Textures and Render Time...

Chris2005 · August 2014

So, rendering Nightfever's superb Enterprise E at 1080p is taking 30 minutes a frame, which it wouldn't take nearly that long in C4D... however, when I removed the textures using the material override feature, Nightfever's Enterprise E went from 30 minute per frame to under 5 minute a frame... what can I do with the texture files to preserve that faster render time?

evil_genius_180 · August 2014

Check your material settings to see if there are any things that add to render times, such as transparency, reflections, etc. Otherwise, making them smaller would do the trick, but you'll sacrifice quality for speed.

Chris2005 · August 2014

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

Check your material settings to see if there are any things that add to render times, such as transparency, reflections, etc. Otherwise, making them smaller would do the trick, but you'll sacrifice quality for speed.

Only 3 material slots used: Diffuse, Specular and Bump.

I'm always like, how back in 2002 could they render CG models like the Enterprise E in Nemesis so photo-realistic for Full HD and in a decent amount of time... and then it dawns on me, render farms.

Update:

I've reduced the texture resolution by a lot, but it still takes much longer to render...

The saucer texture is down from 6144 x 6144 to 1014 x 1014... still takes magnitudes longer to render... yet the textures are lower resolution (after I reduced them) than JMoney's textures on Prologic9's Enterprise D and it renders much much faster, especially now that I have more RAM and CPU cores.

evil_genius_180 · August 2014

What's the DPI on the textures? Also, in what image format are they saved? (IE: .jpg, .png, .bmp)

Chris2005 · August 2014

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

What's the DPI on the textures? Also, in what image format are they saved? (IE: .jpg, .png, .bmp)

Not sure about the DPI, but the textures are PNG files.

evil_genius_180 · August 2014

You could try converting them to .jpg files. That may help.

Chris2005 · August 2014

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

You could try converting them to .jpg files. That may help.

Reduces the file size of the texture files, but doesn't reduce render time by much.

spacefighter · August 2014

i doubt the size of the texture image will have much effect on render time. it is more likely that there is a material setting doing this(something like specularity, transparency, a shader of some sort, etc). i know from experience in blender that a huge texture mapped onto an object is no slower than a really low res texture, the only texture related cause i can think of is if the specularity, glow or bump effect is working on a really high res texture and producing correctly coloured shadows or such for each and every pixel, if you really reduce the size of the bump, spec and (if you have any) glow textures then you should get normal quicker render times with the diffuse and colour texture images left at full res.

Chris2005 · August 2014

spacefighter wrote: »

i doubt the size of the texture image will have much effect on render time. it is more likely that there is a material setting doing this(something like specularity, transparency, a shader of some sort, etc). i know from experience in blender that a huge texture mapped onto an object is no slower than a really low res texture, the only texture related cause i can think of is if the specularity, glow or bump effect is working on a really high res texture and producing correctly coloured shadows or such for each and every pixel, if you really reduce the size of the bump, spec and (if you have any) glow textures then you should get normal quicker render times with the diffuse and colour texture images left at full res.

There isn't anything different from any of the other ways I apply materials to the ships I use.

evil_genius_180 · August 2014

Yes, the size of your textures can make a difference, but that's obviously not it. The computer has to use more processing power and RAM to render larger files than it does to render smaller ones. Though, that's not to say it's necessarily going to be a huge difference, especially on newer computers with multi-core processors and more RAM. Also, the specific software can make a difference in this regard, as different programs have different texture limits and different ways of using system resources.

Something about the textures is definitely causing a huge increase in render times. Are there a lot of textures? IE: are there a lot more than other models that render more quickly?

Chris2005 · August 2014

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

Are there a lot of textures? IE: are there a lot more than other models that render more quickly?

There are 32 textures in total for Nightfever's Enterprise E.

However, the textures are pretty optimum. Saucer has 2 individual texture files each with a specular and bump map. The nacelles are all one texture file, again also with a specular and bump, same with the secondary hull and the Captain's Yacht.

The rest of the textures are much smaller, with the exception of the lounge textures which are 1024 x 1024.

Even if I reduce the resolution down to something similar to JMoney's textures for the Enterprise D which are basically 4k, the render still takes just as long.

The saucer, nacelle and secondary hull textures are 6k, they're the highest resolution textures for the Enterprise E, but as I said, reducing their resolution doesn't decrease render time.

evil_genius_180 · August 2014

Yeah, 32 isn't a huge amount, given the model's complexity. I really have no idea. Maybe it's just a beast to render. Some models are like that.

Chris2005 · August 2014

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

Yeah, 32 isn't a huge amount, given the model's complexity. I really have no idea. Maybe it's just a beast to render. Some models are like that.

Which is unfortunate, since it renders in less than 5 minutes as a solid white model.

Chris2005 · August 2014

Well, I opened the C4D file, exported out without textures and materials, etc. not only is the Max file now smaller, even with the textures applied the model is rendering in under 1 minute, mind you, there are no lights in the scene.

Tralfaz · August 2014

Hi Chris,

I also use C4D and if you want, I can try rendering the model to see how long it takes me on my PC.

Al

Chris2005 · August 2014

Well, I re-exported it out of C4D to FBX without textures and materials, it's actually smaller than when I did it last time... and it renders faster in 3ds max now, even with most of the textures applied.

Just need to redo the lighting, etc.

evil_genius_180 · August 2014

So, exporting it with the textures caused it to be a larger file and a longer render. Interesting. Maybe it had something to do with how the materials or UVs were converted.

Chris2005 · August 2014

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

So, exporting it with the textures caused it to be a larger file and a longer render. Interesting. Maybe it had something to do with how the materials or UVs were converted.

I think I started with the FBX that Nightfever offers on his website, but I downloaded the C4D and exported it out in FBX without textures, brought it into Max and saved it and it turned out a smaller file, even after I reapplied most of the textures, the file size is still over 50 MB smaller than the other Max file and the render doesn't take nearly 30 minutes to do.

The file I was using is 247MB, the new Max file is only 169MB.

nightfever · August 2014

What about render times without the bump and/or the spec slot?
If it is the bump map, you could convert it to a normal map.

Chris2005 · August 2014

nightfever wrote: »

What about render times without the bump and/or the spec slot?
If it is the bump map, you could convert it to a normal map.

I'll give it a shot and see.

Update:
Disabling both didn't reduce render time.

However, they're all reapplied in the new Max conversion and render time is drastically reduced.

nightfever · August 2014

Okay glad to hear, then I will do an additional fbx export without textures for my future models...

By the way, a couple of months ago I updated my computer's hardware, too. And I had to decide between a FX-8320 (that you have) and a Intel I7-4770. Although it has less cores and was little more expensive, I choosed the I7 because it was better in all benchmarks (especially Cinebench). And I did not regret that decision at all.

Chris2005 · August 2014

nightfever wrote: »

Okay glad to hear, then I will do an additional fbx export without textures for my future models...

By the way, a couple of months ago I updated my computer's hardware, too. And I had to decide between a FX-8320 (that you have) and a Intel I7-4770. Although it has less cores and was little more expensive, I choosed the I7 because it was better in all benchmarks (especially Cinebench). And I did not regret that decision at all.

Nice. I would have went with an Intel processor myself as my replacement, but I hadn't raised enough. But the AMD processor is pretty nice, I'm able to play several games I wasn't able to on my older Intel Q6600.

evil_genius_180 · August 2014

I've got an AMD FX-8120 because I got it for a ridiculously low price on a Cyber Monday sale. It's a beast when it comes to rendering.

Greetings!

Textures and Render Time...

Posts

Greetings!

Quick Links

Textures and Render Time...

Posts