Daz IRay preview has red outlines on edges

[xer.0]

Was just playing around with an

You must be registered to see the links

and adding a set to it,

You must be registered to see the links

, and when I went for an iRay preview I got something I've never seen before.



Has anyone seen this before?

I've used the skydome and set before and it hasn't done this. Daz has been doing some weird stuff in the last few days...

 

[mickydoo]

First thing to try - start a quick render and see if it's still there, sometimes iray preview can weird.

 

[xer.0]

First thing to try - start a quick render and see if it's still there, sometimes iray preview can weird.

Yeah, still does the same thing. Rebooted everything. Gonna rebuild the scene later and see if it was just some weird glitch or something wrong was loaded in.

Edit: Rebuilt scene, same thing. Started new scenes with each set loaded separately and still the same on each go. Used a render setting preset and same thing. Loaded a different scene I was working on before this and it's fine. Weird...

 

[recreation]

Looks like the camera is half way inside an object, did you try another perspective?

 

[xer.0]

Yeah, I did it from perspective view as well as the preset cameras from each set.

 

[Rich]

Have you looked at your render settings? Some of those settings have an annoying tendency to carry over from scene to scene. Maybe your white balance is off? Or the color settings in the illumination (skydome?) have gotten corrupted?

 

[recreation]

Now that Rich mentioned it, make sure the "Visualize finite dome" in render settings is off, if nothing helps, delete the render settings (in 4.14) or load different render settings.

 

[xer.0]

Sweet, I used Sveva's render settings reset and it fixed it. Compared all the settings and the "Noise Degrain Radius" was up to 13. Wen't back to the original and reset it and that was it.

Thanks for the help you guys!

Before and after render settings if anyone's curious.

Before


After

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

Sweet, I used Sveva's render settings reset and it fixed it. Compared all the settings and the "Noise Degrain Radius" was up to 13. Wen't back to the original and reset it and that was it.

Thanks for the help you guys!

Before and after render settings if anyone's curious.

Before
View attachment 946151

After
View attachment 946150

Those 'before' setting are very far from anything optimal. Not only you ask twice completion per pixel, but also ask for 100% pixels convergence, it's a bit crazy tbh .

 

[xer.0]

Yeah, they seemed crazy. It’s just weird that the loaded sets/ scene changed to that. My previous render, the only change to default settings was to let it cook for 8 hours, quality to 3 and ratio to 98%.

But now that I’m thinking about it the “best” render preset in the lighting pack from Sveva puts quality to 5 and ratio to 100%, so I’m curious if those carried over from something... Though still doesn’t explain the degrain radius change though

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

Yeah, they seemed crazy. It’s just weird that the loaded sets/ scene changed to that. My previous render, the only change to default settings was to let it cook for 8 hours, quality to 3 and ratio to 98%.

But now that I’m thinking about it the “best” render preset in the lighting pack from Sveva puts quality to 5 and ratio to 100%, so I’m curious if those carried over from something... Though still doesn’t explain the degrain radius change though

Those preset make not much sense or maybe I don't get it .

Degrain radius could be set to 13 or 2 billions, it won't do anything as long as Degrain filtering is set to zero (and 13 make no sense since values range in 2 to 4). All Degrain filters mode (

You must be registered to see the links

) are terrible to render skin details.

Render Quality is asking for better converged pixels... But it's also a linear multiplier, set to 2 = twice rendering time (and so on), you could set to 1 and render twice your resolution for the same time. For almost all renders, render quality set to 1 is more than enough.

100% ratio should be avoided at all cost if you don't have infinite patience (it's just a bad idea in general imo).

 

[xer.0]

Those preset make not much sense or maybe I don't get it .

Degrain radius could be set to 13 or 2 billions, it won't do anything as long as Degrain filtering is set to zero (and 13 make no sense since values range in 2 to 4). All Degrain filters mode (

You must be registered to see the links

) are terrible to render skin details.

Render Quality is asking for better converged pixels... But it's also a linear multiplier, set to 2 = twice rendering time (and so on), you could set to 1 and render twice your resolution for the same time. For almost all renders, render quality set to 1 is more than enough.

100% ratio should be avoided at all cost if you don't have infinite patience (it's just a bad idea in general imo).

I usually use default render settings across the board with 98% ratio and just let simple scenes cook for 8 hours. I’ll try quality at 1 instead of 3 next time.

The way I understand it is that the ratio looks at the previous iteration and compares to the current and it has to match the quality percentage before moving to the next. And then quality is similar to the sample area size for said iteration comparison. Does this sound correct?

In your opinion when would you use a higher quality? My thought would be portrait/ close-up as a lower number and then a landscape/ wide where you need more accurate resolution you’d go higher.

And as for quality, no idea how that got changed so much. I usually turn it off and do any needed denoise in Photoshop on individual color channels.

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

I usually use default render settings across the board with 98% ratio and just let simple scenes cook for 8 hours. I’ll try quality at 1 instead of 3 next time.

The way I understand it is that the ratio looks at the previous iteration and compares to the current and it has to match the quality percentage before moving to the next. And then quality is similar to the sample area size for said iteration comparison. Does this sound correct?

In your opinion when would you use a higher quality? My thought would be portrait/ close-up as a lower number and then a landscape/ wide where you need more accurate resolution you’d go higher.

And as for quality, no idea how that got changed so much. I usually turn it off and do any needed denoise in Photoshop on individual color channels.

8 hours seems really extreme for a render, of course it depends on you graphic card but I don't remember such rendering time on my old 1060.

How ratio works is quite simple. Each X iterations (when Iray shows "render target canvas was written"), Iray count how much pixels was flagged as converged and compare with the lastest update. As render progress and more pixels are flagged, render will stop when XX% converged pixels are reached. The threshold for when a pixel is flagged as converged is set by Iray devs.

When you set rendering quality to 3, you are asking for 3 times the threshold for each pixels, that's why it's quite linear with rendering time. It will not lead to a 3 times better render. Difference will be very subtle at best, not all pixels need higher quality thresold, some pixel will (your bad noise are typical pixels that having hard time to converge), vast majority doesn't.

But, IMO, you should never try to kill bad noise with render quality. For one it will lead to catastrophic rendering time, and second those bad pixels will almost always finish in the 5% unconverged pixels pool (if you set your converged ratio to 95%), you will still have noise.

When using higher render quality then? Well tbh I don't know lol, it seems mostly useless. The cost in rendering time seems never worth it. I make a quick comparaison (ratio at 98%, 1080, don't mind the render lol):



I do enable render quality tho (set to 1), generally 95% ratio for landscape/wise, 98% for close up. It's a good way to 'benchmark' a scene, and also a smart way to solve an unsolvable problem: when a render can be considered finished and quickly set a reasonable bar.

If you want to push quality of a render there is others things to do, IMO (higher resolution, better texture/shading, render beauty canvas and/or multiple canvas and so on).

 

[xer.0]

8 hours seems really extreme for a render, of course it depends on you graphic card but I don't remember such rendering time on my old 1060.

How ratio works is quite simple. Each X iterations (when Iray shows "render target canvas was written"), Iray count how much pixels was flagged as converged and compare with the lastest update. As render progress and more pixels are flagged, render will stop when XX% converged pixels are reached. The threshold for when a pixel is flagged as converged is set by Iray devs.

When you set rendering quality to 3, you are asking for 3 times the threshold for each pixels, that's why it's quite linear with rendering time. It will not lead to a 3 times better render. Difference will be very subtle at best, not all pixels need higher quality thresold, some pixel will (your bad noise are typical pixels that having hard time to converge), vast majority doesn't.

But, IMO, you should never try to kill bad noise with render quality. For one it will lead to catastrophic rendering time, and second those bad pixels will almost always finish in the 5% unconverged pixels pool (if you set your converged ratio to 95%), you will still have noise.

When using higher render quality then? Well tbh I don't know lol, it seems mostly useless. The cost in rendering time seems never worth it. I make a quick comparaison (ratio at 98%, 1080, don't mind the render lol):

View attachment 947702

I do enable render quality tho (set to 1), generally 95% ratio for landscape/wise, 98% for close up. It's a good way to 'benchmark' a scene, and also a smart way to solve an unsolvable problem: when a render can be considered finished and quickly set a reasonable bar.

If you want to push quality of a render there is others things to do, IMO (higher resolution, better texture/shading, render beauty canvas and/or multiple canvas and so on).

Awesome, this is all really helpful as I learn.

I’m a Mac user so I’m stuck with CPU rendering, hence the 8 hour render time on my 2.4 GHz quad core. When I get my next computer I may go back to a Bootcamp setup and use an eGPU to help out since RTX cards are becoming more affordable.