Loading...
> >

render resolution limited?

3D Vitality3D Vitality Posts: 115
in Bryce Discussion

Hi again...  could it be that Bryce could not render larger then 4000x2000 px??? Really? I don't need that size for scene setup but I need for sure a 8k x 4k render of that scene. That seem to be impossible ....  or can I only reach this with Horo's manual tile render method ? Please tell me that there's a more simple way!!!  surprise

Comments

  • HoroHoro Posts: 10,632

    Turn the camera by 90 degrees. The 4000 px limit is only horizontal, vertical can be bigger.

  • 3D Vitality3D Vitality Posts: 115

    Now answer to myself:  No. There's no easy way to do renders about 4k in Bryce. angry   So it's useless to use Bryce as a support-software to produce some serious stuff for other applications. Much to much effort in relation to the result (= you'll never get back what you invested, time and/or money.)

    You see, I didn't worked with Bryce for a very long time, otherwise I wouldn't surprised that way. Sorry for my silly questions. frown

     

  • 3D Vitality3D Vitality Posts: 115
    Horo said:

    Turn the camera by 90 degrees. The 4000 px limit is only horizontal, vertical can be bigger.

    Hm.... I need a 360 degree spherical render...  I know there was a method by David Brinnen for that...  Hoped the things would go more easily after this long time but.... okay. I'll see if I jump in.

  • HoroHoro Posts: 10,632

    If you're thinking about the Spherical Mapper to create spherical panoramas, the trick with rotating the camera doesn't work. I tried it not long ago. There's no direct way to make panos wider than 4000 pixels - well, you can render to disk, which is - in my experience - not very reliable. When I make spherical panos from Bryce renders, I render the 6 faces of a cube and then combine them in an external program.

  • 3D Vitality3D Vitality Posts: 115
    Horo said:

    ...  well, you can render to disk, which is - in my experience - not very reliable. ...

    Ah, good to know that there is no restriction in px limit...   Can you please explain closer why render to disk is not very reliable? Does the app running out of memory, or are there for unknown circumstances a lot of render errors? Thanks in advance!!!!!!!!!

  • HoroHoro Posts: 10,632

    No, I can't - sorry. I've tested it quite a while ago and wasn't always happy with the result and then there were those telling it only uses 1 core. Well, that's not true. I just tested a render (small, only 400 px wide) with Low, Normal and High priority on an I7 with 4 multithreaded cores (makes 8). The priority setting for render to disk is honoured:
    Low 486 seconds 1 core),
    Normal 184 seconds (4 cores),
    High 174 seconds (4 cores and 4 multithreaded)
    Rendering on screen with Normal Priority 262 seconds.
    Render to disk is actually faster.
    So, I recommend you test it yourself and don't listen what other say.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.