Persistent_Aura
Forums Freshman
Posts: 16
|
 |
« on: December 07, 2011, 02:07:10 AM » |
|
I found this interesting shapes zooming in on one of the default parameters that came with the new version of mandelbulb 3D. The parameters were called 'The Pearl'. So thank you Jesse  ! I want to render a longer HD version of this beauty as well but this will take some time.
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/VdZ91sOpapg&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/VdZ91sOpapg&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>]]> |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jesse
Download Section
Fractal Schemer
Posts: 1013
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2011, 09:28:38 PM » |
|
Looks very nice, thank you for the effort!
In case you have not done it already...
rendering speed could be increased a little by dropping the pearl (if you not need it), parameters are attached.
Cheers
ps: the Raystep multiplier can be increased up to 0.7 for further speedup
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 09:38:58 PM by Jesse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Persistent_Aura
Forums Freshman
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2011, 10:57:47 PM » |
|
Rendered with a raystep mutiplier of 0.4 so increasing it to 0.7 could help indeed. thanks for the tip! Well I just checked and noticed something funny. I thought I had removed the _Rpow3 formula for the pearl in my renders but it seems I didn't. Then I rendered the first frame as a test. 1280x720, 2x antialiasing, raystep multiplier 0.7. Rendering the first frame of the animation WITH the _Rpow3 formula it takes 4m32s to render the entire frame with hard and ambient shadows and DOF. Then I checked the render WITHOUT the _Rpow3 formula and the first frame took me 6m13s! I have no idea why. I know I have a slow system  rendering this is gonna be quite a task. But the lighting, DOF and colours (which were the original ones, I tried giving it new ones but I just kept thinking Jesse's look so much better with it) are great on this one  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jesse
Download Section
Fractal Schemer
Posts: 1013
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2011, 12:13:39 AM » |
|
Keep only the first formula and go on 'alternating hybrid'. Else the second formula in DEcomb (f2-f6) will not bailout and causes higher calculation cost. Or try the m3p  (with DEmul of 0.7) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Persistent_Aura
Forums Freshman
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2011, 12:57:52 AM » |
|
Thanks for the help. Using only the first formula seems to shave off another minute. Render time for the first frame was 3m39s at the same specs BUT there was a significant change in the image.
I attached two images as a comparison so you can see. The difference is to severe imo and a lot of detail is lost. So I think I will stay with the original. I might try tweaking the lighting and shadows to see if I can get improve it but I don't think I'll get close to the original.
So I will probably have to do it at 4 and half minutes per frame. Which will take rougly 11 full days at the current length of 3300 frames and I still wanted to make it longer :p
The next PC I buy I will assemble especially for rendering M3D fractal animations. Any suggestions on what is important? I don't have much knowledge of the technical aspects of rendering M3D fractals so far so I'm not sure what I should focus on. I guess processing speed is most important?
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 01:00:01 AM by Persistent_Aura »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jesse
Download Section
Fractal Schemer
Posts: 1013
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2011, 06:06:27 PM » |
|
Detail is matter of DEstop and lighting changed because of the dynamic fog...
attached another m3p where i tried to get the same result like with pearl.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Persistent_Aura
Forums Freshman
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 08, 2011, 06:58:10 PM » |
|
Thanks a lot! I will give it a try I'll probably just make an entire new animation with a new path and try to experiment more with the lighting etc. Put a bit more effort in the composition because the preview only took me less than an hour to make probably. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kameelian
Iterator
Posts: 181
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2011, 10:40:32 AM » |
|
The next PC I buy I will assemble especially for rendering M3D fractal animations. Any suggestions on what is important?...
Hi, Well, I too was suitably captured by Jesse's masterpiece to get a stand-alone PC for rendering. As was advised to me on FF, make sure you get a CPU with multiple cores (and threads) as this is where the processing takes place at the moment (until the GPU is used). Therefore you don't need to spend silly money on top grade grafix. A 64bit operating system will enable you to use more ram for creating videos but, as M3D is still 32bit, you can't use more than its 4GB limit. A fast HDD may help matters - solid state (SSD) being even faster but horrendous £/GB prices yet. I ended up with an i7 2600k (unlocked) CPU which runs at 4.4Ghz. The program believes it has 8 cores to run. Fast but still achingly slow. I can still take many hours to get a single second of animation at, say, 24-30 fps. I do tend to render everything at 1920x1080 - for good reason - these days, but (like some of the content of this thread) I also still don't always know what best to tweak to increase speed whilst maintaining quality. Maybe some of those hours could have been reduced dramatically. I'll never know. Anyway, I hope this helps your choices. cheers kam |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mandelbulb3D - Like Christmas Every morning |
|
|
|
bib
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2011, 11:10:11 AM » |
|
as M3D is still 32bit, you can't use more than its 4GB limit.
8GB is not a bad option, so you can run several instances of M3D in parallel if you want to render multiple images at the same time (with an impact on rendering time obviously...) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Between order and disorder reigns a delicious moment. (Paul Valéry)
|
|
|
kameelian
Iterator
Posts: 181
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2011, 11:30:47 AM » |
|
8GB is not a bad option, so you can run several instances of M3D in parallel if you want to render multiple images at the same time (with an impact on rendering time obviously...)
Ah, of course, bib, so multiple instances of M3D will have their own 4GB RAM limit, not just share it. That said, one instance will run up 100% CPU (using all threads) and, whilst this usually lets other stuff run in the background, I have one particular render sequence (that uses 5 formulas - if this is significant), that will not let ANYTHING else run simultaneously no matter what priority I give it. All other renders are more 'friendly'. Odd that. cheers Kam |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mandelbulb3D - Like Christmas Every morning |
|
|
|
bib
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2011, 11:39:00 AM » |
|
8GB is not a bad option, so you can run several instances of M3D in parallel if you want to render multiple images at the same time (with an impact on rendering time obviously...)
Ah, of course, bib, so multiple instances of M3D will have their own 4GB RAM limit, not just share it. That said, one instance will run up 100% CPU (using all threads) and, whilst this usually lets other stuff run in the background, I have one particular render sequence (that uses 5 formulas - if this is significant), that will not let ANYTHING else run simultaneously no matter what priority I give it. All other renders are more 'friendly'. Odd that. cheers Kam In the task manager you can set the affinity of each instance to set the number of used CPUs |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Between order and disorder reigns a delicious moment. (Paul Valéry)
|
|
|
Persistent_Aura
Forums Freshman
Posts: 16
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2011, 02:24:11 PM » |
|
Thanks for the tips kameelian! I'm running at only 2.2Ghz (dual core) and 8Gb RAM so that would be a significant increase in speed I think. Also bib makes a very interesting point there using excess RAM for a second application. I've tried it before allready with mixed results depending on the formulas. Usually I have one rendering while I use the other application to find new parameters. It sucks to only have on machine sometimes :p
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kameelian
Iterator
Posts: 181
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2011, 05:19:13 PM » |
|
Ah, the old render-one-whilst-finding-parameters-in-a-2nd/3rd trick. I do that much of the time - otherwise it might be months between doing something new. I rarely reduce the threads in the main render, as bib suggests, though. I was using 8GB RAM as it happens, but never seemed to get past 44-50% used regardless. It is the video creators (and i've tried a few) that have the disks and RAM working hard. I had previously assumed (without even thinking about it) that the 4GB RAM restriction was in the operating system, not the separate programs running. I believe there is also a restriction in 64bit Win7 Home Pre of 16GB.
Kam
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mandelbulb3D - Like Christmas Every morning |
|
|
|
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM