/3/ - 3DCG

...Render times. I've had 2 and a half hours for 1 frame before. (1080p)

Also, 21 hours for a 250 frame animation (720p)

What I like to do now is go into the task manager and set the affinity of the rendering to 3 CPU's of 4 - so I can still use the computer for other things while it renders. Takes a tiny bit longer, but worth it. Or I render at night

but it looks terrible
the colors are too faded

>>362854
what is post

2.5 months, running on 12 machines 24 hours a day.

>>362892
why not have pretty colors right off the bat?

>>362895
What were you doing?

>>362909
minecraft animation XD

i had an archviz render go for about 43 hours. took three tries too, because my laptop (yes, i know) overheated the first two times and cut off power, so i sat it on top of a fan and ran it 24/7 rendering.

It was only a sketchup model as well, just with 3d high-poly trees and a hrdi background so the lighting got very complicated.

>>362915
I'm assuming this is the
>everybody walk the dinosaur
of /3/

>>362837
Single image render? You can do that in photoshop.

Longest render time I ever had for an animation would have been over 48 hours for a 24 frame animation.

This was back in 1988 on the Atari ST computer, 320x200 resolution, 16 colours. The software allowed you to place multiple chrome spheres inside a box. Each surface of the box was a 320x200 image and you could place up to 50 chrome spheres inside the box of any size and position. It would then box graphics reflected in the balls. It was pretty impressive for the time. Would take me seconds to do now a days.

I once saw a guy rendering for multiple weeks the Norman rig with ao and gi in mental ray. He would que up multiple machines and do it. This was this year mind you, so machines were i7 8gb ram. Long story short he could have been done in under an hour with 3delight and pointcloud ao. This manchilds animation at the end was so floaty and terrible, too.

Literally 500 hours for a ten second animation.

I was rendering a "render sample" that my software came with. It was filled to the brim with volumetric effects, thus taking ages to raytrace on what was ultimately low quality CGI at the best. It was fully optimized and at 1080p, and still each frame took 8 - 12 hours to draw.

Why dont you people just render everything seperate then compose it later in after effects?

>>362837
How is this taking 6 hours? High quality atmospheric scattering can be rendered in realtime nowadays

Not really 3DCG but animating a realistic stopmotion walk cycle a couple years back on ones @48fps was an effort. Took about 4-5 hours.

back in 87 it took me 90 hours to render a 800x600 2 color mandelbrot set on a sub megahertz computer. Does that count? This is kind of a subjective thing doncha' think?

>>362907
Because most of the time you want to have a histogram like this, and If you're working on more than 8bpc you'll have a blast color correcting and composting later. You'll limit yourself if you try to grade and color correct right of the 3D program. That's why most people also work in a neutral gamma space.

>>363067
This guy gets it. Always look for ways to just do it in post, you would be surprised with how much you can get away with. For example, what op is doing could be achieved in a fraction of the time, and look better, in after effects.

Roughly 360 hours for a 2 minute short film.

longest? 2 weeks total, some abstract fullhd animation bullshit i rendered in 4k to supersample it. longest still was an architecture preview in luxrender, 20 min :D
>pic related
>>363012
>Single image render?
looks like an animation to me