Odd glitch?



  • When I render, I get this odd behaviour (the bottom of the render) most of the time. The render eventually finishes just fine, but ... is there a setting I'm missing? I'm rendering with CPU still, I tried the GPU but as I don't know which things to tweak for THAT just yet, it came out slower than CPU. So for now I stick to what I know ;)

    As before, picture in the following post :P



  • 0_1533339832037_82ad248b-5842-4423-8b13-14f55d304a00-image.png



  • @trekkiegrrrl It's a memory thing. Not sure what. On my machine using 2 GPU's I get a black tile in the bottom left corner while rendering but it clears up when done. Nothing to worry about.



  • I get it too, but a much thinner line than yours. It does not, however, show in the final, saved render even if I stop the render early.



  • @trekkiegrrrl I only have a CPU on this old laptop, and I don't recall ever seeing anything like that when rendering, but as long as it doesn't finish the render like that, I wouldn't worry about it too much.



  • @Glitterati3D said in Odd glitch?:

    I get it too, but a much thinner line than yours. It does not, however, show in the final, saved render even if I stop the render early.

    It may be connected to bucket size then. I use a 256 sized bucket. Can't remember why, I've just used that size "always" :)



  • @trekkiegrrrl I use Bucket Size 16, so that probably accounts for the size difference.



  • @trekkiegrrrl Traci may have hit the nail on the head. I always use 50 for my bucket size because the width and length of my renders are always (or 99.5% of the time) in the 100s, so 50 divides them evenly in both directions.

    Someone, maybe Jura, mentioned that a while back, and it seems to work nicely, and I think faster than larger bucket sizes.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    The manual indicates that Bucket Size should be set to power-of-2 numbers, and that's for the sake of memory usage optimization. Numbers like "50" will not fill the buffer, and lead to inefficient use of memory. You should change it to the nearest power-of-2 number, which in this case would be "64".

    However, 256 seems a bit too large. It will take a lot of memory, and will not make the best use of multi-core processors. If you have a 4-cores CPU, it will probably be using 3 or less cores pretty soon, which means longer rendering times. If you are using Hyperthread, which is on by default, that should give you 8 logical cores if you set them up in the rendering configuration. That alone means some extra 30-40% more rendering power, but if Bucket Size is too large, the task distribution will be unbalanced, leaving many cores idle.

    The ideal Bucket Size should NOT be always the same. It depends on the render size (width and height in pixels). The larger the image dimensions, the larger the Bucket. The smaller the dimensions, the smaller the Bucket Size should be for the sake of efficiency. The idea is to keep all your cores busy during rendering, so it takes less time.

    Conversely, the bigger the bucket, the more memory is used, so set it wisely according to how much memory you have available. Not your TOTAL RAM, but how much is available when you start rendering. You can see that info on Windows Task Manager.

    If you are rendering on a modern GPU with plenty of VRAM, set your Superfly bucket size to the largest image dimension, so it renders the entire thing in a single pass. I have a GTX 980ti with 6GB VRAM, and this has always worked for me. Depends on how large you renders are. My largest images are around 1000x1300. You will know you have stepped too far if your render fails when it starts. It's not just the render dimensions, but also how many textures you have in your scene. That's what buckets are for, so reduce the number until it works.

    Hope it helps. :)


  • Poser Team

    From my experience, anything about 256 bucket size on GPU renders can do more harm than good speed wise. I render on a GTX1070 with 8 gig of memory, and going past 512 will just about always crash it with a mostly basic scene. There are other factors that can come into play that can reduce the bucket size to speed ratio as well, as Ken mentioned.



  • @trekkiegrrrl
    From the image it looks as if the 'film' you render on is offset from your viewport.
    I had that once, a long time ago, Poser 7 days or so, with FireFly, after I had played with camera settings. No idea how I got it and it was gone when I restarted Poser.
    Now this is SF of course but the effect has quite some similarity: centre of film offset from centre of viewport. Maybe some hidden dials no longer on 0.0?
    Does it persist when you restart with a new scene?
    Do you render to a fixed size or just viewport size?



  • @fverbaas I've found that if your renders (as is typical) are larger than the preview window size, while viewing the last render, you can drag it to pan around the render, which offsets the centre from it's normal place. Mostly another new render will reset the offset, so you can see the top left of the new render. Doing a partial, area render (where you select a rectangle to re-render, for instance) usually does not reset the centre, so you can see, for example, the bottom right corner of a large previous render, while the new area render completes in place.

    Sometimes doing a smaller new render will not reset the offset as well, leaving a black band around the new render.



  • @fverbaas said in Odd glitch?:

    @trekkiegrrrl
    From the image it looks as if the 'film' you render on is offset from your viewport.
    I had that once, a long time ago, Poser 7 days or so, with FireFly, after I had played with camera settings. No idea how I got it and it was gone when I restarted Poser.
    Now this is SF of course but the effect has quite some similarity: centre of film offset from centre of viewport. Maybe some hidden dials no longer on 0.0?
    Does it persist when you restart with a new scene?
    Do you render to a fixed size or just viewport size?

    I usually render to viewport size. And it isn't offset once it's done. Not does the line remain once it's done.

    My last render was actually larger than the viewport. But it also took longer time, so I didn't stay to watch it this time, but went to watch an episode of QI instead ;)

    I'll try with a different bucket size and see if that changes things. If it does, then it is definitely somehow connected to that :)


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @trekkiegrrrl said in Odd glitch?:

    I usually render to viewport size. And it isn't offset once it's done. Not does the line remain once it's done.

    My last render was actually larger than the viewport. But it also took longer time, so I didn't stay to watch it this time, but went to watch an episode of QI instead ;)

    I'll try with a different bucket size and see if that changes things. If it does, then it is definitely somehow connected to that :)

    Try a smaller bucket size, like 64 or 128. :)


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Graphics Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.