HIGH QUALITY RENDER

[Ria7]

YOU ARE MOST WELCOME MARMITE..I LOOK FWD TO SEEING MANY OF YOUR
FRACTALS HUGGIES...RIA

[opalibra]

Hi A,
I have read through this thread and I have to say it is very informative and will have to try the settings you have recommended. I have mine set like X had mentioned in his tutorial-64 bit and 4000 quality, 800 x 600 or less in render settings and 100 for the drop down box of fractal and I am lucky if I get one to render in under 10 minutes, most take about 15-25 minutes or more. I will try render using the 5 in fractal tool bar, lowering the zoom scale-I am guilty of taking it up to the + side and try using the upsize scale box instead, I am not to concerned of the render time and didn't know that I could be fiddling with another fractal while one is rendering-I have both the 3D and beta up and while one is rendering I go to the other one to play with the triangles.

Does having the render settings set at 64 bit for buffer depth and 4000 quality make for the longer render time? And if it does, by lower them to 32 bit and say 2000 quality, will this affect the sharpness of the rendered file?

Thank you for taking the time explaining things and having patience with us newbies!

opalibra-Sally

[Ria7]

Welcome welcome Opalibra...so good to see you here...A has been on holiday...so I will try to reply
and PM or X or anyone else can jump in if they like. A told me that the 2000 or 4000 setting take
the same time so we may as well use the best which is 4000
I like the 64 bit and I usually render around 15 minutes...and many lately have been 20 to 25 minutes,.
I think the detail in the image may make a difference, not sure..or maybe if it is a grainy image and I
dont or cant make any more changes to the Gamma ( which helps to keep the graininess out) then
I find it takes a bit longer..Some others like Kathryn say they render in a few minutes...I can't seem
to do that and get the quality I want. So it is really up to you, If you get tired of waiting then you can
change the settings but I would leave the 100 set as it is and not go lower for that one. Everyone on
here is so helpful so don't be afraid to ask over and over, I am still learning and still asking...
hugs....ria
cant wait to see what you do....

PS...I GET THE BEST QUALITY AT 4000 AND 64 BIT AND I SET MY ZOOM AT -0.5   FOR EVERY
RENDER I DO.  A TAUGHT ME THAT AND IT WORKS FOR ME. AFTER YOU SET THE ZOOM
YOU CAN THEN RAISE THE SCALE TO THE SIZE YOU WANT IN THE WINDOW. I ALSO
SET MY SIZE IN SETTINGS JUST AS YOU SAID ABOUT  800 X 750...OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

[opalibra]

Hi Ria,

Thanks for replying (didn't know A was on holiday, haven't had a chance to read through many of the posts) and glad to finally have something to talk about on this forum with retiring from flake making about a year or so ago!

I did a trial run tonight of saving the same fractal-1 in 64 bit with 4000 quality and set at 5 in fractal box-I have not seen any difference in this number being changed from 100, the other render was lowered to 32 bit and 2000 quality and again 5 in the drop down box. There is very little difference and the only thing I see that is a bit different in the 32 bit is some of the brightness is toned down just a tad and makes some more of the details stand out. I will post my result below and with them being next to each in my folder and clicking the arrow back & forth I could see this detail. The pics look identical and don't notice any graininess in the 32 bit/2000-only difference I see is in the highlights & depth on the the ribbon/smoke-not sure what you call it! LOL I did another one but I messed up and moved the slider bar on the gradient so it was useless for comparison so I did the one below and left the adjustment box reduced-out of sight, out of mind, when the 1st render was done I clicked on render again and made the changes there! Hope this all makes sense!  I also play with the gamma and brightness, when the need arises, now my next test will be with the drop down box so we can compare the 5 to the 100 renders using the 64 bit/4000 & 32bit/2000 setting. I did reduce the zoom on all the renders today and increased the scale in camera setting, I did notice the render time was reduced in most of the ones made with these settings and the ones below were made in the beta program.

Here is 64 bit/4000


Here is 32bit/2000


opalibra
 

[Ria7]

They look great Opal, I hardly see any difference at all in the two. I tried once to render one image completely
and then just for the heck of it I rendered it a second time, just as long, titled it #2 and when I was done I compared the
first render alone with the 2nd re-render and there was not one bit of difference, So I won't do that again, A lot of this
is trial and error, I just remember A telling me to keep the drop down box number at 100 and I do what he says as
I think he is a wonderful teacher and I cannot wait for him to come back. I think you are trying really hard and getting
some great results. I also find that you are more thorough than other starters who just jump in and try the imaging
and of course that knowledge you are getting from reading the tutorials and testing will pay for you in the end.
I think you are doing great. For me, I love the 64 bit and 4000...I am renderring one now that is 24 minutes.
I don't think that is too long for something I spent over an hour creating. I cant wait to see more of your work Opal.
Hugs....ria

OK I just took a really good look at the 2000 render and the 4000, if you look right above the pink line
on the right, you can see that the 2000 has a bit more graininess in it and the 4000 is clearer but it is
not a huge difference. I am looking at the Tulle like design above the pink line on the right. Also look at the
top center between the light blue and the pink...the 4000 is much less grainy than the 2000. So it is up to you
how particular you are about the clear image verses the bit more grainy. 

[opalibra]

Ria,

Glad we agreed on the difference in the ribbons/smoke and Tulle-is the best description! LOL And I is not enough to really notice but if you are looking for clarity on the renders then it is best to go with higher numbers. I am almost done with the 5 versus 100 in 32/2000 & 64/4000, I must have read wrong but I thought A said it didn't matter if this number was 5 or 100 as the settings in the render are what make them turn out either way. We will see here in just a bit! LOL

Sally

[opalibra]

OK, here is test result from the 64bit/4000 5 & 100 versus 32bit/2000 5 & 100 renders

I chose this one as it is more transparent then the above ones and figured if there is going to be a difference it would show up in this style

64 bit/4000 quality drop down box set at 5, it took 6 minutes .47 seconds to render & save


64/4000, db box-100, 5 minutes 40.07seconds (1st time I have seen the 5 take longer than the 100)


32/2000, db box-5, 2 minutes 43.38 seconds


32/2000, db box-100, 2 minutes 50.39 seconds (not much difference in render time here)


Once again the only thing I see is a very slight difference in the highlights on this one. OK, I am done with comparing hard to see when you have to scroll from pic to pic in windows gallery but with them all in one spot it should be easier to see. Think I will stick with the higher numbers for now and if time becomes an issue then I know there is not that much difference going with the smaller numbers!

opalibra-Sally

[Ria7]

I agree totally with you OpaLibra, and I also always render the longer way, but when I am tired
and want to go to bed, I do the very quick render by full screen, save it in jpg. then save the
Paramater file and next day when I have more time, I open it up again and do a full render. I
do this a lot, because sometimes time is not available to me. ...By the way they are very very pretty...hugs...ria