topic Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done? in Visualization

What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Arcadia — Thu, 11 May 2023 10:09:20 GMT

What is the biggest lightworks render you have done and how long did it take? This one was 60cm wide x 45h (although its been cropped a bit since) @ 300dpi and took 31 hours to render on a core i7 system with 9g of RAM. It wouldn't let me go any bigger than this as I got a memory warning. I was able to up-res it nicely in photoshop to 120cm wide to go on a builders advertising board.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:41:40 GMT

You are measuring the image in centimeters and the resolution in dots per inch? So I gather the image is 7086 x 5315 pixels. That should be big enough for most purposes. The render time seems high but I haven't rendered any single images that large. Though I have done hundreds of HD quality (1920x1080) images for animations in far less time than that one took.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Arcadia — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:50:48 GMT

Yeah sorry I'm mixing up my metric with imperial. The image was 23.6 inches x 16.4 inches @ 300 pixels per inch. usually I do them around 8 inches wide @ 240 ppi and it takes a couple of hours.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:12:54 GMT

Arcadia wrote:
Yeah sorry I'm mixing up my metric with imperial. The image was 23.6 inches x 16.4 inches @ 300 pixels per inch. usually I do them around 8 inches wide @ 240 ppi and it takes a couple of hours.

Arcadia, I am not surprised by the render time of lightworks. Just for a thought, this size model and image and with the computer power you have, would be rendered in vray in 15 min, I am not kidding have done it before. ( settings in vray high quality , high anitaliasing)
Most other renderers on the market are faster then lightworks, the main reason is they are dedicated renderes meaning that's all they do and programmed for.

Cheers

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Arcadia — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:59:31 GMT

I may have to investigate alternative software if I start doing more of these by the sound of it. 31hrs is ridiculous.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Dwight — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:07:25 GMT

Another problem with really large LightWorks renderings [in Archicad] is that the underlying surface textures lack pattern detail, looking smeared or chromatic [color fringes] on close examination. The Archicad texture library is not designed for high resolution. And if you attempt to use high resolution third-party textures [Dosch, say] LightWorks slows down even more.

When making large billboards, absolute resolution is unimportant. Billboards, seen quickly from a distance need three aspects to succeed:

1: Sharpness, defined as contrast along edges, not absolute pixels. This is achieved artificially by Photoshop or specialized applications like NIK Sharpener Pro that can be adjusted for output type, absolute resolution and viewing distance.

2: Control of color values beyond the photoreal toward the 'cartoon,' where greyish and blackish areas are replaced with more-appealing color. Large billboards are printed with a smaller gamut than the high quality inkjets we routinely make and require more saturated colors to succeed.
Images with the kind of colors you present slide into the murky range when printed large [Not that you can't quickly fix this in Photoshop]. Blackness also looks sinister - who wants to buy a vampire-filled home?

A good example of the kind of image that works best on a billboard is like this one - also note the fine attention to detail where no texture repeats are evident [important for a professional look on a billboard]:

Sightline's recent image

3: You don't need as many pixels as you think. With careful sharpening, you can transform a 2500 pixel rendering into a full billboard. BTW: Real commercial street billboards are printed at 25dpi. Always consider the viewing distance in considering rendering resolution to save rendering time.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Dwight — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:24:17 GMT

And as for why LightWorks, [a dedicated rendering engine only available when integrated into CAD applications] is so slow:

As implemented in Archicad, LightWorks is crippled:

The best anti-aliasing setting reduces the computer to only one processor. [In the past; perhaps still]

Certain other settings really slow production, including overlapping refractive glass. The rendering 'method' controls calculated refractions - up to 42 levels before glass is rendered opaque. For rendering speed, select a simpler method.

At this point in time, nobody should use LightWorks in Archicad for serious work. Not that the base application isn't great, but as implemented in Archicad, it makes like a Hoover.

You'll learn way faster with Artlantis.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Arcadia — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:37:11 GMT

Thanks for the info but use of the term 'bill board' may be misleading. The image I produced will be used for anything from a web image to a print to go on an office wall to the 'sign' which will be erected on site and could be viewed from a couple of meters. So I was after as high a resolution as possible. If you start with a high res render you can downsize a lot more effectively than you can upsize. I am familiar with photoshop and nik software as I am an amateur landscape photographer. I knew I could resize the rendered image by double and still get results good enough for a 1.2m wide print that could be viewed at quite close range. And the client specifically wanted a 'realistic' look not a 'cartoonish' one.
Your comments on why lightworks is so slow ring true to my experience. Its especially frustrating to see my CPU meter running so low on most cores while it renders. Still I actually like the results I can get with Lightworks and as my core business is design and construction documentation not imaging (and my clients usually need no more than a VBE tour) I have not had the time or incentive to change. I will certianly look at Artlantis again sometime.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:36:43 GMT

Arcadia wrote:
Thanks for the info but use of the term 'bill board' may be misleading. The image I produced will be used for anything from a web image to a print to go on an office wall to the 'sign' which will be erected on site and could be viewed from a couple of meters. So I was after as high a resolution as possible. If you start with a high res render you can downsize a lot more effectively than you can upsize. I am familiar with photoshop and nik software as I am an amateur landscape photographer. I knew I could resize the rendered image by double and still get results good enough for a 1.2m wide print that could be viewed at quite close range. And the client specifically wanted a 'realistic' look not a 'cartoonish' one.
Your comments on why lightworks is so slow ring true to my experience. Its especially frustrating to see my CPU meter running so low on most cores while it renders. Still I actually like the results I can get with Lightworks and as my core business is design and construction documentation not imaging (and my clients usually need no more than a VBE tour) I have not had the time or incentive to change. I will certianly look at Artlantis again sometime.

The way you describe the work you are doing, Artlantis certainly would be well worth a look and probably would suit you just fine.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Dwight — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:29:51 GMT

Arcadia wrote:
Thanks for the info… I am familiar…

I'm pleased to see that you are so well informed.

It is unfortunate that your keen appreciation for resolution and the excessive [and wasteful] time it takes to produce is not reflected in your skill with disguising surface texture repeats that would make any observer of your work think that you were simply a beginner.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Arcadia — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:57:55 GMT

Well Dwight I am a beginner. I already said I don't do imaging for a living. I've done maybe 35 renders in 3 years. I don't agree with your assertion that "any observer of your work think that you were simply a beginner". The general public wouldn't know a good render if it bit them on the ass. My client was extremely happy with this image and its only experienced eyes like yours who can pick flaws in my image. I know what I am good at and what I need to improve on so I appreciate criticism on my work as its helpful but there is no need to be so dismissive. The thread I started was simply about resolution and render time not how good my image is.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:04:01 GMT

Arcadia, I am sure Dwight did not mean to be dismissive and you are right, a lot of clients haven't got a clue what an average or great render is. As long as they are happy, textures can be repetitive. ( they will tell you if the pick anything up they don't like right? ) I think with your little experience and having to use lightworks, lol, you are doing a fine job.

Keep it up and your renders will improve by itself.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Dwight — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:32:29 GMT

Thanks for defending me, but he’s right. I AM being dismissive.

I’m dismissing obsession with time-wasting, over-resolved renderings in situations where Archicad's surface textures lack the resolution to support them.

The retort “well, the client is satisfied” [with murky grey shadows and amateurish texture repeats, for instance] only reveals an uninformed client. Several of our colleagues produce renderings in pure white light because the client needs to match their paint chip when in reality, the passing sun and sky effects tint that chip away from a match all day long. In those cases, the client is an idiot, because the illustrator can easily show color decisions in different realities rather than an abstract condition.

It is our job [as designers AND illustrators] to inform clients about what is necessary in a situation – to have higher standards than they do.

And I reiterate: for maximum readability, images must be electronically ‘sharpened’ for specific distances and output methods - high rendering resolution is only part of the answer.

http://www.niksoftware.com/sharpenerpro/usa/entry.php

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Arcadia — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:30:14 GMT

an uninformed client

Is there any other kind? I did a good looking render for a client that wanted a certain thing at a certain budget. And frankly what I came up with is a lot better than the sort of output I have seen from a lot of guys who do architectural imaging for a living. I'm sure if you look back into the recesses of your memory you will remember a time when your standards weren't as high and you were still learning. The fact is I concentrate my effort on design and documentation which frankly is a lot more important to my clients and the success of the job than a pretty picture and what little 'spare' time I get I generally put towards improving my documentation output or my service not my imaging. To be successful in business you need to understand where your strengths and your focus is, concentrate on that and not try and do everything. So don't be so elitist.

Re: What is biggest lightworks render you have done?

Anonymous — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:11:03 GMT

Dwight wrote:
Thanks for defending me, but he’s right. I AM being dismissive.

I’m dismissing obsession with time-wasting, over-resolved renderings in situations where Archicad's surface textures lack the resolution to support them.

The retort “well, the client is satisfied” [with murky grey shadows and amateurish texture repeats, for instance] only reveals an uninformed client. Several of our colleagues produce renderings in pure white light because the client needs to match their paint chip when in reality, the passing sun and sky effects tint that chip away from a match all day long. In those cases, the client is an idiot, because the illustrator can easily show color decisions in different realities rather than an abstract condition.

It is our job [as designers AND illustrators] to inform clients about what is necessary in a situation – to have higher standards than they do.

And I reiterate: for maximum readability, images must be electronically ‘sharpened’ for specific distances and output methods - high rendering resolution is only part of the answer.

http://www.niksoftware.com/sharpenerpro/usa/entry.php

Ok so you have been dismissive, which in this instance is totally unnecessary and kind of lacks of respect to others and their work.

Remember when you where a beginner did your renderings look better?

Critic is good but it has to come in a polite way and with encouraging words.