Maximum Render Size?
-
I too have this problem usualy around 8000px.
Seems to be a version 6 (and all it's updates) problem?
Appears to me that Google is ignoring the problem?
Glenn
SU 64112
2mg ram
DC 2.8
XP -
@mr s said:
Hi pmiller,
Well, this is very strange.
I have just tried rendering with anti-aliasing switched off and it made no difference.
Still getting the 'file failed to save' error.Any further ideas?
Mr S
Hmmm - wish I could help. Just tried it again with a model with 600K faces, 125K edges, 10,000 components at 9000 pixels, shadows, textures. No problems.
6.4.112
XPSP2
Dual Core 3.4 Ghz
2 Gb RAM
Quadro FX 1500Are you exporting jpg highest quality or some other raster format? Are you using one of the newer styles with sketchy edges?
-
Anyone care to try this (attached) file and share your results.
My Results:
AA off,export to .jpg.......I max out at 6500 pix. wide
AA off, export to .tif......I max out at 1800 pix. wide
best,
Charlie
-
9000 pixels to jpg highest quality - no problems. Also same 9000 to png.
-
I tried this out of interest.
I very very rarely use this as nearly all my work is rendered.
Results
AA off,export highest quality to .jpg.......I max out at 9770 pix. wide. The max I have ever used is 3000
AA off, export to .tif......I max out at 2140 pix. wide.Richcat
-
Before V5 I was exporting PNg & Epix at 9999 without any problems. Since V5 I have had problems saving such large files. I tried this particular file with the follwoing results>
AA OFF JPG 9999 OKAY
AA OFF PNG 9999 OKAY
AA OFF EPIX 9999 OKAY
AA ON JPG 9999 RUNTIME ERROR
Triead again and got Runtime Error Again.I think the complexity of the model has something to do with it as well. This is fairly simple and is not saving as a very large file. I beleive with a very large complex structure I would be less likely to save at 9999
-
I also have this problem, but have found that this is not an issue if upscaling in PS.
I always export to .png @ 3000px with AA on. Then in PS I upscale dpi to 300, which is the lowest a printer would want anyway (SU defaults to 72dpi, if I'm not mistaken). This should be fine for what you need and most likely will need to be downsized.
-
Looks like I'm going to have to retract my earlier post.
The test render file exported to jpeg at 9000p with aa off.
I tried a recent model, 12meg, also went fine at 9000p aa off.
Glenn
SU 64112
DC 2.8
2mg
nvidia geforce 6200se tc 256mg
xp -
Hi,
Just tried rendering the Charlie_V test file.
The best I could get was 7000px with AA switched off.I loaded up my original file which is a lot more complicated and was only able to get 4000px wide (also, I have shadows disabled). So, there does seem to be a number of factors at work here.
However, it seems stange that we are getting a variety of results from different people with machine specs similar to each other.
I rendered JPEG images using Vray and had no problem producing large files.
But as mentioned previously, Vray can write the image to disk rather than hold everything in RAM.Any other thoughts?
Mr S
-
I wonder if maybe the working environment has something to do with the export results too. At work, in a networked environment, I get different results than at home. Writing big images to a network folder often fails, or I get corrupt files, and exporting to the desktop works better. These problems happen only with rel. 6, not with v.4. Version 4 and older only have the AA issue, maxing at about 3000 pixels wide with AA on.
Anssi
-
Hi Mr S, hi folks.
For a JPG export with anti aliasing off, I can go as far as 7493 horizontal pixels (6636 vertical) with Windows XP-Pro on Pentium 4, 2.6 GHz, 2 Gigs RAM.
I will try on my Mac at home to get a comparison.
Just ideas.
-
I always have the same problem with exporting images larger than 3000 wide. Given the model is quite complex, about 60MB. SU5 works sometimes. SU6 is worse. My computer isn't a sewing machine either, a quad-core with 4GB of RAM and a QuadroFX 3500, running XP64.
-
Hey all,
Thanks to all those that gave it a go, and any who have not, please continue.
Given the small sampling of participants & simple file....Results are more or less as expected.(for me anyway).....Varied, and it appears not hardware specific.
I am no programmer....just curious.
Best,
Charlie -
Dejavu....I remember posting on an earlier thread dealing with this same issue, along with the Google folks who informed us they were looking into the problem.
I played around with a simple model on both SU Pro versions 5 and 6. The maximum image I've been able to export is 4000 pixels wide, AA on, jpeg quality at it's highest. However, changing my virtual memory from 2000/10000 MB to 5000/10000 MB I was able to export an image at 5000 pixels with AA on, and 7000 with AA off. Bumping my virtual memory up to 9000/20000 MB I was able to export an image at 9000 pixels with AA off.
-
Thanks for the input Daniel - that seems to do the trick.
-
Cheers Daniel
Richcat
-
Daniel,
Thanks for the advice on the pagefile limit increase, which did help some.& much apreciated!But........and always a but......right.
On both my Laptop & Desktop I am limited to 4096 max. pagefile.
Given both machines are a few years old(2gig ram)....& not overly computer savvy......why is SU quick to use "vitual"/pagefile memory for such a task?BTW Daniel......this question is not directed @ you...... just me thinking aloud.
Best,
Charlie
-
I can not export the image JPEG larger than 6000x4000. (uncheck AA) My computer is
AthlonX2 4400+
RAM 2 Gb
GeForce 7300GT -
Daniel,
What do you recomend for pagefile size for a dual core 2.8, 2mg ram, XP?
On some website I found last night, they suggested pf=1.5Xram.
Thank you,
Glenn -
First off, let me make it clear I am not a computer whiz. What I know about virtual memory is that it is used for "tricking" a program that a block of contiguous working memory is available for it's use, and I assume (but not entirely sure) available virtual memory is related to your RAM.
Glenn, the suggestion of 1.5xRAM is probably okay for most applications. When you access the virtual memory window on your computer it will inform you what is available. If needed, you can set it to the max in order to export a larger jpeg, and reset it back at a lower setting when done.
Virtual memory is not the only factor affecting this problem, I am sure. There is also your graphics card, processor, and probably even RAM.
At work I have Pentium 4 3GHz, 1GB of Ram, and NVIDIA 4200 series graphics card and it does okay. At home I have Pentium 4 3GHz, 3GB of Ram, and NVIDIA 6600 series graphics card and is a big improvement (large models I end up working on at home). I recently tried SU on my dad's laptop with VISTA, IGB RAM, and no dedicated graphics card - it wasn't a pleasant experience
. I just ordered a laptop with XP Pro, 4Gb of Ram and NVIDIA 8800 series card...can't wait to see how it performs.Charlie, SU (and other programs) are 'quick' to use virtual memory simply because said programs are memory intensive. If your computers are two years old you might want to look into upgrading their graphics cards and/or RAM. Like I said, I am not a computer whiz, but I do know from experience those things make a difference. Unfortunately, it isn't very long before computers become somewhat obsolete.
Advertisement