Massive Render Dimensions

[ParticleSkull]

Hey guys, how's things going?

A client just asked me to render some images on the huge dimensions of 29528 x 29528p

i've successufully done it through backburner, using slices, but it would take forever on my machine. Then I've tried to send it to Rebus Farm but i'm getting an error saying:

The renderer is running out
of memory. Please optimize
your scene for smaller memory
footprint. If it takes more
than 64GB we cannot render it.

What would optimize my scene for render? Reduce the amount vertex, smaller textures, less lights? Sincerelly, I have no idea.

Does anyone had a similar problem? Should I render it somewhere else?
Any tips will helpful.

Thx,
Alvaro

[pokoy]

Try to figure out where most of memory is used and do some math. If you have many large textures, it's good to resize them, sure. The frame buffer for the whole image takes 4.9 BG in 16 bits, each additional render element will need the same amount of memory on top. Rendering scanlines is probably still a good idea to reduce memory usage, also switching off the frame buffer can help, too.

[Ondra]

actually just beauty + alpha + weights (minimum Corona does) is 18 GB at this resolution, because we have 32bit-only frame buffer

[arqrenderz]

What about disabling the render buffer? just put a noise limit and save the image, i manage to render a big image that way..

[maru]

The most important question is whether such huge resolution is really needed here. What kind of render is this?

[ParticleSkull]

Thx for the quick reply guys,

I have a lot of render elements, 12 I think, could it be the problem?

Beside of that my scene is not that complex. It have around 500k vertices, a couple of 1200p textures and no animation. It have a Corona Sun + Corona Sky on the background and the lighter blue parts (inside the object and contourning some fragments) are light. I'm attaching a print screen of it.

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AgYbcqSddOAHgvMLIBD3PlReOYyuFw

Daniel, in fact i managed to start rendering it here on my machine but, since it would take forever, i've decided to send it to RebusFarm but i'm getting this problem there. I will give their support this idea though, thx - edit: i've just realize what u mean and they probably have it disabled

Maru, it's a 5m print with 150dpi. I believe it would be totally fine to print it at 72dpi using 14174p but my client want it like this so i'm giving my best. If it doesn't work and somehow I manage to render it with the lower-res, i'll try to convince them ;)

Thx,
Alvaro

[johan belmans]

If I am not mistaken each render element will add 2 GB or Ram usage.
If you make use of the denoiser feature then switch it off. Because this consumes a lot of RAM.

[PROH]

A little (secret) trick that can be used in cases where client are requesting huge renderers without any logical reason is to render it out at a lower size and then upscale it in Photoshop. This way the client gets what he wants without you having a major headache.

Of course it has to be a secret :)

[ParticleSkull]

Thx belly, I'll give it a try right now. I do have the denoiser on, i'll swithc it off
PROH, it can be my last resort ;)

[Frood]

You could try this:

https://forum.corona-renderer.com/index.php/topic,9312.msg60171.html#msg60171

It avoids large framebuffer memory usage by using rendertype #blowup + region - not available in standard GUI afaik. Saved several a*s*s during 4GB limit days. Maybe 5x5 tiles will do it.

Good Luck

[maru]

A little (secret) trick that can be used in cases where client are requesting huge renderers without any logical reason is to render it out at a lower size and then upscale it in Photoshop. This way the client gets what he wants without you having a major headache.

What I was about to write. :>

[sebastian___]

A few years ago I asked on a forum which image had better quality and higher resolution.
About half of the people chose the lower resolution image as "the one with a higher resolution"

But I used a plugin with a better algorithm for re-sizing (I don't remember which one, there are a few for After Effects as well). The photoshop bicubic sharp one is not enough. Even lanczos is better for that.

A little (secret) trick that can be used in cases where client are requesting huge renderers without any logical reason is to render it out at a lower size and then upscale it in Photoshop. This way the client gets what he wants without you having a major headache.

Of course it has to be a secret :)

[Juraj]

A little (secret) trick that can be used in cases where client are requesting huge renderers without any logical reason is to render it out at a lower size and then upscale it in Photoshop. This way the client gets what he wants without you having a major headache.

It doesn't have to be secret at all. Clients (actually, pretty much no one, not even most 3D guys, just read cgarch and chaosgroup, the simpler people don't get it either )don't understand the relationship between digital input and the print process. You can print using 2400 DPI offset technology if you want, and it doesn't matter what your input is, if it's 600px Instagram crap, 6k px/24MP photo or 30 000 px render. It takes 10 minutes of explaining and then just sending what you find reasonable. DPI =/= PPI.

I am surprised you even tried to render it :- ) Your client probably didn't do any mathematics, he just asked for 5 meter big 150 dpi print. Did he really ask for the exact resolution (30k) directly ? Because I've seen often it's just something 3D artists assume it's asked from them.

30k render would be ridiculously stupid, no kind of texture or geometry detail would look good at that size. And it would never render.

I am rendering currently 12k 360 panorama, and it's taking 30 hours using 60 cores (of E5 Xeons, 120 threads !!). 30k would take like a full week using half of my render farm. Or something like 250+ euro on Rebus. Just no.

But nonetheless, Corona could do away with little bit less memory hungriness. It's not too high priority but when I routinely use my 64gb memory it's kinda funky :- ).

If you go the up-scaling way, try fractal upscaling using some plugin. I had surprisingly good result, it keeps nice AA although of course it won't introduce detail that's not there. But still way better than some bicubic interpolation :- )

[Christa Noel]

A little (secret) trick that can be used in cases where client are requesting huge renderers without any logical reason is to render it out at a lower size and then upscale it in Photoshop. This way the client gets what he wants without you having a major headache.

that's so hardcore man! but anyway, that's already been my secret way for some big image render :D it's surprisingly to know that i'm not alone and this isn't even a secret here lol :D

30k render would be ridiculously stupid, no kind of texture or geometry detail would look good at that size. And it would never render.

yes I'm totally agree with juraj. we should to know how big our texture is.. if not we're doing unreasonable thing.
if I were particleskull I have to make client understand this but I don't know how to make a good explanation to the client.

If you go the up-scaling way, try fractal upscaling using some plugin. I had surprisingly good result, it keeps nice AA although of course it won't introduce detail that's not there. But still way better than some bicubic interpolation :- )

did you mean ON1? I heard it from some friend but never tried

[sebastian___]

I found this plugin "Blow Up" http://www.alienskin.com/blowup/

 

another one was a AE plugin from redgiant. Maybe this one
https://www.redgiant.com/products/instant-4k/