OTOY Forums

glimpse wrote:

aoktar wrote: Hi, who said that the exact numbers? I'm giving the math to do estimations. We can't know every setups of users. I can go up to 12k*12k with 3gb vram.

It might be me who gave "false guidelines", but I though they are true, as I do have more than enough vram (6GB) to push resolution higher, but after 8k x 8k I get blank screen.. even single pixel more 8193 instead of 8192 & I standalone doens't show anything - preview window is blank..

so, please share how You manage to get more.

Thanks in advance & sorry for confusion then.

Nothing is special here. Just click to render as you can see...

ok that "openGL" to "Software" helped! Thanks Guys! ..always something to learn =)

glimpse wrote:

aoktar wrote: Hi, who said that the exact numbers? I'm giving the math to do estimations. We can't know every setups of users. I can go up to 12k*12k with 3gb vram.

It might be me who gave "false guidelines", but I though they are true, as I do have more than enough vram (6GB) to push resolution higher, but after 8k x 8k I get blank screen.. even single pixel more 8193 instead of 8192 & I standalone doens't show anything - preview window is blank..

so, please share how You manage to get more.

Thanks in advance & sorry for confusion then.

Ha, no problem. Octane is new to me. I can't tell you what I did except set the output res. That was in Cinema. But now I've got my scene in Standalone it will render there much higher than in cinema. Haven't had a blank screen yet.

However the render looks different so I need to investigate why.

sdanaher wrote:
However the render looks different so I need to investigate why.

take a good look in forum through active topics =) just seen a thread discusting on this topic =)

glimpse wrote:

sdanaher wrote:
However the render looks different so I need to investigate why.

take a good look in forum through active topics =) just seen a thread discusting on this topic =)

thx will do

sdanaher wrote:

glimpse wrote:

sdanaher wrote:
However the render looks different so I need to investigate why.

take a good look in forum through active topics =) just seen a thread discusting on this topic =)

thx will do

not one, many threads and my replies about this.

sdanaher wrote: If so that's great. Now I just need to know if its scalable - can I add more cards to have access to more RAM?

VRAM is not additive.
The minimum number of VRAM size of all cards assigned to render will be your maximum available VRAM.

Examples:
If you have two cards with 6GB VRAM the available space is still 6GB VRAM and NOT 12.

If you have one card with 2GB VRAM and one card with 6 GB VRAM you only have 2GB of VRAM available.

- - -

VRAM and out of core textures:

In theory you can have the textures in your RAM since OctaneRender 2.2x.
But the geometry and your render still need to fit in your VRAM.

- - -

If you use extreme resolutions give some time for the scene to compile before you abort.

If you see red letters then you know for sure that the scene failed to load in your VRAM at your current resolution.
But be patient when waiting for extreme resolutions to load.

On my system a test scene at 15'000x15'000 took about a minute to appear in the viewport.


- - -

Side Note:

Consider if there is enough value increase in a time to final quality relationship when rendering out images larger than 3840x2160, 6000x4000, 4000x6000.

Your render time will certainly increase but are you actually using high enough resolution maps and high polygon count geometries that offer any visible detail?

For print I would consider alternatives like transforming your images to a high resolution vector file type or simply 2x or 4x upscaling in photoshop before increasing render time from one day to four days or even weeks...

Keep in mind that there are only a handful of photo cameras who offer resolutions higher than 36MB and even those "high quality resolutions" are in many cases simply enlarged versions of blurry detail than extremely sharp.

Also keep in mind that in most cases large prints are looked at from a higher distance.

Example:
Have a look around in your city if you can still find a movie poster of "Focus" (2015).

compare:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381941/

From afar the movie poster looks perfectly fine and normal. Only if you go really close you will actually notice that the whole image is made of a lot of pixelated squares.
- - -

linvanchene wrote:

sdanaher wrote: If so that's great. Now I just need to know if its scalable - can I add more cards to have access to more RAM?

VRAM is not additive.
The minimum number of VRAM size of all cards assigned to render will be your maximum available VRAM.

Examples:
If you have two cards with 6GB VRAM the available space is still 6GB VRAM and NOT 12.

If you have one card with 2GB VRAM and one card with 6 GB VRAM you only have 2GB of VRAM available.

- - -

VRAM and out of core textures:

In theory you can have the textures in your RAM since OctaneRender 2.2x.
But the geometry and your render still need to fit in your VRAM.

- - -

If you use extreme resolutions give some time for the scene to compile before you abort.

If you see red letters then you know for sure that the scene failed to load in your VRAM at your current resolution.

If not enough VRAM is available bar will be full and info in red letters.jpg

But be patient when waiting for extreme resolutions to load.

On my system a test scene at 15'000x15'000 took about a minute to appear in the viewport.

Wait about a minute for render to appear at extreme resolutions.jpg

Thanks for the info on Octane, that helps, though disappointing to hear the Vram isn't pooled. I guess I should get the 12GB titan x and be done with it then. I thought the load time was pretty good compared to vray though.

But one thing that impressed me is that octane renders take up-resing very well, they're very smooth. Much better than vray in that respect.