I've started to render all my images with new settings that finish rendering in less than an hour or so depending on your computer.

I'm not sure how this works with very grainy images but with images with the grain that stays close to the image, the rendering settings work.

-I set the size to 2000x1500
-The quality would usually be 100-200
-Filter Radius: 0.4
-Oversample 1
-5 strips

After the rendering is done, the image should look like it was rendered at a very high quality. Then I'll resize the image back down to 1600x1200. The image should look clear after the image is complete.

If this doesn't work for you, please tell me, I haven't found an image that I've made that these settings haven't worked for.

Has this been any help to anyone?

This is one of the subjects of the moment. Having spoken to a few other people about this, it's amazing to learn that everyone does it differently. It's an interesting idea to render a faster larger image and then reduce, thanks for sharing.
Just for the record my settings are usually 1600x1200, quality 800-1000, filter radius 0.4 and oversample 2. On average this renders in around 20-30 minutes depending on the zoom.

Cheers.........

Ben, remember when I asked you for tips about your rendering settings, the filter radius that you chose was actually one of the key things to the render settings, if it weren't for you telling me that, I'd still be waiting pretty long.

Yeh, i've always had filter radius set at 0.4, i've never had any need to change it.
I remember on my old computer i tried changing the oversample to 3 a few times, with disastrous consequences. The image would start rendering at an extremely slow pace. This would get me thinking the render was going to be of the most astounding quality, so I would leave it overnight. I'd get up the next day to find my computer in a highly confused state. The render would freeze towards the end and prevent me having any control over the PC. Every time i tried it, it would result in me turning the PC off at the mains:)
I've tried finding discriptions of all the render settings, but only ever discovered people's prefered settings without any explanation as to why. Can anyone here help?

Cheers........

I don't understand your question. If I understood what you were asking, maybe I could help you.

Basically, just what all the settings do?
Obviously quality is quite straight forward, but oversample and filter radius?!?!?!?

Oh, yea, I can't help you there, I have no idea what those things mean except they can make your image look good or bad.

It looks like you've basically turned off the oversampling and then later oversampled it by resampling it to a smaller size in photoshop. I used to do this all the time when making fractals.

Why don't you make images anymore (caedes) fractals?

He's too busy replying to posts like this:)
I don't understand that response caedes, but i've just finished working nights and am confused enough as it is, so will try to compehend later.

filter radius: the amount of blur/smoothness to make the image not all grainy... if you set it all the way up, the image yould be a big blur, and all the way down it would be just blackness. oversampling means that the fractal is calculated at a larger size (depending on the number it is set at) than intended for the final image.. oversampling of 1 means that there is no oversampling and it renders at the intended resolution

Thanks Andy, I didn't know what they were.

Brilliant, cheers for that Andy. Can now see how the settings can be altered for different images. What about yourself, do you use any standard settings?

What do you mean, do I use specific numbers for rendering, if that is your question, the numbers that I placed on top are the ones that I use.

I set mine at Quality 2500, Radius .2, Oversample 1

Thats interesting, I'll try it, your images look perfect so I should try it! Thanks for telling.

I recently conjured up a tutorial that explains as best I can these aspects. Skip down to the rendering stuff for the issues to relate. It still comes down to personal preference, but having a better idea regarding what everything means could help. Take a peek if you have a minute (preferably a day).

I actually did a few experiments:

I did it your way XYZ, and I had to heavily manipulate it to get the grain out. My monitor is particularly sensitive and I can notice any grain even if it's subtle. The quality you suggested is the maximum for the flame generation in The Gimp.

Also, I noticed you said "Strips", you must be using the "Export Flame" feature. I would suggest not using this unless you want to make a transparent background...these notoriously create grainy images because of the way the software was written. I would instead use the normal Render feature to get a much better quality image. If you want to do it the way you suggested, I would probably render at 3200x2400 to make it blend a little better and use the normal render feature.

As Caedes said, you are basically manually oversampling. I guess you have more control this way, but an Oversample of 2 would render it at that size and scale it down for you with no additional step.

If anyone didn't know, removing grain from an Apophysis image, it can be done by increasing the Contrast of the image.

i just dont like waiting for the render so i try and keep it simple

If you don't like waiting for renders, try my settings, I find them to be pretty quick with good results, but I always increase the contrast because there always those few grains that make into the image.

If anyone doesn't mind posting their rendering settings, please do so, I would like to try different ones!

ok ... zoom in full scale (2.00) .. quality 10,000 .. oversample 8 .. filter radius of your choice .. render 6400x4800

Have your grandkids get back to me when that's done ... ;o)

One time I transfered a flame to Ultra-Fractal to see if there was any benefit for doing so .. trouble is I messed with it after bringing it in to UF (flipped it on a second layer to create a mirror image) ... took 72 hours to render and a half second to delete ... I kept letting it render because I convinced myself it would be SWEET

I render (currently) at 2000 quality .. point 3 filter radius .. and oversample 1 .. using the export flame feature (hooked to the FLAM3 Renderer .. not the default HQI) ... output set to JPEG @ 100 quality ... usually 3200x2400

and ... I've been happy with the results

I've rendered FINALS anywhere from 2000 to 10,000 ... and I don't see the need for higher settings anymore

any questions .. throw a pebble at my window

Thanks!

Thanks for posting this, I used your settings and my image came out looking great!

I just tried your settings again and redid some stuff in IrfanView, increase the contrast to bring out the colors and remove grain, lower the Gamma Correction to remove more grain and then increase the Saturation to bring out the colors even more. That is what happened to me when I used it, maybe it'll help someone.

This is great advice, I'm going to use it and also Tarvos' idea! That'll help me!

*throws a pebble at Keiths window*

!@#$ oops.. didnt mean to break the glass..

*runs*

Dj

Thanx to everyone who shared their views here, it was very helpful!

This is a good thread. I'm an Apophysis newbie so it's very helpful.

I'm happy it is helping.

It is helping, I'm working on fractals again now!

I tried them on my newest upload (moonfire).