Newbie seeking help understanding DAZ render issues.

[8InchFloppyDick]

Dear All,

Here are some of my first test renders. 21:9 ratio, 0.25 render quality. Saved as JPEG for web upload, but the PNG out of DAZ also has noise (to be expected at this render quality).





Question 1: Why is the texturing on my cute little dickgirl's cock so unrefined/ugly? It seems stretched and just bad. I'm using the futanari 3.2 cock asset.

Question 2. Why did the dickgirl image take 10 minutes longer to render than the same model in a shooting pose? I realise that 8Gb RAM, an ancient Xeon 3220 at 2.6Ghz and a GT1030 are dogslow, but I dont understand where the time delta between the two images comes from. The shooting girl render took round 5 mins, the dickgirl render took 15 minutes. Both renders are just the actor and an asset. Either Gun or Cock. No environments or anything else going on.

Thanks

 

[Rich]

Question 1: Why is the texturing on my cute little dickgirl's cock so unrefined/ugly? It seems stretched and just bad. I'm using the futanari 3.2 cock asset.

I can't help you with this issue, as I've never used the asset. "Not my thing." LOL

Question 2. Why did the dickgirl image take 10 minutes longer to render than the same model in a shooting pose? I realise that 8Gb RAM, an ancient Xeon 3220 at 2.6Ghz and a GT1030 are dogslow, but I dont understand where the time delta between the two images comes from. The shooting girl render took round 5 mins, the dickgirl render took 15 minutes. Both renders are just the actor and an asset. Either Gun or Cock. No environments or anything else going on.

The odds are that this is because you are somewhat closer to the model. Skins, in general, take more time to render in iRay than other assets, because they have a variety of settings (Sub-Surface Scattering - SSS - being a big one) that are required to make them look realistic, but which significantly increase rendering time. If you look at the second render, a greater percentage of the total pixels in the image are of the model than in the first image.

Basically, all the "white space" costs virtually nothing - once iRay realizes that those pixels don't have any content on them, they converge almost instantly. So, if you mentally subtract out the white, there are a lot more pixels to render in the second image than in the first, and the vast majority of them are of the "expensive skin" material.

Similarly, there are virtually no "eye" pixels visible in the first one, while the eyes are quite visible in the second. Eyes in most characters have complex structures with transparencies, reflections, etc. Again, a small portion of the overall image, but a portion that's difficult for DS to get to converge.

Hair is frequently costly as well (lots of transparency), but it looks like the total area of the hair isn't too much different in both.

So, I think the basic answer is "the more image you have, the more work it is for iRay." You could confirm that by taking the second image, zooming the camera in a bit so that she occupied every more of the scene and rendering THAT. I suspect you'd see another significant jump in rendering time.

 

[lancelotdulak]

Rich is right. Some information to help you. Have you ever seen the guys bragging about their "true photorealistic renders" patting themselves on the back.. and wonder why a lot of us laugh at them? White room.. with white tables.. flat surfaces.. one color.. very shiny. Basically theyre just bouncing light off of flat surfaces with megasimple shaders. It's not remotely impressive. Now put a quality daz model in that scene.. the render takes 10x as long..... or more

Heres a way to think of rendering that will explain it to you. That daz model has a skin.. a picture that wraps the model. Over that skin it has layers of shaders. Translucency blablabla. When you hit that texture with a photon , your gpu computes how that layer affects that photon.. does it change color? bounce off? partially bounce off? etc etc. Then it goes to the next 'shader layer".. and on.. and on.. maybe 8 times? And each of those can other layers in a high end renderer so.. "hey this photon hit this layer and made all the pixels NEXT to it very slightly brighter and redder". then it bounces off. . its now slightly blue.. and hits the wall.. which has a texture just likely a simpler one than the skin texture...
That's why simple "texture view" in daz looks good but not great or real. Why cartoon shaders render FAST. It's just bouncing a beam of light off of a colored surface etc. But actual rendering goes through all that complex math for each beam of light.

 

[8InchFloppyDick]

Rich, Lancelot - Many, many thanks for your enlightning responses (Sorry, the aweful pun just _had_ to be made...)

Coming from a non-raytracing 'live' 3D engine environment, the points you raised didn't occur to me in the slightest. I'll keep the new knowledge in mind

 

[lancelotdulak]

Rich, Lancelot - Many, many thanks for your enlightning responses (Sorry, the aweful pun just _had_ to be made...)

Coming from a non-raytracing 'live' 3D engine environment, the points you raised didn't occur to me in the slightest. I'll keep the new knowledge in mind

Live is radically different, most people dont understand that. In 20 years we'll have photorealistic live 3d.. and rendering will be something people look up n wikipedia. Having said that i looked into some of the techniques yall are using now in low poly live 3d and the cheats the live engines use are amazing

 

[Synx]

Live is radically different, most people dont understand that. In 20 years we'll have photorealistic live 3d.. and rendering will be something people look up n wikipedia. Having said that i looked into some of the techniques yall are using now in low poly live 3d and the cheats the live engines use are amazing

It's more the other way around; most people don't know how race tracing works or how to get the most out of the raytracing render engines. You could make 99% of the renders used in games on here with physical non-tracing renders without a problem. Especially if you would use one of the newer/beter ones.

Live render engines are super easy to understand: you get what you see. You don't have to understand how they work, just what results you can get.

 

[Deleted member 1121028]

Wonder which road they choose tho