So, i'm going to try to render an image with the resolution above (128k) I bought an ssd and i'll use my sister's 770 for this hard job.
So what would you recomend me? I already did some 16k image and well, I asked some people and they did actually like it.
I want to make sure the size fits on my hard drive ( at least the tga before compressing )
So I actually have 266gb free on the drive i'll use for rendering this, I hope is enought.
I could also use other drive that isn't beign used, I belive that could make it go faster.or at least avoid brutal drive sounds that aren't going to let me sleep.
Why in fucks name are you trying to do this?
Also, if you want to do it, just try it, because i highly doubt anyone else has tried to render that high.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;40994340]Why in fucks name are you trying to do this?
Also, if you want to do it, just try it, because i highly doubt anyone else has tried to render that high.[/QUOTE]
Out of curiosity, I would like to know how an image like this is supposed to look like.
Also I want to scale it back from 128k to 1080p
That would give a ridiculous amount of antialiasing.
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;40994340]Why in fucks name are you trying to do this?
Also, if you want to do it, just try it, because i highly doubt anyone else has tried to render that high.[/QUOTE]
He obviously wants to see if he can see the atoms that make up the characters.
A rough estimation, assuming 8 bpp depth, gives 100 GB for a such picture, if uncompressed. Don't forget SFM renders a TGA and then converts it, so add another 70 or so GBs.
There's a high chance this file will get corrupted or not render at all, depending on SFM's rendering implementation. And I heard stuff of HDDs tuning dead while working with large uncompressed AVIs from AfterFX-related people, so do exercise caution. Also, viewing this file will require quite a rig.
[QUOTE=revzin;40994679]A rough estimation, assuming 8 bpp depth, gives 100 GB for a such picture, if uncompressed. Don't forget SFM renders a TGA and then converts it, so add another 70 or so GBs.
There's a high chance this file will get corrupted or not render at all, depending on SFM's rendering implementation. And I heard stuff of HDDs tuning dead while working with large uncompressed AVIs from AfterFX-related people, so do exercise caution. Also, viewing this file will require quite a rig.[/QUOTE]
16k tga file is only 400mb, with default settings
so:
400/16: 25 mb per 1920*1080 tile
so: 400*128: 51200 mb, wich is arround 50 gb.
But when compressed to jpeg it should be smaller
[QUOTE=eirexe;40994754]16k tga file is only 400mb, with default settings
so:
400/16: 25 mb per 1920*1080 tile
so: 400*128: 51200 mb, wich is arround 50 gb.
But when compressed to jpeg it should be smaller[/QUOTE]
Well, I did a rough estimation assuming that every pixel is three bytes (RGB) and no compression is performed so your result is much more modest for sure. :)
Good luck on it. Im not stupid enough to do it myself. Also i wonder how log it will take to render :p
Love your enthusiasm to just check things out for the heck of it. The aliasing part could be fun. Let us know how it works out, if you decide to go for it.
[QUOTE=Minimal;40997606]Good luck on it. Im not stupid enough to do it myself. Also i wonder how log it will take to render :p[/QUOTE]
with my sister's 770 it could be done in less than a night
[QUOTE=eirexe;40998133]with my sister's 770 it could be done in less than a night[/QUOTE]
How'd you calculate this?
Tell me how it went...
[QUOTE=fibao;41032950]Tell me how it went...[/QUOTE]
Legend says that the image is still rendering to this day.
[QUOTE=Dr. Doughnut;41040795]Legend says that the image is still rendering to this day.[/QUOTE]
Tonight
[QUOTE=Marlamin;41032845]How'd you calculate this?[/QUOTE]
780 takes not a lot of time to render at 16k
Another thing is writing to disk, that takes ages.
Eagerly awaiting the image.
[sp]Watch as it's a sex pose between zoey and francis from L4D[/sp]
I'm doing it tonight, if you want you can give me a dmx so I can use it for the image.
[QUOTE=eirexe;41058264]I'm doing it tonight, if you want you can give me a dmx so I can use it for the image.[/QUOTE]
i got a few DMX files
Someone give him one infested with lights and particles so it quadruples the render time.
Any update on the progress of your render?
Rest in peace Eirexe's computer
[QUOTE=humzahh;41115589]Any update on the progress of your render?[/QUOTE]
i'd render it.
But I want to render something interesting, not just a piece of crap :V
[QUOTE=eirexe;41153190]i'd render it.
But I want to render something interesting, not just a piece of crap :V[/QUOTE]
try rendering a piece of crap first
[QUOTE=gooooooooooogle;41153408]try rendering a piece of crap first[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. Just to see how well it comes out, how long it takes, etc.
I still don't get the point of all this.
[QUOTE=PalmliX;41155059]I still don't get the point of all this.[/QUOTE]
Its for [B]science[/B] man! Where is your sense of discovery?
[QUOTE=Hogie bear;41155172]Its for [B]science[/B] man! Where is your sense of discovery?[/QUOTE]
[I]Science isn't about why, it's about why not.[/I]
- Cave Johnson.
I was going to try this but SFM won't let me set the resolution to anything over 32000x18000 (676 tiles @ 16:9), so I'll just try that...
Btw, it looks like SFM uses the CPU when generating TGA data, with only one core! :suicide:
HDD Speed is hardly a bottleneck when doing this.
On another note:
128.000 x 72.000 = 128k
245.760 x 138.240 = 245k
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
