• Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      The strain of going from a 32 x 22 image to a 256 x 176 one is evident in how much longer this secondary image took to render. From 879.75 seconds (nearly 15 minutes) to 61,529.88 seconds (over 17 hours). Luckily, some optimisations and time-saving tweaks meant this could be brought down to 8,089.52, or near-ish two and a half hours.

      Those are really reasonable values. I guess my laptop would take that long to render a 4k image as well.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ray tracing speed primary depends on the number of pixels, not the complexity of the scene.

          • pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            The complexity of your scene makes a huge difference. If your scene has fewer things for light to bounce off of, doing the ray tracing is much faster

            (Source: I do blender renders with cycles)