Full Version : Ultra high resolution render limit? Crashing...



imeddesign
08-29-2015, 05:47 PM
I'm trying to render a single frame of a moderately complex model at 43,200 x 19,200. This is for a trade show booth of (nearly) real size rail road locomotive. I actually have the frame set to 10,800 x 4800 and render at 400%. LW renders fine, but when it gets to 100%, it crashes and exits. This occurs whether I Render Frame (and try to save manually) or Render Sequence (of 1 frame). I'm able to render at 21,600 x 9600, but it also crashes at 31,000 x 13,800.

Is there a resolution limit?

Any ideas? Thx

Mac 10.8.5
2x2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
28 gig ram
LW 11.6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570

JonW
08-29-2015, 06:12 PM
On a PC in these situations it's best to render F10 not F9, but it looks like you are already doing this.

Render smaller sections using the shift camera. It is easy these days to render 2 or 4 sections with the built in shift camera. Previously had to set it up manually which was painful. You could set up a 4 frame animation and render 4 sections of the view shifting the shift camera for each of the 4 frames.

It would be better to render smaller sections anyway unless you have a large UPS to cover likely blackouts, or even a brief blackout is enough to have to start the whole render again.

Or using Screamernet with one node on the computer. You don't even need to load the scene. This saves a lot of memory, at least on a PC.

imeddesign
08-29-2015, 06:45 PM
Thanks JonW - I'll take a look at the shift camera. The render is actually only 2 hours and I do have a UPS on every system (but only good for about 15 minutes). Thanks again.

JonW
08-29-2015, 06:55 PM
If you are using radiosity you will need to overlap the renders a bit and blend in Photoshop. If you are not using radiosity you can just butt each image up to each other.

Finally someone with some common sense with a UPS, they are worth their weight in gold. 15 minutes is better than nothing as most blackouts are brief. I had 4 blackouts this year of around an hour. Most likely possums committing suicide unfortunately. Main computer can render for 2 hours or render farm 2500 watts load for 20 minutes.

imeddesign
08-29-2015, 07:33 PM
I am using radiosity - thanks for the heads up. I have a separate UPS on each workstation. I lose power at least once a month due to tree limbs. Thanks.

spherical
08-29-2015, 07:46 PM
I'm trying to render a single frame of a moderately complex model at 43,200 x 19,200.

What is your computed DPI for the panel?
How far away will the panel be viewed?
How is it being printed? Large format inkjet, I presume.

Our Epson 9900 does a great job of upscaling. Hand it a 180 DPI file and it looks superb. 150 DPI doesn't look shabby, either. 43,200 @ 180DPi is 20 feet.

madno
08-29-2015, 11:47 PM
Interesting thread,

I recently needed to render 11811 x 14395 pixel for a booth. It was impossible with 2015.3 on Win10. I tried several times. It was always crashing. Mostly within the radiosity pass. I then tested with reduced multiplier (50% I think) and it stilled crashed; this time after the radiosity pass.
So I switched to 2015.2 on Win7. There it worked. It ran without a problem and finished after 6 hours +

Scene had above one million polygons and the lighting was hdr, some luminous geometry and all real reflections (no spec at all).

I assumed it was because of Win10. But as imeddesign is on Mac I now need to rethink.

Iimeddesign,
are you using 2015.2 or 2015.3 ?

JonW
08-30-2015, 02:46 AM
I haven't done any large images lately. Still render 300 DPI for A3 but that's what I always did whether a render or a scan of a photo from medium format transparencies.

The printing bureau didn't want a file any larger than an A3 anyway even if they printed it for a side of a building. The printers RIP would upscale nicely.

Taking a new Canon 5ds camera for example at 8688 x 5792 pixels. Printing on an A0 (1189 x 841 mm) sheet of paper at 186 DPI one would never see the slightly lower resolution from the standard 300 DPI as you don't view an A0 from 300 mm.

If you want some local contrast to make the image look sharper. Use Amount 10% maybe up to 20% with Radius 100 pixels.

All adjustments show be done in 16 bit, so 1 layer in Photoshop in 16 bit is about 287 MB before you get going with other layers etc.

I would hate to be working on a 21600 x 9600 pixel file (207 megapixel file) or 1184 MB 16 bit file for 1 layer!

JonW
08-30-2015, 02:55 AM
Interesting thread,

I recently needed to render 11811 x 14395 pixel for a booth. It was impossible with 2015.3 on Win10. I tried several times. It was always crashing. Mostly within the radiosity pass. I then tested with reduced multiplier (50% I think) and it stilled crashed; this time after the radiosity pass.
So I switched to 2015.2 on Win7. There it worked. It ran without a problem and finished after 6 hours +

Scene had above one million polygons and the lighting was hdr, some luminous geometry and all real reflections (no spec at all).

I assumed it was because of Win10. But as imeddesign is on Mac I now need to rethink.

Iimeddesign,
are you using 2015.2 or 2015.3 ?

I use a Mac for everything other than Lightwave. Lightwave has the PC to itself, lucky thing!

My computers are very old now as I don't do much work these days, but the old W5580 dual CPU box is no slouch. It's also using XP. It's never been connected to the internet so I have never had to have any AV software for them.

imeddesign
08-30-2015, 05:20 AM
The specs came from the printer via the ad agency (my client). I was told to give them an image at 43,200 x 19,200 @ 100 ppi which fits the panel of 36' x 16'. I have no idea how they're printing it. Attendees could be standing right next to these panels but they're really for background design. I've already made the suggestion of sending the 21,600 render to the printer for a test. I've done lot's of trade show content in my career and I know there are some things you can get away with because of distance, etc.

I'm still on 11.6.3. While I've used LW since its Toaster days, it's not one of my bread-and-butter programs so I tend to upgrade when a project calls for it (and pays for it!).

As I mentioned, it gets through the rendering phase just fine (including radiosity), but crashes after it sits on 100% for a bit. I first thought maybe it had to do with the file format I'm saving to on an F10 render (32bit PS) but it also crashes with an F9 render before displaying.

JonW
08-30-2015, 06:11 AM
Have a look at Northlight images - 14m panoramic print

Markc
08-30-2015, 06:24 AM
Would InfiniMap by db&w help you at all?
http://www.db-w.com/products/infinimap/about
Not sure how this actually works.

JonW
08-30-2015, 06:25 AM
Have you tried rendering half of the image, or a quarter of the image to avoid crashing, then stick in Photoshop.

bazsa73
08-30-2015, 06:41 AM
If you are using radiosity you will need to overlap the renders a bit and blend in Photoshop. If you are not using radiosity you can just butt each image up to each other.

Finally someone with some common sense with a UPS, they are worth their weight in gold. 15 minutes is better than nothing as most blackouts are brief. I had 4 blackouts this year of around an hour. Most likely possums committing suicide unfortunately. Main computer can render for 2 hours or render farm 2500 watts load for 20 minutes.
I have a UPS and it saved my computer, my running project and my nerves at least 10 times since I have it.

imeddesign
08-30-2015, 10:10 AM
Thanks all for your help and ideas. I was able to break up the 43,200 size into renderable chunks with Limited Region and stitch together in Photoshop. No crashes - even with radiosity.

spherical
08-30-2015, 05:36 PM
Glad you got it done. Whatever it takes...

Just out of curiosity:
What is your Segment Memory Limit set to?
Why 32-bit PSD?

Sensei
08-31-2015, 11:35 AM
Any ideas? Thx


Install Windows emulator, and get VirtualRender http://virtualrender.trueart.eu

YouTube video tutorial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UpE1mQQ2hw

Wade
09-01-2015, 08:22 AM
So how big was the final image 2.32 gigs or so?