- Feb 15, 2017
- 626
- 15,148
They look pretty similar to me. Sure, maybe going straight to the desired resolution might be a tad better, but it's definitely not worth 4x the time. You could also let the larger resolution run a bit, say maybe half the time and improve any issues a bit and still save a lot of time. For closeups I think it matters, for long range shots I don't think anyone can notice.I got my Titan up and running and started messing around a bit. This scene is pretty much the last one I posted. However, I wanted to experiment with shorter render/higher resolution then scaling down vs full render at target resolution.
One of these was rendered directly to 1280x720 with 5k samples. The other rendered to 2560x1440 with 500 samples and 1/4 the render time, then scaled down via GIMP cubic scaling. Is it real obvious which is which? And if so, is the quality still good enough to trade off for only spending 1/4 of the time rendering?
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
...and the judge said 10...What 15 years?! The disclaimer said she was 18!
View attachment 101093
Soviet 9-storey houses in the backgroundx'DWhat's wrong?
View attachment 101075
Second one looks more natural, first one with the gray tint looks like he is sickly
...looks so realistic... and so heavy! How long did it take to render that scene? And what is your equipment?I managed to make a render with 9 posed characters together... Hoping to get a dynamic scene, where it looks like people are actually doing stuff in a real place... ("Bigdong waterfalls" in this case)
This pic will be incorporated in the next update of my ongoing game "You must be registered to see the links".
View attachment 101339
Thanks! With decent lighting and a good computer, 2h. But I rendered at twice the final size as I always do......looks so realistic... and so heavy! How long did it take to render that scene? And what is your equipment?