Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
6 hours for a 5 minute video would be wonderful for me. I have to wait around 3 hours for a few seconds of video... although I use 512 DoF with 64 Motion Blur.
You can reduce quality to 64 DoF and 64 MB but some minor things could be noticeable, such as ambient occlusion grains or poor aperture blurring (it shows doubled stuff instead of that cool blur)
In other words, your render settings and all the parts in your clip that are mentioned above determine the the render time needed to render your movie. Really, the only thing you can do to speed things up are to adjust those setting to the minimum you're willing to put up with, the higher the quality, the longer the render.
There are 2 other things you can also do,
1)Render your clips as Image Sequence pictures and use a 3rd party alternative like virtual dub or Blender to patch the frames and audio created back together as a movie file
AND
2) Buy a higher end Video Card (If you're not rending on a laptop).
As I stated before, the only real way to increase render time is to lower your render settings or with a higher end GPU that has more memory that SFM can draw on (if it can, not sure, I only have 1 gig GPUs) or to render image sequences and use a 3rd party program to splice the images and audio back together.
@raptorn, One big Time saving is the fact that as the images are being produced, you can trap bad takes and errors in real time instead of waiting for a MP4 to finish and finding it glitched after 32 hours of rendering. Depending on the Render Settings, TGA and PNGs files do produce faster than video. It might not be much faster if using high settings, but they are. Personally, I find that an image sequence production is actually sharper in quality than a H.264 compressed MP4. But that's a personal observation from a colour blind old fart who wears glasses when not staring at a computer screen...
Windows will use your RAM, some security programs (I run Comodo) will use your RAM although you can disconnect the internet and turn off the security program, maybe an open browser will use your RAM, and SFM at its tops will need 3 GB all to itself to run at peak efficiency.
Yeah, it can use the same 4 GB for all of that but wouldn't it be better to have 6 or 8 GB with a part of it dedicated to the other background programs (especially Windows itself) and 3 GB fully dedicated to SFM so that it can run at peak efficiency?