Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Rendering takes an insane period of time..

Jan 1, 2013 7:37 AM

Tags: #rendering

Why takes the rendering of only 1 layer with 3 letters (incl shadows) over 37 days on a pc with a  3770K, 16gb ddr3 1600, 550/550 SSD and GTX670 2GB....this can't be right....

 

and when I want to render multiple layers, will it be possible to render them at once instead of layer by layer? If I merge them somehow the shadows are screwed up....

 

Thanks!!

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 8:05 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    I sincerely hope 37 days is a typo. Did you mean minutes? Anyway, Photoshop's renderer is extremely slow, especially when considering that it is a biased renderer and has been limited to only one bounce of indirect light and has only simplistic materials. How many pixels are in the rendering?

     

    Only one 3D layer can be rendered at a time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 8:20 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    The time remaining is not a reliable indicator. The renderer is progressive and will continually refine and clarify the image until either you stop it by clicking in Photoshop or it reaches a level that's controlled by Preferences > 3D > High Quality Threshold.

     

    Your rendering is about 12 megapixels, which is going to take approximately "one heck of a long time" to become clear in Photoshop. Not 37 days, though! If you want to post (or PM) a link to an upload of the PSD file, I'll see if I can optimise the settings to increase the rendering speed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 8:25 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    As conroy said, you are rendering an "insanely huge" image. That would even take a while in a 3D renderer that is much better optimized than PS's routines. That aside, the better question is if you actually need 350 dpi on a 10x10" canvas?! You know, that old gag of resolution vs. actual pixels. On a 3x3m object, peopel would presumably stand some distance away, requiring much less detail to give the same visual result....

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 8:26 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    Only PS can render its own 3D.

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 8:36 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    Sure, Dropbox is good.

     

    You can't render the PSD with another app, but you can export a 3D layer and import that into another app. DAE export will include lights and camera definitions in addition to models, materials and textures. OBJ export will be models, materials and textures.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 9:27 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    For testing I created a 12 megapixel image (4000 x 3000 pixels) with some extruded text, complete with multiple light sources and some Image Based Lighting.  NO transparency, however, which is seen to slow things down a good bit.

     

    It renders to something acceptable to look at in about 30 seconds, then continues chunking along with an estimate that bops around 2 hours and change, then lowers the estimate to about an hour and change fairly soon thereafter.  It gets to presentation quality in about 5 minutes.

     

    I have a lot of cores (12 with HT making 24 logical processors out of two Xeon x5690s), but they are not nearly as fast as those in the i7-3770K.

     

    If you'd like to try the same file, here's a link to a copy (warning, fairly large download at 42MB):

     

    http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/temp/ChevyDodgeFord12MP.psd

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 10:46 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    FYI, it actually finished in 1 hour 15 minutes.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 11:44 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    Robert, your 3D can be cleanly rendered in under 10 minutes with my puny 8 GB and dual core machine. Very little of the image area needs to be rendered. No shadows are cast onto the groundplane, no background is being rendered and the four objects are very small.

     

    Target the 3D layer and make a rectangular marquee around one object, only very slightly larger than the object. Render that then press Cmd+J to copy the rendered region to a new layer. Repeat for the remaining three objects. Composite the 4 small renderings with the 2D layers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 11:46 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    I have a VisionTek ATI Radeon HD 7850, but the video card isn't really used for the ray tracing rendering - just for the previews, which should be completely interactive with both our cards.

     

    It's all about CPU throughput during ray tracing rendering.

     

    My Ray Tracer setting for High Quality Threshold is 5, which may still be too high, as the result gets quite good well before it finishes.  Everything else is set on max as far as I can see.

     

    I suspect there's something specific wrong that's causing your rendering to be so slow.  What do you have the ray tracer threshold set at?

     

    Did you try rendering the file I posted?  What did you observe?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 11:52 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    Not having seen your 3D file I can't comment on differences in complexity.  I'll by happy to try your file if you'd like to send me the link.

     

    I'm not surprised your system rendered my file faster - your individual core speed is double mine.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 11:58 AM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    Well, a longer rendering time could be explained by the quality threshold being set on max.  Try dialing it down some.  I don't think I ever moved my setting off of 5.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2013 12:07 PM   in reply to R-J van Eijk

    If you look very closely you can see that the shadows aren't utterly smooth with the threshold on 5, but it's not like there's an egregious quality problem.

     

    Example:

     

    After 5 or 6 minutes of rendering, the shadow detail in my image looks like this:

     

    RenderAfter5Min.jpg

     

     

    After waiting for "completion" at quality level 5, the shadows look like this:

     

    RenderAfter75Min.jpg

     

     

    Only you can define what your quality goals are.  I think you have to experiment and wait out the results at least once.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points