3D-Daz Daz3d Art - Show Us Your DazSkill

[Abîme]

 

[AlexStone]

Sorry, what do you mean by time free noise reduction?

CPU cores can do noise reduction better and faster since they are using multilevel CPU cashe.
If you are using stream processors of GPU and VRAM, denoising is performed by CPU cores anyway, but you are loosing time for exchanging the data between GPU and CPU cores.
That's in the schematic, without going into a lot of detail.

 

[AlexStone]

I generally just render at a higher resolution (2560x1440) and then at 2000 iterations. For the renders I use for my games I then downsize to 1920x1080 which also further increases quality

There are two unpleasant things about this approach, which could simply be described as 'let's leave for Photoshop to fight with the noise instead of us'.

Firstly, the rendering time grows by the square of the linear size of the image. That is, a 1.5x increase in rendering size gives a 2.25x increase in time for the same number of iterations.

In the case of going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, this square is 1.77, which is also painful. That is, in a time of 2000 iterations on 1920x1080, you can only do 1130 iterations on 2560x1440.

Secondly, Photoshop knows nothing about the 3D scene, so conventional bicubic interpolation simply averages out the brightness of neighboring pixels and 'blurs' the scene. As a result, the renderer loses sharp lines even where they could and even should be preserved.

So if I usually do this kind of noise reduction, it's by using Depth Canvas (they can be rendered in Canvases, Advanced Render Settings) as filter masks. Because it's one thing to 'blur' the background, and quite another to 'blur' the main character in focus.

Another approach, not through Canvases, is to render the main character on a completely white background (backdrop 255-255-255) and without any light sources, then you get a black and white mask. But here you have to look at the intersections of the character with other surfaces, unlike the Depth canvas there are differences from the full scene (for example, the character may slightly 'sink' into the ground).

But such a mask is ready at once, unlike the Depth canvas.

If you prepare your work in Photoshop in this way, you can suppress noise there too.

Good tutorial, if your haven't seen it yet:

You must be registered to see the links

.

 

[Artior]

 

[Deleted member 2741424]

 

[TheLustLord]

 

[Dark_Sytze]

There are two unpleasant things about this approach, which could simply be described as 'let's leave for Photoshop to fight with the noise instead of us'.

Firstly, the rendering time grows by the square of the linear size of the image. That is, a 1.5x increase in rendering size gives a 2.25x increase in time for the same number of iterations.

In the case of going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, this square is 1.77, which is also painful. That is, in a time of 2000 iterations on 1920x1080, you can only do 1130 iterations on 2560x1440.

Secondly, Photoshop knows nothing about the 3D scene, so conventional bicubic interpolation simply averages out the brightness of neighboring pixels and 'blurs' the scene. As a result, the renderer loses sharp lines even where they could and even should be preserved.

So if I usually do this kind of noise reduction, it's by using Depth Canvas (they can be rendered in Canvases, Advanced Render Settings) as filter masks. Because it's one thing to 'blur' the background, and quite another to 'blur' the main character in focus.

Another approach, not through Canvases, is to render the main character on a completely white background (backdrop 255-255-255) and without any light sources, then you get a black and white mask. But here you have to look at the intersections of the character with other surfaces, unlike the Depth canvas there are differences from the full scene (for example, the character may slightly 'sink' into the ground).

But such a mask is ready at once, unlike the Depth canvas.

If you prepare your work in Photoshop in this way, you can suppress noise there too.

Good tutorial, if your haven't seen it yet:

You must be registered to see the links

.

Interesting, I never realized it would take substantially longer to render at higher resolutions, I knew there was an increase but always assumed it was minimal.
In which case I will just render at 1920x1080 from now on, since I rarely get any noise (unless I improperly light a scene)

 

[InsertFreakyName]

Watch out, she's coming for you!

 

[TacoHoleStory]

Do you like my new hat?

 

[Mr. Vargas]

 

[TacoHoleStory]

There are two unpleasant things about this approach, which could simply be described as 'let's leave for Photoshop to fight with the noise instead of us'.

Firstly, the rendering time grows by the square of the linear size of the image. That is, a 1.5x increase in rendering size gives a 2.25x increase in time for the same number of iterations.

In the case of going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, this square is 1.77, which is also painful. That is, in a time of 2000 iterations on 1920x1080, you can only do 1130 iterations on 2560x1440.

Secondly, Photoshop knows nothing about the 3D scene, so conventional bicubic interpolation simply averages out the brightness of neighboring pixels and 'blurs' the scene. As a result, the renderer loses sharp lines even where they could and even should be preserved.

So if I usually do this kind of noise reduction, it's by using Depth Canvas (they can be rendered in Canvases, Advanced Render Settings) as filter masks. Because it's one thing to 'blur' the background, and quite another to 'blur' the main character in focus.

Another approach, not through Canvases, is to render the main character on a completely white background (backdrop 255-255-255) and without any light sources, then you get a black and white mask. But here you have to look at the intersections of the character with other surfaces, unlike the Depth canvas there are differences from the full scene (for example, the character may slightly 'sink' into the ground).

But such a mask is ready at once, unlike the Depth canvas.

If you prepare your work in Photoshop in this way, you can suppress noise there too.

Good tutorial, if your haven't seen it yet:

You must be registered to see the links

.

When deciding on my render settings for my game i did extensive tests, rendering at 1080x1920 and 2160x3840 with iterations at 100 and 400 respectively. The render time was basically the same and the quality of images were identical when reducing the 4k image down to match. And I mean identical. I would never be able to tell the difference and if the 4k image was blurred, it must have been incredibly subtle. Maybe there are some lighting situations or render settings that make one preferable over the other, but in my case, rendering at a higher resolution just added extra post work.

 

[Seanthiar]

OptiX Prime Acceleration

Is that an old feature ? Because I only found it in an old sickleyield post from 2015 because I do not find it in my up to date version in the advanced tab of the render option and after that googled for it.

 

[AlexStone]

Is that an old feature ? Because I only found it in an old sickleyield post from 2015 because I do not find it in my up to date version in the advanced tab of the render option and after that googled for it.

I use this version, try to look at your version manuals, I believe similar options should be somewhere in them.

 

[ArturiousDesign]

I'm out of reacts and need to go to bed but she got impatient and oiled up already View attachment 1352607

Viking Queen: If I have to fight you, then your little girl has to fight my daughter: Nadya. Btw, she's been training all her life to become a Viking Queen.

She's 18yrs

 

[ArturiousDesign]

View attachment 1354002

I use this version, try to look at your version manuals, I believe similar options should be somewhere in them.

you need to update your Daz, we're up to 4.15

 

[AlexStone]

When deciding on my render settings for my game i did extensive tests, rendering at 1080x1920 and 2160x3840 with iterations at 100 and 400 respectively. The render time was basically the same and the quality of images were identical when reducing the 4k image down to match. And I mean identical. I would never be able to tell the difference and if the 4k image was blurred, it must have been incredibly subtle. Maybe there are some lighting situations or render settings that make one preferable over the other, but in my case, rendering at a higher resolution just added extra post work.

Even though I'm Russian, I don't like 'Russian measures of length' of the 'дохуя and a little bit more' kind. Even though there 'a little bit' may be more than a 'дохуя' ('a shitload of').

The first thing worth mentioning is that DAZ spends time processing the scene itself, and in complex renderings, but with short iterations (as you mentioned '100 to 400') this will be the main rendering time.

For example, I took this scene here and cut a show piece out of it.

After that I saw that DAZ takes about 1 minute (1m 5s to be 100% correct) on my computer to prepare the render.

I then ran the test renders and timed them. Here are the results, just DAZ, no canvases, no tricks!


400x400 render, 1000 iterations. No visible grain. Full time 3m15s, render time 2m10s.


400x400 render, 500 iterations. Grain is coming! Full time 2m14s, render time is 1m09s.


532x532 render (x1.33 size), 500 iterations. Grain is coming, you can easily see it! Full time 3m14s, render time is 2m09s.

Photoshop time!
Downscaling of 532x532 cubic interpolation of pixels:


Grain is gone? Yes! But...

Lets do layers! I am putting first image (400x400 render 1000 iterations) as a 'Difference' layer. Almost black... but let us make magic Color Curves:



Result:



As I said, compressing the image in Photoshop removes all the harsh brightness transitions that are just as important in the focus of your rendering. The lighter the point in the 'difference' image, the more distortion the Photoshop has introduced.

And we didn't save anything on rendering time itself in 532x532 versus 400x400, but then we fiddled with it in Photoshop.

 

[Virtual Merc]

If I have to fight you, then your little girl has to fight my daughter: Nadya. Btw, she's been training all her life to become a Viking Queen.

She's 18yrs
View attachment 1354101

Fue's physical capabilities are....pathetic, I'm betting on Nadya this time.

 

[AlexStone]

you need to update your Daz, we're up to 4.15

Let's be honest: I can improve my version of the DAZ. If I want to.
It works for me.

 

[Zavijava_]

When most of the male population was killed in the Machine Uprising, and you have to help repopulate the underground settlements... (Testing out an asset)

 

[Seanthiar]

View attachment 1354002

I use this version, try to look at your version manuals, I believe similar options should be somewhere in them.

found it in the DAZ Forum regarding DAZ Studio 4.12 :


Removed the "OptiX Prime Acceleration" option from the Advanced page of the Render Settings pane when NVIDIA Iray is set as the active renderer

• The option is no longer supported by the integrated version of Iray RTX 2019

And btw I think I know why, because on sickleyields page on deviantart there was a statement that only few persons got a performance boost and because Optix runs in the VRAM it can cause a fallback to CPU render and make the render slower. Many reported problems with scripted queued renders and Optix.