9
$\begingroup$

I render an animation at 200 samples; $1920$ x $1080$, using Cycles.

A still takes about 2min44s to be rendered. Tiles are $480$ x $360$.

I noticed that when doing half resolution renders, the same still would take only 43s, which means only 26 % of the full resolution time.

Is it a normal behaviour ?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ a 50% resolution of a 1920 x 1080 will give a 960 x 540 picture, and you need 4 pictures of 960 x 540 to fulfill a 1920 x 1080... actually it"s half the length or height size, not half the dimension $\endgroup$
    – moonboots
    Jul 9, 2018 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ I think it has something to do with the exponential growth of tiles as the render percentage increases. $\endgroup$
    – Legoman
    Jul 9, 2018 at 16:36

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
27
$\begingroup$

That is simple math, area doesn't scale linearly, it has a quadratic relation to the dimensions of the shape, if you double the size you quadruple the area hence a four times the render time.

If the area of a $4 \times 4 = 16$ and you halve it then $2 \times 2 = 4$ which is one fourth

Hence you get a quarter of the area and consequently one fourth of pixels to calculate; that's about four times less computation power required leading to roughly one fourth of render time, give or take, for the same scene and settings.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Of course ! :/ Bad thinking I had ! $\endgroup$
    – gordie
    Jul 9, 2018 at 16:48
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Unrelated to the question, but, in Mathjax, I think it would be better to denote multiplication either by using \times or \cdot (For instance, 4 \cdot 4 > $4 \cdot 4$, 4 \times 4 > $4 \times 4$) $\endgroup$
    – Omar Emara
    Jul 9, 2018 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ Ah many thanks @OmarAhmad . I wondered if there was a better way to represent that, didn't have the opportunity to investigate. \times works like a charm. Answer updated! $\endgroup$
    – Duarte Farrajota Ramos ♦
    Jul 9, 2018 at 23:16
9
$\begingroup$

Following on Duarte's answer this may help to visualize it better.

If you look at the purple (Full HD) square you would need 4 of them to fill up the (4K blue square) So the render would take 4 times as long even though you are only doubling the resolution (vice versa).

enter image description here

Here is a birdseye view of resolutions that I use as a guide.

enter image description here

  • I should note, I have no clue where this chart came from. I have had it printed for years and the above is just a picture of it from an iPhone. I just find it helpful, Thought others might too.
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.