Vray For Revit Crack 1440
Magdalen Jhonston
Wanted to get your thoughts on this one. I'm doing my first full length feature animation...all 1min15sec of it. What a beast.I had originally quoted my client for 720p, but am now having considerable doubts as to whether it's high res enough. Obviously we would all love to be in the position to render at 1080 without flinching, but limited resources are real, and although I will be using a render farm I'm not keen to spend all my earnings on it
I'm eager to know what your experiences in this area are..'you' being all of you out there who are old hat in the animation field. I've always tended to stick to stills, but am really enjoying my new venture. Just don't want to render out at 720 and two years down the line kick myself for it when everything is in UltraUltraHD.
I'm doing an animation right now, about repairing and replacing two bridges in NY City. It has grown from what was supposed to be about 8 minutes to 16 minutes. I did get a bump in my budget, but 1/3 more, not 2x. So it goes when you want to do a good job.
I am rendering at 1080, meaning 1920x1080 at 30fps. I have, in the past, rendered at cinema-standard 24fps, but it didn't feel right on digital displays, so extra time to render without extra pay. I don't recall which video standard ZA uses, but if it is 25fps like the UK, you could render to that and save some time/expense.
You should not need a render farm unless you are doing something unusual. You can show GI without the computation overhead with fake or bake. Either put in lighting to fake where you would see light bounces to approximate the look (print out a full GI frame to look at while setting up your fakery) or bake the secondary bounces to high-res maps. Either way, you will be rendering primary lighting only, it's fast and has no flickering which can happen with many GI methods.
Even with GI, rendering engines are fast now. My digital artist son was about to buy a new laptop so I threw in double what he had to spend so he could get a more powerful, render-ready one. In exchange, I am 'borrowing it' for a week or two to be my extra rendering machine for animation frames.
Do you mind expounding on the quote above? I have used 'fake' GI with my stills, where I render out the GI at a small pixel size and save it to file, then load it with the final 4K image. I'm assuming that's what you mean by fake GI? I use Brute Force as Primary and Light Cache as secondary.
However, after doing some initial research I stumbled across info that advised against this method if you have moving objects in your scenes. My 1min25 animation consists of 13 different shots, and in almost all of them there is moving foliage/ a sun timelapse etc.
To give an example of how long we are looking at for some scenes...I did a 720p test on my desktop and 73 frames are still rendering at an estimated 58 hrs. I do have a desktop and a mean laptop, so two rendering stations, but with those hours it's impossible to do 13 shots all here. I realise GI takes a large portion of that time, so I would be chuffed to have a workaround.
Regarding GI or not GI, if your scene is only exteriors and you don't have closeups I recommend to do a search on this website of a post I did time ago of a method I use to "Fake GI". It renders very quickly and for exteriors looks great.
Just set your samples to 1-100 adjust the noise threshold as need it, set your light cache to 2500 or 3000 and let it rip. No need to use camera path or animation frames, nothing, just let it calculate per frame and you can have all objects movings and light changing too.
To save frames PNG or TGA are more video editing friendly than Tiff. Optimal would be EXR it doesn't matter if you don't save it as 32 bit float 16 bit should do just fine if you don't need extensive color adjustments.
PNG should be fine, but as I recall it has 'flavors', and I don't use it so be sure you are saving lossless and at 16bit. Both are to allow room for secondary processing in video editing software. The files are big, though.
Fake is placing extra lights to do as primaries what would be a secondary bounce. For example, sun hits the floor through a window, so you put an area light or omni near the floor pointing towards where the bounced light would go. You can then render without a secondary--no GI, so no flickering and FAST. However, it is a fake and can be seen as such if not done well, and takes time to set up and test. And very hard if you have moving anything, but especially the primary lights/sun.
Bake is a process that commits the secondary bounce to a file to re-use later so they are calculated once (usually Light Cache), and (bonus) at lower resolution. Vray has a good ability to do that. So again, fast but limited with moving major lights or objects. there may be solution with moving stuff, I haven't looked into it recently.
When we are asked to do animations these days we always assume Full HD 1080p @ 30fps minimum; 60fps being the ideal, but it honestly depends on the project/software. With max/vray we usually aim for 20 mins per frame, give or take 5 mins. Haven't had any requests for 4K yet.
If you were looking at getting frame times down you could simply cheat and use a different pixel aspect ratio so you're only rendering half the number of pixels along whichever axis (for example 1920x540 or 960x1080); then correct this in after effects/premiere pro. Obviously this represents a reduction in quality, but only along one axis, not both.
Yikes! 60fps, I've never looked into that. It must be smoooooth. I'm currently trying to keep track of about 30,000 frames, double that would be double the fun. Even Peter Jackson was happy with 48fps, and he took a lot of crap for it looking artificial.
It's worth noting we haven't had a project in max that we've been able to do at 60fps; this stuff is all realtime/gpu/enscape which allows us to push it. But yes, it's super smooth - so smooth that I'd be very tempted to budget for it next time we quote for an animation; which would usually be only a minute or so long.
When we do animations that we know we are going to need to use an online render farm, we bill that cost out to the client. We'll frame it around they can have the animation 2 weeks early for a few extra dollars or they can wait while we render everything locally.
That being said, with the insane advancements in Unreal, Lumion, Enscape, we are doing more and more of our animations in those tools versus the old school render farm. It is becoming even more common for us to take the Enscape paths from Revit and just insert our high quality still images throughout the animation. Surprisingly that has had quite a bit of success with our clients. You get this architectural model walk-though and at the start and/or end of each path you have the more descriptive beauty rendering.
I should also note that primary our animation requests go something like this. It is Monday morning and we get a panicked call from the client, the main donor who is putting up the money to name the building is coming in on Thursday. The donor wants to see an animated walk-through, we need to make it happen. Ready, set, panic!
Personally, I think the issue here is quality. I don't mean render quality as in no noise and high def etc, but more the realism achieved through good foliage, lighting, materials, reflections etc. If I'm missing something though please do tell! I've used these guidelines to reduce render times as much as possible: _animation_optimisation/
And as for flickering, I haven't done any high sample tests to really check. The reason I like brute force is because I have lots of delicate elements (like foliage and wooden slats and fur rugs) that tend to get big issues with IM.
I'm using Vray 3.x and for sure it's way more intuitive, but I have never set samples at 1-100. I'm usually 1-8 or 1-9. Is 1-100 the 'optimum' setting so that vray can use it's resources at it's best where needed?
the faked GI mentioned earlier I have done for 1 TV commercial which worked really well, basically GI turned off and ambient light with a vray dirt map inside. This renders super super fast and can have as many animated objects as you like with no flickering/noise but at the cost of quality. You really need to play with the settings to look right and a fair bit of post work on top.
Been using BF since VRay 2.4 and never looked back. I'm now on Next (VRay 4) and its only getting better. I use BF for everything, interior, exterior, stills, animation, moving objects, DOF, motion blur, particles etc.
Ok, awesome. In fact I was planning on switching to Vray Next for this project, but am hesistant now as I'm halfway through...always told myself never to try anything new midway through a project. Am interested to hear your feedback on Next...is it a lot faster than 3.x?
Now that I'm on the official release, we recently did a large(ish) exterior project with CPU, and compared to 3.6 I didn't notice any difference at all with render times. The new adaptive dome light is suppose to make things up to 7X faster, but on the chaos forum it would seem people are having endless issues with it so the adaptive dome light appears not to be ready from prime time yet, although some users are getting great results with it. The UI actually says WIP next to the adaptive tick.
b37509886e