I'm stumped. The past few days I've tried to render a couple of images from Apophysis and it goes through the whole render, gets to the last render (8 of 8 slices) with zero time left but then it just sits there and doesn't complete the render. Has this ever happened to any of you. I tried removing Adophysis from my system and reloading it. Started a render...set it at 2560X1920 (where I've always set it) and clicked the limited memory button. It ran through the render and then did the same thing after it had gone through 8 of 8 slices with zero seconds left...it didn't finish. Any suggestions?? Thanks
Wen

sent you a message hope it helps...=D

Its happened to me, I had to shut it down and do it again. Maybe its hasn't gone through the filter it goes through all the time at the end. Did it do that?

Yes, that has happened to me a couple times, but I believe I have found the problem. I like to render images on my laptop, so there isn't an enormous amount of RAM being taken up my desktop computer. I usually render the files directly to a shared folder on my desktop via wireless network. But, when the desktop is off, or goes into sleep mode, the shared folder is inaccessable, making it impossible for Apophysis to save the file and finish off the render. Also, it you try to view the image before everything is done, it stalls like you are describing. Hope that helps.
Since we are on the topic of Apophysis rendering, I have a question about the memory limit. If it limits the amount of memory used for rendering, does the quality of the finished image take a hit? Or does it just make the image render more slowly? I usually render at 1600x1200, but at 512 RAM, my PC's speed takes a huge hit. I have always wanted to render enormous images in Apophysis, but I never met the physical memory requirement (is the memory limit option the answer?)

Hi, Morpheus. Thanks for responding. I considered the possibility that it may be a RAM problem, but my desktop has a gigabite of RAM, so I doubt that that's the problem. Here's what's weird. Jacqueline said she'd run into the problem when she tried to render images larger than 1600X1200. So, she found that it would render if she kept the pixel proportions 1600X1200 and cranked up the quality to about 2000 and raised the oversample from 2 to 4. OK...I tried that and, low and behold, it rendered just fine ---BUT the file to be rendered was MUCH larger and it took MUCH longer to render.

I've wondered about the quality of the image and setting the memory limits as well. My ASSUMPTION (and it seems to be born out with experimentation) is that it simply SLOWS the render, but I don't know for sure. Interesting question. I don't know anyone who had the enormous physical capacity to render huge Apophysis files.
Wen

Hey, thanks for answering my question. I guess that makes sense about the memory limit, now I will hesitate to make enormous renders! By the way, what the heck does the oversample do? Also, at 1GB of RAM, how much available physical memory is there when you go to render?

I don't know what "oversample" does technically, but, if you raise it, the file size jumps up. As for available physical memory at 1GB RAM, it depends on what else I have going. Sometimes it's 600 or so mg and sometimes it's less.
Wen

OH GOSH..you all are wayyyyyyyyy too smart for me! Its like a foreign language! I have Apophysis...but I am a bigtime amateur...just today started to try a fractal..haha..what a job...hope it get happier later. slices? memory? pixels? sure sure.................

LOL! I don't know what a lot of it means either in depth, Verena...It has nothing to do with making your fractal. It pertains to settings to use when you render. You don't set "slices," so don't worry about it. It does that on it's own. LOL! Main thing is that, when you've got an image you want to render, that you do so at a big enough size at high enough resolution that it comes out looking clear at large picture sizes. As you know, the biggest image on Caedes is 1600X1200 pixels, and that is what I'd suggest to set the size at. The "QUALITY" of the resolution is set at 200 by default but you should probably set it up. I'm setting it between 1000 and 2000. The other settings you can probably leave alone, though you might want to raise the "oversample" rate from the default of 2 to 3 or 4. All of this shows up quite clearly in the render window. If you get to the point where you want to render an image you've created and don't know what to do, drop me a message and I'd be happy to try to help you.
Wen

When rendering, if you're going to leave your computer alone(and it's probably best to) it would be wise to turn off the 'harddrive turn off' feature if you're using windows(this is in control panel->power options). It's also good to turn off screensavers. I remember having the earlier stated problem and since I did this I've never had a problem.

Memory limits are a way of setting aside some RAM for your system or other processes to use while your rendering.
Oversampling has to do with increasing the quality of the image so that anti-aliasing (smoothing) is more possible. Most of the time you hear about this anti-aliasing is in fonts so that you can't pick out the individual pixels when a letter turns. Personally I've never set this setting above 3 and most of the time I set it to 2 and have no real visual problems. For comparison I usually set my quality between 2000 and 3000 and set res at 2048x1536. (not that I'm a professional or anything)

Hope this answers some of y'alls questions and helps to save some time. :)

Thanks for explaining it, Rustectrum03, nice to have some one here with the technical know-how. I didn't realize anti-aliasing was used in such small things, such as fonts. I usually hear the term used more on the topic of 3D images and video games. In my experiences, allowing my computer to go screen saver usually doesn't hinder the rendering process. And to Verena, Apophysis is great once you know how to use it. Quite frankly, I think making great images on Apophysis is about 50% luck, and 50% knowing how to use the program.

Oh, and while we are on the topic, does anyone know what the largest image anybody's ever rendered in Apophysis? (is there even a limit?) I think sometimes it would be nice to have a poster-sized print of some of my renderings, but I don't know what the pixel dimensions-to-inches ratio would be (while obtaining maximum DPI).

I don't know, but some day I want to find out! If my whole family goes on vacation for more than 4 days, I will render a huge one, but I am not sure when that will be.

I am no pro either, but I might ahve a few insights. For starters, I have never set my image size above 1600 by 1200 and only below on a quick test image (which may have been once or twice). I have met people who would render extra large and then size down to keep it looking nice, but I am not one to do that myself.

When I first started, the quality must have come at a default of 100 or less, because I beleived for the longest time that 100 was the highest. What a mistake! When I learned that the quality could be set higher, I did a couple images from 2,000 to 5,000, then regularily renderered at 10,000. After a while, the quality would get to me, and I would bump it up to 15,000 and eventually 20,000, where I have rendered my most recent images (note, which hasn't been for a while. My computer has personality problems, but will be going to see a Psych soon).

Don't freak out, I didn't really know what oversample meant and I never really adjusted it besides toying with it once or twice. From what has been said on this forum, it seems to me that spiking the oversample is similar to shooting with your camera in RAW mode instead of Jpeg. I guess it has the processor give each pixel a little bit more thought, and in the process makes each a little bit more special. Because each is more special, it weaves a more beautiful canvas, but it is harder to remember them for lack of ability to group them.

My computer is a Pentium 4 with a 2.8 Gb processor and 512 Mb of Ram. Nothing phenominal, but I tend to work rendering into the schedule. I set the internal power settings to never turn off, save power, or do anything. All of the options are set to never and I simply turn off the monitor when I am not using it. I nearly always have one render going, and if I am the last one up and am going to bed, I will turn on a second knowing that no one will be using the computer (hence, free Ram for several hours). I plan to double my Ram soon, but I don't expect a whole lot from my computer while it is rendering knowing about the end results. My renders usually last from 4 to 24 hours, but I have a feeling that will change when I get a little free witht he oversample. Thanks for the insight on it!

I have the same processor and same amount of RAM. I usually render at 1600x1200, 1,500-1,700 quality, but at the default 2 oversample. With those settings, It usually takes 2-5 hours.
Also, if you were going to do an enormous render or a batch render, I bet you could increase the speed by running Apophysis in Safe Mode. When I ran Apophysis in Safe Mode, there was alot more available physical memory. I am going on vacation next week, so I might try a batch render (so many unrendered parameters).

I don't know for sure, but I have a foggy idea that I used an oversample of 0.4. If this is absurdly low, maybe not, but if it sounds reasonable for renders at such a high quality (necessary for such a low oversample) and the given render time.

Just out of curiosity, what resolution would be best for a poster-sized render? It may take many times longer, but I could do the render uninterrupted for quite a long time on an old computer without normal use. I just wish there was a way to use the server at the office for such a task. Nobody is here on the weekends...it has dual 2.8 Gb processors and 2 Gb of Ram.. *snickers with evilness*

Yes, I am curious as well about the pixel dimensions for posters, and other large standard prints.

Well, I am no pro, but I am professional enough to have a calculator. Here goes. :-)

Lets say the poster is 36 by 27 inches, keeping the standard 4:3 ratio for desktops. Each square inch has, lets say, 300 dots of color. 36 x 27 = 972 square inches. If each one of those contains 300 dots of color, 972 x 300 = 291,600 pixels. Because we have the 4:3 ratio, 291,600 / 12 = 24,300. From here--er, I see a flaw in the plan. I don't know where to go next. Worse, the normal screen dimensions for uploads contain 1,920,000 pixels, and that is a lot more than 291,600.

Somebody else give it a go. For the record, you are going to need more than just a calculator. :-D

A noble attempt, stuffnstuff.
Hmm, I think it varies with the DPI, but I'll try to find something on google.
Edit: Found this useful: http://www.dgrin.com/archive/index.php/t-3323.html
Apparently, to get the size of what a render would be on paper, take the height or width, and divide by the dpi. Now, the problem of dpi: when I go to resize an image in Irfan View (If you don't have it, you should. Its free), it says it is 72 dpi. On the other hand, when I right-click the file and look at the properties>summary tab, it says it is 96 dpi. Hmmm... its a little strange, but now, after researching online, it seems that neither dpi is adequate for prints. I don't if it just that these people are the hardcore-must-have-every-photo-at-an-obscene-DPI-and-resolution type people, or if it really makes a difference. They say when printing pictures it should be at 240 or *gasp* 300 dpi. I don't know, but it seems like overkill. Maybe I'll try printing a smaller render at 72 (or 96 dpi, not sure), and see if the quality is acceptable.

Noble is not good enough. I will not stop until I have achieved a chivalrous attempt. Just wait a few. :-)

You were close when you said "300 dots of color", referring to the dpi. Actually, it's 300 linearly, not square. So each square inch is 300 dots tall by 300 wide, or 300 squared.
972*300*300 = 8,7480,000.
but probably the easier way to do it is:
36 inches by 300dpi = 10800 pixels
27 inches by 300dpi = 8100 pixels
So you'd need to render at 10800x8100 for a 36x27 poster print at 300dpi.
For example, when caedes created the 24"x18" Caedes Cadre poster, he made the image at 7200x5400 pixels.

This is helpful. I just copied it and printed it for future reference. The 300 dpi seems to be the golden standard. I put photos to video alot, scanning them from a Epson Perfection scanner that allows me to crack the dpi way up. When I first got the scanner, I made about a hundred phone calls to inquire as to what I should set the dpi for a good clear scan. Bottom line, IT DEPENDS on the size of the original and the size of your target photo, but the ultimate goal is to produce a picture of 300 dpi. If it's a small photo to begin with, I need to set the dpi higher on the scan to obtain an equivalent quality of a larger picture. When you think about it, that makes sense but, again, the standard is 300 dots per inch. Thanks for the above formula.
Wen

Grr, you guys are too fast for me. Here, while my boss was distracting my with such trivial things as work *winks*, I had to try to race against you! Here is what I figured:

Common sense and simple mathematics say that if you double the side of a square, the square area inside is, well, squared. So, if a picture of 1600 by 1200 (even though it is a rectangle), which has 1,920,000 pixels was doubled in dimensions, then it would change from a file size of 1.875 MP to 7.5 MP. Note, my MP are approximate. I have no scale, and it can really depend on jpeg conversion. If I am way off, then let me know.

So now that we doubled our size, lets double it again. If we render at pixel dimensions of 6400 by 4800, creating a picture of 30,720,000 pixels or 30 MP, we would have sufficient size for a small poster.

According to this article at PC World, 4,800 by 6,000 makes a good 16 by 20, but I see 2 problems. First, keeping a 4:3 ratio would be ideal (or 3:4, but however you say it, have it longer than tall), and second, wall posters, realisticly, are not supposed to have photo-like quality. Dave Johnson considers 200 ppi "Good Results" for a photo, so we will consider it "Good Results" for a poster. (As for the ppi, once I thought about it, I figured it out. The square root of 300 is roughly 17, and 17 pixels on a line per inch is not exactly stellar looking.) So if we print our 30 MP image that we created at 200 ppi, we should get a size of 24 by 32 inches.

If you would like a little bigger poster or a bit higher quality, you could always double the dimensions again. A compromise is always possible, but where is the fun in that? An image rendered at 12,800 by 9,600 pixels would do the trick, but who wants to store a 120 MB picture? Also, consider the rendering times! I wouldn't want to sit down and sort out 122,880,000 points of color into a pattern! If you manage to hack into the CIA headquarters while they all go on vacation and render this for a week, you could get an image of 32 in. by 42.67 in. at 300 ppi, or a 48 by 64 at 200 ppi. Having a poster that big on my wall would be awesome, but I don't know where I am going to get a poster with 21 and 2/3rds square feet printed at 200 ppi.

Ok, so a website and a calculator (2 actually). How did I do?

I have stated a lot of things that I now disagree with. Please read this. If you have any questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability. If I can't, I will ask around and do some more research.

I render all mine with Quality 2500, Filter 0.2, Oversample 1... Size 2048 x 1536 they turn out fine... try using the size as 5250 x 3500 the images are better on this size if you have the time and patience to wait for about 20+ hours....

Or...you could just turn up the oversample. The effect is the same.

I would rather turn up the oversample. I doubled my Ram last night, which is what started this whole fiasco. The reason I started researching the rendering options is because the oversample didn't take longer; it used 4 times the amount of Ram (which I now have to spare), but it took the same amount of time.

If you render a poster, I would recommend not using an oversample more than 1 and probably no filter radius as well. For such a big project, it would be better to add a guassian blur afterwards when you have more control. If my theory is right about strips, 1 of those would be best as well, which leaves only the quality to leave nice and the dimensions to juice up.

Ok ... I'll admit I didn't read all of this ... you guys are too smart for me too (*wink*)

a while back somebody mentioned apophysis failing to write the file at the end of the render and they tracked the problem down to having accidently introduced a bad character into the save "path" and thus confusing windows at save time

Oversample and extreme Zoom are the mind killers ... come and paint my house while you wait

quick question about physical memory available.. i have 1gb of RAM yet it claims the physical memory available is 340... how would i get my comp to go at full power?

Every time you render does the number for physical memory go down ?

The memory does not decrease with each render, no. Random Access Memory is used for storing things temporarily that you are going to be using a lot. It is just like how your web browser stores all our avatars in Temporary Internet Files so we can view them faster next time. Stuff gets cleared out if it isn't accessed in a while.

I am frusterated by this problem too. My best recommendation would be to go to Start and then Run. Type in "msconfig". One of the tabs allows you to select which programs will and won't boot. You can ask your computer's maker which ones are necessary and which ones aren't and they can give you a pretty good gust simply by emailing them. For me, I have a after-market graphics card, so anything labeled "ATI", I keep. If it is labeled Yahoo or MSN or Adobe or Wild Tangent, I can safetly (and happily!) tell them not to boot.

Restart the Compy and let it finish booting. Use the Task Manager (ctrl+alt+delete) to see what is running in the background now. Remove anything that slipped throught he earlier one or has since begun running. Also, keep all unnessecary windows closed until after you start the render. I hope this all helps...but I am not allowed to access Task Manager or msconfig due to a handy little program similar to the one that censors every other word I type.

So Luke, you don't have this problem ? Cuz I sure do....& for a while there it was getting kinda scary

I do have this problem, I am just not allowed to access the steps to equalize it. Ram does not go away over time. It is just like your memory card. You might have some old files in there that it is storing for no reason. One would think that a restart would work wonders. I am no expert and I am not allowed to toy around...try emailing (not calling!) your computer's maker. They can probably give you some advice.

Thanks Luke for the advice, I really appreciate it :o)