3D Renders - When is it big enough?
posted on 21st of august, 2010
|
|
|
|
As 3D artists, the size of the render we submit is totally up to us. All we have to do is to be willing to "put up" with tying our computers up while the image renders. This can take anywhere from mere minutes (the Marlin only took 15 mins) to hours (like this room!) It seems like the more complicated the image is, the longer it takes to render.
I have renders in my own portfolio that have taken as long as 48 hours to render. Others that took 12 - 18 hours. I've never minded until now because I was willing to leave my computer work that long.
But when does it stop being about the max size and and start being about time? Simple isolations that are not meant to be realistic take the least amount of time to set up and render, no matter what software you are using. The render I mentioned that took 48 hrs looks very realistic, but it only has a few downloads. I had rendered it to be 6.8MP. When I look at the size of the images downloaded compared to the time it took to render it this large, it was such a waste of time! I had been rendering things as large as I could so I could offer all the possible sizes, but now I'm not sure that's wise. I have a number of files started on my computer that I haven't finished because it would take entirely too long to render them at 4000 x 3000. When I look at the sizes that are being downloaded from my portfolio, I could easily get away with simply rendering them at a smaller size.
If you also have files that are gathering dust because of the render time, take another look at the size you intend to render them. Sometimes bigger isn't necessarily better!
|
Tags: 3d render simple size time
|
|
|
|
Comments (14)
|
 |
A lot of patience! That's why I use 3D in my job, but not in microstock!
- posted by
Trottola
on August 28, 2010 |
 |
Thank you for the answer! I think I`ll write support! :)
- posted by
Thanatonautii
on August 27, 2010 |
 |
You're only uploading an image, and most content copyrights allow for that. Double check to make sure.
- posted by
Avion49
on August 27, 2010 |
|
I have one question! If, let`s say, I render some images with Artlantis or 3DSMax and I use some rpc ( people, cars, flowers etc), am I aloud to upload such files?
Thanks!
- posted by
Thanatonautii
on August 27, 2010 |
|
*sigh* I only wish I had the cash for that one! DH is on disability so affording bigger computers is only a dream for me.
- posted by
Avion49
on August 27, 2010 |
 |
Consider parallel processing via networked cluster server. 5-100 computers can be tied together with a gigabyte network to obtain super computer speeds.
- posted by
Maxxgraphix
on August 26, 2010 |
 |
I've pretty much adopted a standard size of 2000 on the short size of a 4x3 image. Bigger for a simple isolated figure and sometimes smaller when I hit unacceptable render times. A second good reason for keeping sizes reasonable, especially when using bitmapped textures and commercial models, is that very large images start to show visible polygons, pixellation in textures etc.
- posted by
Heywoody
on August 26, 2010 |
|
Emielcia, there is no "right" answer there. Truthfully, you would need to take a good look at what you are actually selling compared to what you are creating. For me, creating 4000 x 3000 pictures is overdoing it, when what I'm selling is much smaller. They can easily be upsized so why should I spend the time making the bigger size when I can easily make a much smaller size and still have it be accepted.
- posted by
Avion49
on August 24, 2010 |
|
Very useful and important article. Every 3D artist must go through.
- posted by
Nectar3d
on August 23, 2010 |
|
So what is the optimal size of 3d renders?
- posted by
Emielcia
on August 23, 2010 |
|
I would think it would be mandatory to have a second computer to "churn" out the renderings while you work on other tasks on your main computer; this way the second computer could always be rendering and you would always be able to work on other tasks. No way would I want to be without my computer for 24 to 48 hours
I could connect to my DH's computer and split the load which would make it render faster. I'm finding that the isolations take the least amount of time.
- posted by
Avion49
on August 22, 2010 |
 |
I would think it would be mandatory to have a second computer to "churn" out the renderings while you work on other tasks on your main computer; this way the second computer could always be rendering and you would always be able to work on other tasks. No way would I want to be without my computer for 24 to 48 hours
- posted by
Visceralimage
on August 21, 2010 |
 |
I gave it a try & uploaded some 3D images but I almost lost my machine because of that so I stopped :/
You have nice images & I admire your patience!
- posted by
Mani33
on August 21, 2010 |
 |
Thanks for sharing this informations.
- posted by
smartview27
on August 21, 2010 |
Comments (14) |
This article has been read 802 times.
Photo credits: Hemul, Sandra Sims, Andreas Meyer, Sofia Santos. |
|
|
|
| Search the blogs! |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandra Sims
(Avion49)
Largo, US
>Now that I am creating 3D renders, I enjoy making them as believable as possible. Isolated animals and people are what I do the most. Full scenes are also available. Please see my managed collections for selections of my images grouped by subject. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email us | Phone: +1 615-771-5611
