The difference a new computer makes for 3D rendering

  • Thread starter Janus
  • Start date
  • #1
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
Just recently, I finally upgraded my 7+ year old computer. I was able to find a good deal on a HP Omen, with a Geforce RTX 2060 graphics card.
So, not only was I able to upload the latest build of Blender, but I was able to go back and tweak some renders I had done with the old computer.
For example, I had done a render of the robot from Lost in Space a while back. And while it wasn't necessarily a bad render, it could have used some extra work. The problem was, that with my old computer, to do the type of material adjustments, etc. that would give the render that something little more required doing test renders in order to see the end result, and this could take a long time on the old system. This made it so that I just wasn't that enthusiastic about making those small adjustments.
Below is the newer version.
B9_2.png


The robot model itself is unchanged, but the textures have been tweaked. The scene itself has also has been filled out a bit. The original just had the crags on the horizon. The tree/shrub, foreground rocks and ground cover are new. I also added a bit of focal blur, and a "haze" to give the scene a bit more depth.
 
  • Like
Likes hmmm27, DrClaude, Astronuc and 7 others

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
Here's a bit of a more dramatic example.
Here is a render done of the LEM on my old computer using Blender 2.78. This was done using the default Blender render engine.
lem_old.png


and this is it done using the "cycles" render engine. on the same machine.
LEM_CYCLES.png

Better, but the rendering time went way up, so while this could still use improvement, It wasn't something I was too enthusiastic to go back and adjust.
LEM_3.png

But with the new computer, I was able to modify the entire scene to this and with a full render time of only 10 min.
One note is that I changed the Moon's "landscape". With the old one, there where some subdivision issues that caused noticeable flaws in the new texturing/displacement I wanted to apply to it.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Drakkith, FactChecker, Greg Bernhardt and 3 others
  • #3
35,407
7,277
Very nice images!
 
  • #4
Klystron
Gold Member
882
1,278
Fascinating change of shadow definitions in the three renditions.

The first image shows sharp delineations of the LEM's shadow on the lunar surface reminiscent of actual photographs. In the second image the shadows appear fuzzy, the lunar surface more 'snow' like, as if there was a brief dust cloud obscuring sunlight. The final rendition combines these effects with more perceived depth and a quite realistic surface beneath the LEM.

The boulders add historical as well as artistic, interest. Seem to remember Neil Armstrong manually redirecting the LEM to avoid boulders at the preferred landing site.
 
  • #5
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
Fascinating change of shadow definitions in the three renditions.

The first image shows sharp delineations of the LEM's shadow on the lunar surface reminiscent of actual photographs. In the second image the shadows appear fuzzy, the lunar surface more 'snow' like, as if there was a brief dust cloud obscuring sunlight. The final rendition combines these effects with more perceived depth and a quite realistic surface beneath the LEM.

The boulders add historical as well as artistic, interest. Seem to remember Neil Armstrong manually redirecting the LEM to avoid boulders at the preferred landing site.
With the first render, the Render engine did not take into consideration the "size" of the light source.
With the second one, it did, leading to "softer" shadowing, but I used the "default" size for the "Sun" which lead to too much softening.
I tried to strike a balance in the third, by reducing the angular size of the Sun. Lighting is always a huge factor with renders, and sometimes it comes down to weighing realism against art.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog and Klystron
  • #6
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
While exploring some of the new features of the most recent version of Blender, I came across this cool additional option for one of the physics modifiers.
The modifier is the "cloth" modifier, which allows you to simulate the behavior of cloth. It can be used to create a waving flag, or a table cloth draped over a table, etc.
The new option is "pressure".
To explain what this does, we'll start with a simple cube
cube.png

Though you can't see it here, this one has it sides divided up into 20x20 arrays of "faces". You need to subdivide the object up like this in order to give the cloth modifier something to work with in terms of deforming the cube. I also have already applied the cloth modifier, but again, you don't see this, as the cube has nothing to interact with.
If I were to add a collision plane below the cube, and then let the animation run a bit, the cube would collaspe onto the plane as if it were an empty cube shaped bag made of cloth.
But the new option allows you to give the "bag" an internal "pressure", as if it were pumped full of air, and you can vary the value of this pressure.
So, if I take our cloth cube, and raise the pressure value up, you can get this:

cube_inflate.png

The cube bulges against the internal pressure (there are ways to make this better, such as starting with a cube that has rounded edges and corners ( even if just slightly), but this is just a simple example.
If I were to allow this object to fall onto the plane, it would give a bit, and maybe partially collapse (depending on the pressure value).
This opens up a slew of possible things to play around with.
The first thing that occurred to me was suggested by the fact that the pressure setting can be controlled within an animation, which inspired me to try this:
balloon2.gif

Surprisingly, it didn't take a lot of time to get something that looked halfway decent.
The "balloon letters" were made by starting with a text object. Extruding it to make it 3 dimensional, then adding a rounded bevel to remove straight edges and corners.
Convert the text object into a mesh object (the cube we used earlier was also a mesh object). Apply a re-mesh modifier ( This more or less rearranges how the object's faces are arranged. This is important, because the assigned faces created in the text to mesh conversion would give really odd creases and folds in our "cloth". )
Create some "pin points". These are parts of the mesh that will remain fixed, and non-moving in the animation and act as "anchors" for our letters.
Assign the cloth modifier, with "pinning" enabled and your selected points assigned as pins.
Put a collision plane under the mesh.

Now, on to animating:
Make sure pressure is set to 0 in the cloth settings.
Let the animation run for a number of frames, to allow the cloth letters to settle down onto the plane.
Stop the animation. With pressure still at 0, you assign a "key frame" to the pressure value. ( this assures that the pressure value remains 0 up until this point. Move ahead in the animation by the amount of time over which you want the letters to inflate. Turn up the pressure value (I used 180) And set a new key frame. (between the last key frame and this one, the pressure value will ramp up from 0 to 180, 'inflating' the letters. )

Now, we need one more thing. Left like this, the letters will inflate, but they won't fully stand up. So I added a "wind" force field. This, as the name suggests, simulates a blowing wind. In this case, I orient it so that the wind blows upward. You set key frames up for it so that you have zero wind while our letters settle to the plane, and the the wind picks up when the letters inflate. The upward acting "wind" makes the letters stand upright.

Choosing the right pressure and wind values is by trial and error. Pick a setting, see how the animation behaves, adjust the value, see how it changes, ...
Now we just render the animation by selecting to only render those frames from just before inflation starts to somewhat after full inflation.
I did give the letters a metallic, Mylar like material, So I used a HDRI as the background to give them something varied to reflect.
And that about covers it. There are some other details I didn't include, but I didn't want to put everyone to sleep.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Love
Likes Tea Monster, DrClaude, Astronuc and 7 others
  • #7
Tom.G
Science Advisor
4,107
2,808
Umm... Instead of collapsing, shouldn't that cube approximate a sphere as the internal pressure increases? Or was that external pressure that increase?

OK, with that nit picked, NEATO!
 
  • #8
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
Umm... Instead of collapsing, shouldn't that cube approximate a sphere as the internal pressure increases? Or was that external pressure that increase?

OK, with that nit picked, NEATO!
It is bulging at the sides. The pull in effect is due to the model trying to hold to a constant surface area. Imagine a line going all the way around the cube at the midpoint. If you try to reshape it as as circle without changing its perimeter, the corners will be drawn in towards the center.
 
  • #9
Those are nice models. The update looks particularly good.
Now that you have the nice new machine with the RTX card, you could set cycles to render with the GPU and save a lot of time.

Also, a good settings for space is to set your world colour to black and use a sun light as your only light, and set the strength to 3 or so.
 
  • #10
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
Those are nice models. The update looks particularly good.
thanks
Now that you have the nice new machine with the RTX card, you could set cycles to render with the GPU and save a lot of time.
Already done. It has really been a great help
Also, a good settings for space is to set your world colour to black and use a sun light as your only light, and set the strength to 3 or so.
One of the areas where the faster render times is a boon. I'm much more inclined to fiddle with the lighting when I don't have to wait so long for the renders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
A short video of a recreated shot from the first Star Wars movie. I just finished doing the Vader TIE fighter model, and the other TIE fighters are slightly modified models I had done a while back.
It makes use of motion blur with the camera so you get that smearing effect for the trench. I also added a bit of noise to the camera position and tilt to simulate "camera shake".
tie3.gif


It's about twenty frames long, and only took several minutes to render all the frames.
 
  • Like
Likes Tea Monster
  • #12
8
1
today i would like to know if it's possible to transfer saved and edited projects from one computer to another. and which graphic will GTA render to the exportation?

because to be more precise, the main idea that I had in mind was to record a bunch of scenes, edit them on my crappy computer, and then export them and render those with a better graphic on a more powerful computer of a friend.

so the main idea would be to use the more powerful computer for rendering due to its superior graphic card ( 3070. )

is that possible?

or it will be rendered with the graphic that has been shot ( crappy computer )?

( P.S. no, I can't work on the powerful computer to the get-go for a few reasons. the first one being, I don't own that computer. second of all, for the first reason, ( which it's kinda linked ) I can't use it that much because my friend it's busy working on others aspects. so that's why I'm recording and editing stuff on my end. so that he can work on something else.)
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,710
1,629
Your friends computer would have to have the same 3d software as you have ( for instance, blender).
Then once you are done, you can just export the blender file for your scene( and any other file; image etc) to his computer t do the render.
You will have make sure the render settings are changed to get a better render. For instance, you might use a low sample rate on your system in order to do a low-res render on your computer, and you would need to reset that to get a better render on his computer.
One disadvantage I can see from doing things this way is that the appearance of materials can change when you change the quality of the render. I've had instances where something looked pleasing at a lower resolution, but when I went higher, it looked awful. If you are doing the final render on a different computer than you are doing the editing, then this could be a headache.
 
  • #14
8
1
Your friends computer would have to have the same 3d software as you have ( for instance, blender).
Then once you are done, you can just export the blender file for your scene( and any other file; image etc) to his computer t do the render.
You will have make sure the render settings are changed to get a better render. For instance, you might use a low sample rate on your system in order to do a low-res render on your computer, and you would need to reset that to get a better render on his computer.
One disadvantage I can see from doing things this way is that the appearance of materials can change when you change the quality of the render. I've had instances where something looked pleasing at a lower resolution, but when I went higher, it looked awful. If you are doing the final render on a different computer than you are doing the editing, then this could be a headache.
thanks for your response.
 

Related Threads on The difference a new computer makes for 3D rendering

Replies
7
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Top