Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?

20 Jul, 2013 Svetlana
20 Jul, 2013 # Re: Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?
Hello, Can you please tell what resolution and size of the bucket should be taken for the final render if I have 4 GB of RAM. Thank you very much for your help.

21 Jul, 2013 Anton (Staff Author)
21 Jul, 2013 # Re: Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?
Hello! The direct connection with the resolution just render resolution bucket and the amount of RAM installed in your computer - no. Moreover, there are many ways to "get out" and render the image to the desired resolution of the same 4 gigs of RAM. Put such a resolution as you need. If there are problems - if you seek their solution, the way they are described on our website. The number of "devoured" renderer memory depends on the complexity of the scene. Resolution - an indirect parameter in this context. As for the size of the bucket, if you do not solve specific problems related to its size, the leave size bucket 64X64 pixel exposed by default. This optimal size, excluding any particular situation.

22 Jul, 2013 gus_ann
22 Jul, 2013 # Re: Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?
And what does a specific situation for example? When it is necessary to change the size of the bucket? A specific example can be described, if not difficult, of course?

21 Jul, 2013 Anton (Staff Author)
22 Jul, 2013 # Re: Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?


I believe that you already know that there is really no real need to change the size of the bucket. But still, there are very rare exceptions:

- You re-render the region and its size is such that not all processor threads are involved. Suppose you render a region 100 by 100 pixels, and you have 8 computational flows with 64 x 64 packets each. Then only four streams will be used in the rendering, two of them only partially, simply because the square with the side 100 * 100 px will be completely covered by just four squares 64 * 64 px, with two 64 * 64 squares completely located and two popping out For the zone, that is, these buckets will be rendered even less than 64 * 64 px. It is enough to reduce the size of the buckets and in the region 100 per 100 all eight batches run.

- If the scene is very unevenly distributed complex and simple materials. For example, the interior, and in it case furniture, just the walls of the plaster, but on the ceiling hangs a complex crystal chandelier of small dimensions. Then all the streams of the system, in large batches, will calculate the main part of the scene in a few minutes, and two, three, per hour will hang "thinking" over the chandelier, while the other streams available to the system will be idle. The situation is similar to the previous one - the size of the bucket needs to be reduced.

- The most incredible situation is when a render of a very very saturated scene is underway, for example, overflight and for each batch there is a lot of geometry (for example, 40 high-poly fur-trees), which makes it necessary to load it all in RAM for each bucket. In this case, no Proxy and Dynamic Memory Limit will save, because to render the batch, you need to load all the geometry that gets into it anyway. This, in turn, can simply lead to the departure of the scene due to the banal lack of RAM. The solution to the problem, the former - to reduce the size of the bucket.

- And the "snack", the most justified reason for changing the size of the bucket. This, oddly enough, is not for the average user, but for the owners of the renders of the farms with hundreds of computers involved in the rendering of static frames by distributional rendering. In case the size of the batch is too large, then all the cores of all computers involved in the network calculation may simply not fit on the current rendering with the selected resolution and will be idle. The decision - I think you guessed it😁

22 Jul, 2013 gus_ann
24 Jul, 2013 # Re: Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?
Anton and I understand correctly that the bucket is still desirable to reduce the size for a test render small and tembolee if it uses a miscalculation of the region, rather than the whole picture?

21 Jul, 2013 Anton (Staff Author)
28 Jul, 2013 # Re: Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?
Hello! Yes and no. Yes, because as a rule it can be useful, because there is that there is always an exception to the rule. Post above, I was not trying to describe all of the particular case, but only wanted to illustrate the point. It is that it makes sense to reduce the size of the bucket, if it will help more evenly distribute the load across all computing threads. At the same time, make it mandatory rule is not necessary, because someone canceled the main constraints on the minimum size of the bucket - while the porosity of borders between neighboring buckets. What is a greater number of servings (buckets) calculable broken image, the more the boundaries for smoothing and the longer the rendering. If this restriction was not, the bucket was always 1 to 1 pixel, and in all settings and missing would like to be changed. In my experience I can say that easily scene with bucket, with for example, 64px can be rendered for 15 minutes, and changing the size thereof is 8, you can get 20-25 minutes render lie other things being equal. It all depends on the stage. In some scenes, the time for smoothing the bucket boundaries far less than the actual rendering time serving themselves and do not change it does not affect the overall rendering time. So clear rules for the taking of the situation described by me and always do as it says - do not. You just need to "enter" into the essence and act on the situation.

1 Oct, 2014 Aleksandr
1 Oct, 2014 # Re: Why do you want to change V-Ray render bucket size?
I read that for each scene bucket size is chosen individually and is not 64 (the default) and should be 10% of the rendering size of the long side of the image. This type is much faster rendering. Tried on the size of the A-4 (3507h2480 pixels) to put the size of the bucket, respectively 350. It is better not become. On the other hand, has considerably increased. Am I wrong, or did the above information is incorrect? Prompt, whether it makes sense to change the bucket size for faster visualization?

Add a comment


Anti-spam challenge (please check if you agree with this and uncheck if not)
Yes, I am a spam-bot.
Yes, I am a human.
Terms of Service

RenderStuff © 2008