Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

3dkobi

Computer Freeze For 30 Sec. With Large Tex Maps

Recommended Posts

6000k LDR textures (with one layer) need 102 MByte of RAM. If you have n layer you get n times 102 MB. If you use HDR it's even more.

Try to reduce the image size to what you realy need. Keep in mind that you only need a maximum resolution where one texture pixel is about as large as one rendered pixel at any point of your rendering/animation. Everything more is unneccesary.

4 GB are only usefull if you have a 64 bit OS, otherwise you realy only have about 2-3 GB available.

Higher RAM speed has no noticable impact on your loading or rendering speed.

Maybe try to use a fast image format like TGA. It will need more diskspace but less CPU time to process.

Cheers

Bjorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topic Author
  • paulselhi - I've looked at the link, but I can do all those things directly in c4d, no ?

    srek - thanks for the info. i'm using win xp32 bit now so the system see 3.5 gb, and i've done renders in which c4d used 2.4 gb ram...no problem there...

    1. Are there ANY benefits to higher ram speed ?

    2. So, if my final render is 1280*720, I don't need any texture to be bigger than that ??

    3. what are the pros/cons of the different formats: jpeg, tiff, tga, png ?

    thelast question is what bothers me the most...

    peace

    kobi

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I can get away with 2x 16 k textures one for color and one for bump using 2gb ram

    http://www.black-and-white-to-color.com/stuff/mars2.mov 6mb

    and in this example i used vray SPD !!

    warning 82 MB file !!

    http://www.black-and-white-to-color.com/stuff/starsmars2.mov

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    the command line render is to be used from a dos prompt without opening c4d thus saving on the overhead of having the program open

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • Ok, now that is a RAM saver :)

    now i'm just waiting for an answer to my 3 questions (3 posts above), and i'll be a happy man... rolleyes.gif

    peace

    kobi

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    best do a google on the format question. I know that jpegs give lossy compression ( = artifacts_ and though they appear smaller c4d has to decompress them on the fly ( load a jpeg in irfanview and you can see it's uncomressed size

    PNG tend to ne large but i think use losless compression

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320314

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    1. Are there ANY benefits to higher ram speed ?

    Only in benchmarks, not in real life

    2. So, if my final render is 1280*720, I don't need any texture to be bigger than that ??

    Not neccesarily. If you zoom in on an object so that a single pixel of the texture on it becomes larger than a rendered pixel you will need a higher texture resolution.

    3. what are the pros/cons of the different formats: jpeg, tiff, tga, png ?

    JPEG

    Pro: Small filesize, no additional codec required

    Con: Lossy compression, additional CPU yield due to decompression (small)

    TIFF

    Pro: Lossless compression

    Con: Larger Filesize, depending on compression codec needed (QT)

    TGA

    Pro: Lossless compression, fast loadtimes

    Con: Larger Filesize

    PNG

    Pro: Small filesize

    Con: Lossy compression, additional CPU yield due to decompression (small), codec needed (QT)

    My personal favourite for bitmaps is TGA due to it's compatibility, image quality and fast load times.

    Cheers

    Bjorn

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • Thanks, that's all the info I needed...

    paulselhi - your animations are great, and yeah, vray SPD is great :)

    peace

    kobi

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    apart from the parallax issue, the stars move to fast in the background they would move much slower in reality as the distances are..well astronomical

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...