High-res renders

[fma]

I am having troubles doing real high res renders of ca 15000 x 10000 pixels for photographic output. maya keeps crashing due to abnormal termination. Even running 1 gb RAM didin't help. Any ideas?

[skelter]

Man, is that 15000*10000 i've read???
try with a CRAY.

In Gold They Trust.

[jtk77]

with the maya renderer ? good luck man.
It seems to top out at about 4000 by 4000

.............

[deke-kincaid]

Just render you image in pieces and then reassemble it in a 2d application. Use the command line render and use these commands: That way you can split into little pieces so you wont use as much ram. At that resolution 1 gig of ram is not enough. You are rendering at more than 40x film resolution.

xLeft -xl set X sub-region left pixel boundary of the final image
xRight -xr set X sub-region right pixel boundary of the final image
yLow -yl set Y sub-region low pixel boundary of the final image
yHigh -yh set Y sub-region high pixel boundary of the final image

Just look in the online help for info on it:
file://localhost/d:/AW/Maya3.0/docs/en_US/html/RenderingUtilities/RenderingUtilities.htm

Deke

[rartist]

We render for print, but never go THAT high. Not even close. It goes beyond the resolution of the output device. Render it in pieces and comp it together, or lower your resolution. I've made stuff at 3000x4000 that challenges how high Maya can go, on a gig of ram. Clean out all your temp stuff, and be realistic on you antialieasing quality, 6-7 for shading, try box filter vs gaussian.

[frogrobert]

Hi,

Are you using 2d motion blur? We've found that it may use a more memory prior to 3.01 and given the resolution you're after, it may be much more than the OS can handle.

Hope this helps...

Shai

[jtk77]

I have gotten 4000 x 4000 and use it for print.. no problems. But I would recomend not having any simulations going on at the time...and use the redner que , do not render with Maya up or use the render in a window feature.. it won;t work.

.............

[rjducey]

I"ve done 4k images with raytracing and over 200mb of textures on only 256mb of RAM. and i didnt' even hit swap too hard.
that output res is a bit nuts though, even the huge lambda printers i know dont really do that sorta thing unless its like 50meters long what the heck are you rendering for?
in any case, make sure all your file textures use cache-that can save heaps of memory, don't raytrace if you can possibly help it.
subpixel shading is really only useful if you are likely to have thin line artifacts, so you may be able to do without.
failing that, you can chuck your geometry in different layers nad render seperately
good luck with it

[joojaa]

Lets face it there is almost nothing that would require rendering resolutions that big! Anyway if you go to a printinghouse with a picture that BIG they are gona reduce the resolution. Note: your file would be 600 megs if it just contains RGBA channels at 8 bit/channel. And the poor printer would have to cope with files that large printers eat (CMYK)!

Try thinking it this way A scan ine renderer needs the memory for all the pixels RGB and Alpha channels in 16 bit resolution. But additionally a 32 to 64 bit for the z-buffer ok if we now count up we get at least 1,8 gigs not to mention all the 3d models, textures and shadows that would hawe to fit the memory too!!

[growler]

15000x10000 at 300dpi is 4.1ftx 2.7ft.

That's just a little larger than A0 paper (for you metric types)

Print it at 330dpi and it'll fit nicely on A0.

It's possible to get a 330dpi printer that prints at that size- heck, some of the larger colour photocopiers can do that, so that resolution isnt really all that high.

I'm with Beaker- render it in chunks, if possible, and have the printer assemble it- it'll probably be too big for photoshop, but the printer will be able to handle it.

Assuming, of course, this is for print...

"Dont worry, They'll fix it in post.....Huh? what do you mean, 'We ARE post'???"