I have a question about animation rendering in this course. I assume Kent has a really good computer, but still piano render took him 4 hours to complete. In comparison, I have an 7 year old laptop, these are my specs:
CPU: Intel i7-7700HQ
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060 6 GB
Would it even be advisable for me to attempt to render any of these animations?
I was mostly interested in this course for the modeling / texturing aspect, so I would like to know if I should skip animation portion altogether if my laptop can't handle it.
Hi Aleksandra @~Ivy~ ,
"Would it even be advisable for me to attempt to render any of these animations?"
I wouldn't recommend it.
With those specs it will probably take forever to Render an animation like that. The fact that is a (old) laptop, makes it even worse; it might not even survive (much longer)... You could just Render 1 Frame and see how long that takes you...That'll give you a nice Render and also an estimate, how long it would take to Render the entire animation.
You can always use the render farm service SheepIt. Linking you up:
The problem with laptops is the Rendering, that's where things might get too warm, especially, if you'd be Rendering for 30 hours...Maybe it would hold up, but I wouldn't risk it.
For Modeling and so in Blender, they can perform well enough and not get into the danger zone.
Follow up to this. My render time took 17 Hours. 🥴 . I have a Highend PC. each frame was about 7 mins per render. I have the samples at 1024 for the render. Is that too high for this type of render? Most of the other Macro renders took SIGNIFICANTLY less time than this Piano did. Is it something in the scene that causes the long render times? Thank you!
Hi Jason jasonbadum ,
7 minutes is very long. Kent uses 512 Samples and Denoising (and he Renders at 50% Resolution). on my computer (RTX 4090) that took about 16 seconds for a Frame.
If I use 1024 Samples and 100% Resolution, it takes a bit less than 90 seconds, so that might be what you are using.
I'd suggest to try and stay under 2 minutes per frame, when Rendering an animation like this.
I'd say if the render is more the better for it, if it's much crispier and less noisier, then if you can afford the render time and the wait, then all steam ahead with the long renders. Of course that is why we make lots of render tests before we fire up the animation, we render the same frame with different samples to see at one point firing more samples doesn't make any difference. When the image is noise free, it's time to stop. Sometimes you don't have the luxury of waiting so long so you compromise. Rendering is a game of balance, mixed with computer fire power and time. But it's always up to you.
I also have a nice card for rendering (5070ti). Perhaps it is just the high resolution at 100%. I will see what the render time at 50% resolution instead of 100% is later this evening. I turned the samples down to 512, and it's around 4.5 mins per frame.
There is no rush to render the sequence at this stage in the game.
That 100% resolution does give a NICE clean image though. 😊
I'd say if you can afford many many hours of rendering, because no one is waiting for it, there is no client at the end of the line with a deadline, no one above you pressuring you for anything, let the render go on and on if at the end the super crisp nice clean image you want is going to be a reality. It's always a nice feeling.