Instead of seeing how many seconds one frame takes to render and asking Google to multiply that by how many frames I have.
time remaining on render Indicator
- spartan00j

- Posts: 351
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:27 am
- Contact:
Is there a way to see an ETA on my renders?
Instead of seeing how many seconds one frame takes to render and asking Google to multiply that by how many frames I have.
Instead of seeing how many seconds one frame takes to render and asking Google to multiply that by how many frames I have.
Win 11
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
- spartan00j

- Posts: 351
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:27 am
- Contact:
So Is there anyone that can answer?
If this is not possible please let me know
If this is not possible please let me know
Win 11
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
- spartan00j

- Posts: 351
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:27 am
- Contact:
It's been 8 months.
No reply?
No reply?
Win 11
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
Why do you need this topic? But Octane Render ALREADY has the estimated time for completion (check "Render progress indicator"), ok?
NOTE: I'm sorry for bad english due to mute 
i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3
SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
NEW ViewSonic XG2431 24"
i7-12700KF
2x16GB RAM@DDR4-3600
MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
Zotac GF RTX 4090 <3
SSDs OCZ RD400 0.5TB and Crucial 2TB SATA3
HDD 1TB SATA2
LG BD-RE BH16NS40
PSU 1kW
NEW ViewSonic XG2431 24"
- spartan00j

- Posts: 351
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:27 am
- Contact:
I guess you didn't read my initial post correctly. What you're stating only shows the duration time of one frame. If I have 1,000 frames. And each frame takes 1 minute. The standalone should tell me. A render of a thousand frames will be completed in 16 hours and 40 minutes.nuno1980 wrote:Why do you need this topic? But Octane Render ALREADY has the estimated time for completion (check "Render progress indicator"), ok?
The point is that the plugins do this. But the Standalone for some reason doesn't.
Win 11
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
When you are rendering linearly through a sequence, there is no way to make a good prediction, because the image contents and frame render times can change drastically from beginning to end. The way we used to do it is run renders non-linearly, either random frame jumping, or repeated sparse sampling - rendering all the way through, but skipping 30 frames each time for instance, then going back and doing it again 29 more times. This gives you a pretty accurate estimate the whole job instead of trying to extrapolate from the first few frames.
This method doesn't work for all renders, though, since frame C may depend on information from frame B, which depends on frame A, etc.
A method I sometimes use is to render the whole animation at full quality, but at a much reduced resolution. Extrapolating from that can be pretty accurate, as long as the overhead for each frame isn't a significant chunk of render time. Even then, if you know the overhead, which parts are linear and which parts scale non-linearly (such as reading data vs writing/compressing etc.), you can subtract that and still get a reasonable estimate.
This method doesn't work for all renders, though, since frame C may depend on information from frame B, which depends on frame A, etc.
A method I sometimes use is to render the whole animation at full quality, but at a much reduced resolution. Extrapolating from that can be pretty accurate, as long as the overhead for each frame isn't a significant chunk of render time. Even then, if you know the overhead, which parts are linear and which parts scale non-linearly (such as reading data vs writing/compressing etc.), you can subtract that and still get a reasonable estimate.
Animation Technical Director - Washington DC
- spartan00j

- Posts: 351
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:27 am
- Contact:
Sorry, I didn't understand most of what you were saying. But to summon up are you saying that it is impossible? Because it's kind of strange since my using the Google method seems to work great. When come to estimating time.frankmci wrote:When you are rendering linearly through a sequence, there is no way to make a good prediction, because the image contents and frame render times can change drastically from beginning to end. The way we used to do it is run renders non-linearly, either random frame jumping, or repeated sparse sampling - rendering all the way through, but skipping 30 frames each time for instance, then going back and doing it again 29 more times. This gives you a pretty accurate estimate the whole job instead of trying to extrapolate from the first few frames.
This method doesn't work for all renders, though, since frame C may depend on information from frame B, which depends on frame A, etc.
A method I sometimes use is to render the whole animation at full quality but at a much-reduced resolution. Extrapolating from that can be pretty accurate, as long as the overhead for each frame isn't a significant chunk of render time. Even then, if you know the overhead, which parts are linear and which parts scale non-linearly (such as reading data vs writing/compressing etc.), you can subtract that and still get a reasonable estimate.
Win 11
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
128GB RAM
RTX 3060 TI
This feature will be in the next major build. It's a simple extrapolation so all of the caveats that @frankmci mentioned will apply - as the render progresses, if different frames take different amounts of time to render, the estimate will change.
