9k render?

[philmaron]

hey guys, im diing right now... working on a print job and now im told "hey, we need the render in 9k square, tomorrow morning".

possible in octane/c4d with 2x980ti (6gb gpu-ram each) and 24gb computer ram?

[aoktar]

You can try it with output size set to 9k on simple scene. It consumes 1.235 Gb for just beauty pass.

[philmaron]

the question is, how can one acquire the goal? there must be a way other than "no, wait for the cloud"?

[prehabitat]

Break it up into 4 (or more) chunks. I remember there was a camera shift script that handled the camera alignment..

That said, surely you arnt at 5.9gb of your 6gb available and can bump the resolution up? Maybe make the scene ore efficient? (Not my specialty sorry)

[philmaron]

okay okay okay... problem was defenitely the polycount. instancing was almost impossible... BUT you guys brought me on some ideas.

first off, i rendered the beauties seperately from the lightpasses, which made the scene at least not crash when writing files. then i tried the oldie-but-goldie-trick: tile camera. u know, the neat little camera script in c4d, which makes multiple cameras from one? work like a charm! just renderen 4x4k which is almost 9k and everybodies happy.

i suggest that there should be a way in octane to render the passes after one another, some checkbox like "render as multiple instances" or something, similar to the "rende rinfopasses after beauty". then the vram could fully be spent on any single pass, couldn't it? Maybe it can't because of how unbiased gpu works, but maybe it is some day, aoktar?

thank you so much for your help, guys!

[aoktar]

maybe in 3.0

[mbetke]

Why do they need a 9k image in print?
I get this kind of requests also regular and clients tell me about it neds to in 300dpi because they got told so and don't know about dpi and all this stuff. I tell them that large prints on walls or buildings have not more that 70dpi and even lower because of the view distance and get away with it.

[whersmy]

why 9K?

Uber-Large Poster Print (24 x 30 inches).
And now for something obscene. Let’s make a really big poster print. At Costco, I can print an image at 24×30 inches for $8.99. That would require 7200 x 9000 pixels or 64,800,000 pixels. So, a full 300 ppi image would take, umm, 65 megapixels. Oops. They actually look pretty good at ~12-15 megapixels as long as you don’t hold your nose an inch from the picture.
In other words, pretty much every conceivable normal output format (from web images to an 8×10 print) requires less than 8 megapixels. If you’re a professional photographer creating movie posters, large print ads, or the like, you could probably benefit from a higher resolution. And there are some reasons why you’d like to have a little extra resolution to spare. But, while more is better, that doesn’t mean it’s necessary…

http://tildemark.com/how-many-megapixels-do-i-need/