Rendering time of backgrounds created in ASP

Wondering how to accomplish a certain animation task? Ask here.

Moderators: Fahim, Distinct Sun, Víctor Paredes, erey, Belgarath, slowtiger

Post Reply
User avatar
uddhava
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: American back in Hungary

Rendering time of backgrounds created in ASP

Post by uddhava » Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:48 pm

If I want to create backgrounds in ASP, what is the best way to place the different elements,shapes of the background for the fastest rendering times? For instance in many layers, in one layer, etc.

Thank you, Udd
User avatar
slowtiger
Posts: 5460
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Post by slowtiger » Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:25 pm

Use as many layers as you want. The trick is to render that background only once, then re-import it into your animation files as one single image.
User avatar
PARKER
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:26 am
Location: Animation World

Post by PARKER » Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:28 pm

i agree with slowtiger.
Also the more points and effects you use in the backgrounds the longer time to render.
User avatar
J. Baker
Posts: 1037
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by J. Baker » Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:44 pm

Also, only render whats visible. Anything hidden behind something or way off to the left or right is just wasting rendering time. Just remember to hide and show layers throughout the timeline. ;)
User avatar
uddhava
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: American back in Hungary

Post by uddhava » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:26 am

slowtiger wrote:Use as many layers as you want. The trick is to render that background only once, then re-import it into your animation files as one single image.
Thanks. So I should import it back in as an image. Would you usually render that out in a larger size in the same aspect ratio as your final movie size. I guess for zooming in you would do that?

Also for panning the size of the image would be longer than the movie.



Udd
User avatar
uddhava
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: American back in Hungary

Post by uddhava » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:29 am

J. Baker wrote:Also, only render whats visible. Anything hidden behind something or way off to the left or right is just wasting rendering time. Just remember to hide and show layers throughout the timeline. ;)
Thanks. Is this for when I render the background as vector layers as opposed to using one image? Are there advantages for that?

Udd
User avatar
rylleman
Posts: 750
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:22 pm
Location: sweden
Contact:

Post by rylleman » Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:26 pm

uddhava wrote:...Would you usually render that out in a larger size in the same aspect ratio as your final movie size. I guess for zooming in you would do that?
...
I'd say render at about double size of what final resolution will be since AS does add a slight blur to images when rendering. This can be very noticable when rendering images at 100%.
Downscaling them makes this much less visible.
User avatar
uddhava
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: American back in Hungary

Post by uddhava » Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:04 pm

rylleman wrote: I'd say render at about double size of what final resolution will be since AS does add a slight blur to images when rendering. This can be very noticable when rendering images at 100%.
Downscaling them makes this much less visible.
Ok, thanks for the tip.


And thanks to everyone for your help.

Udd
da2tha3
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:33 am
Location: Bolton, UK
Contact:

Post by da2tha3 » Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:50 pm

Also, if you want to create the impression of depth in the background, you could save the separate parts (sky, far, mid, near) as images and then layer them. If you have lots of effects (splotchy is particularly time-consuming) applied, then this approach will still considerably cut down on rendering times.
Post Reply