"Skywise" <int### [at] oblivionnothingcom> wrote in message 
news:4483ebd0@news.povray.org...
> Here's the render time in seconds of the first few frames along
> with the number of spheres in each frame:
>
> frame - time - spheres
>  1   -   1  - 0
>  2   -   4  - 92
>  3   -   9  - 200
>  4   -  15  - 352
>  5   -  22  - 502
>  6   -  27  - 579
>  7   -  33  - 678
>  8   -  40  - 774
>  9   -  54  - 900
> 10   -  61  - 984
>
> So even if the 10th frame was rendering it's own plus the previous
> 9 frames spheres, that's only 5,061 spheres, which should still take
> only a second or two. One of the more complex frames, with over
> 13,000 spheres, only takes 4 seconds if I render it on it's own.
>
> Brian

Hi Brian,

I've not noticed any increase in time with rendering of successive frames in 
an of my animations. Indeed I generally do a quick calculation based on the 
time for first couple of frames to work out how long the whole thing will 
take and it generally works out fairly close to what I'd expect. I would 
think your best option would be to reduce the complexity and see whether the 
problem persists.

For example, you could try rendering the same frame 10 times and see whether 
each successive frame takes the same time or not. That is to say, hard code 
the include of frame 5 and see whether it takes the same amount of time for 
each of 10 frames in an animation.

If you can simplify it down, so that you end up with a small number of very 
short files that illustrate the problem, then you could post your SDL on the 
scene-files newsgroup and others could see if they can replicate your 
problem.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message