=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> EagleSun wrote:
> > Can anyone guess why this render made me cry?
> >
> > ($$!)
> >
>  Because it took 2 weeks to render despite the small resolution?
>
>   Jerome
> - --
> +------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
> |    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
> |    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
> +---------------------------------+------------------------------+
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFEidrcd0kWM4JG3k8RAuc/AJ9Q24si/S2taxUTLZ7qOafeHESkNgCgsrF/
> P4ZZFl1JcGZzYzaXBybzjJU=
> =qAV2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

BOOM!  Oh how I wish all you guys's comments were true and that I was
joking... unfortunately, Jeberger guessed correctly (sortof...)

I found a parameter that can lead to a perfect render of earth, it's called
"sample".  I entered some blow-out number and clicked on "Run" to render
the image.  And yes, I forgot to turn on anti-alias.

Despite its small size, this render took 1 HOUR to render a simple 256^2
image!

This gets worse...

I'm working on a movie where the screen resolution will be 1280 x 720.
Assume I don't need to anti-alias (which I do), I'll render a single frame
for about 14 hours!  Since the scene should be about 2 minutes long, where
the frame rate will be 24 fps, that's going to take me 40 THOUSAND HOURS!
In simple terms, this translates to 1,687.5 days, or 4 years and 7 months..
assuming optimal and continuous rendering conditions 24x7 on a 2.6 GHz
system!

Post a reply to this message