Takes too long to render

[nik]

I made a 10 second animation and it has been rendering for 9 hours as of the time I am writing this. Is this a bug? Just in case you need the info, I am rendering on a SSD drive

[Scre]

depens on your videocard, quality of the video, polycount and matrials or textures used tbh.
Lets do some math a 10 second video of 60FPS means ur rendering 600 pictures.
Now lets say it takes a hour to render a really nice scene, with many objects and nice lights with reflections and everything it might even take longer.
Thats is roughly 600hours worth of rendering.
So no this is NO BUG!

[nik]

Originally posted by Scre:

depens on your videocard, quality of the video, polycount and matrials or textures used tbh.
Lets do some math a 10 second video of 60FPS means ur rendering 600 pictures.
Now lets say it takes a hour to render a really nice scene, with many objects and nice lights with reflections and everything it might even take longer.
Thats is roughly 600hours worth of rendering.
So no this is NO BUG!

That means 1 hour per frame. I don't think your math is that good. And It takes me about 1-2 minutes per frame

[nik]

Note: Still rendering

[Hayden's Studio]

Depends on your settings. That monster you see on my profile took around 2.5 hours to render in cycles with 1200~ samples just for one frame; so yeah, it can take a bit.

You can use this to lower your render time in cycles: http://www.blenderguru.com/articles/4-easy-ways-to-speed-up-cycles/

[Pte Jack]

First, what FPS were you rendering at? Then, what resolution (1080p /DVCPROhd, 720, 4x3 NSTC/PAL, 16-9), what quality (0-100%), what format (AVI jpg/raw, H.264, MPEG, Ogg or Xvid), what encoder did you use? and finally, what audio encoding and at what rate? How many frames?

I just rendered a 58 minute video from 84725 Image sequenced frames on a standard 1TB HardDrive with the settings of 1080P, 100%, H.264 - MP4 (lossless not selected) , no audio included, in 3-4 hours at 24 frames per second back to the standard drive.

Video was being reproduced at a FPS of @ 6 frames per Second.

Doing the math - 84725/6fps = 14,045.83 Seconds /60 to minutes @ 234.1 minutes /60 to hours = 3.9 hrs

Let's say your video was 10 seconds at 24FPS that's only 10*24 = 240 frames and you say it took 9 hours to render?

Then again, I only rendered image sequences, if you are rending a Blender Animated Scene where you have models in Blender doing animations and cameras flying all over the place, then yeah, I can see that being 9 hours for a 10 second shoot. SFM can take just as long or longer to do the same.

[nik]

Note: 11 hours, almost done according to Blender

[Kingslayer]

are you useing cycles ?
did you make sure cycles is using your graphics card ?
do you have a nvidia card ?

[Scre]

Originally posted by NikolomaraYT:

Originally posted by Scre:

depens on your videocard, quality of the video, polycount and matrials or textures used tbh.
Lets do some math a 10 second video of 60FPS means ur rendering 600 pictures.
Now lets say it takes a hour to render a really nice scene, with many objects and nice lights with reflections and everything it might even take longer.
Thats is roughly 600hours worth of rendering.
So no this is NO BUG!

That means 1 hour per frame. I don't think your math is that good. And It takes me about 1-2 minutes per frame

my math is good 60 frames a second if u render 1 hour a frame its 600 hours

so if your frame only takes 1/2 min its about 600/1200 mins wich is 10-20 hours

[KuddleDuckeh]

Welp X_X
Pentiums don't render so well for the final product, too slow.

As KingSlayer said, if you're running a system with an nVidia card, then you should use those CUDAs to speed shiz up. You can do that by going to 'File > User Prefrences > System > Compute Device' and setting it from CPU to what ever option that isn't just soely only CPU.

Now, only if I could not be using the two cores of this CPU and instead be using those 1664 CUDA cores of that 970! ... oh this would be easier then. 2 hours a frame is killer slow X_X

[KuddleDuckeh]

If you're using cycles, yeah this stuff can take long.

How many cycles are you per frame block and what is your frame block size?

Optimizing these could possibly decrease rendering time.

[nik]

Note: It was done in 11 hours, music was out of sync though

[nik]

If anyone needs my specs, here: http://pastebin.com/HdKAFSkB

[Scre]

im more intrested in the final video then your specs :)

[lotw_1]

It depends on a lot of things, not just your Video card. Depends on if you are using Cycles (which isnt that fast yet), type of lights, textures, etc. Cycles also creates lots of noise (more than most other rendering programs like 3DS Max or Cinema 4d) so you need to do way more passes or play with render settings to fix, which if not careful can have some bad effects.

Its getting better, but Cycles needs a lot of work on the noise front...

[Muffy]

If you just want to see a preview of your animation, you should render in OpenGL instead, which will be really fast. (Render->OpenGL Render Animation).

Also, never ever render direct to video format unless doing a fast preview. Always render to an image sequence and add the sound afterwards in the sequencer. That way you can sync the sound and do other fixes without rerendering the whole thing.

Otherwise, Cycles rendering is going to be slow because it is tuned for photorealism. You can remove some features to make it faster but it's still going to be slower than blender internal.

For comparison, take Toy Story :

"Finished animation emerged in a steady drip of around three minutes a week. Each frame took from 45 minutes up to 30 hours to render, depending on its complexity. In total, the film required 800,000 machine hours and 114,240 frames of animation." (from wikipedia).