Large Pixel Non-Tiling Render Problem (60k x 36k)

So I've tried several times to render an image that is 60,000px wide by 36,000px high and FF has crashed several times or decided to "pause" itself. I've tried several different Macs and this image just will not render for me. This is a modified version of the cold pressed paper texture. I even started up my Mac with no other apps or processes running and let the render run all weekend. I came back and FF said that the app was "paused". I never can get it to un-pause. This is a i5 2015 5k iMac with 32GB of RAM and about 500 gb of free hard disk space running El Capitan. I need to send this file to my client.

Anybody have any idea what is going on here? I own version 5, but I tried to render this with both a v6 demo and v7 beta. ????

Thanks!

Thanks GMM,

I did try a 64 bit version. I tried both v6 and v7. My iMac doesn’t' have an SSD and it isn't an easily changeable part on these machines. I left FF at the default settings other than to tell it to use all available cores. So I don't know why this wouldn't eventually render after letting it run for 3 full nights? This really puts me in a bind. I shouldn't need a render farm to do this. What did people do with the 32 bit v5 for really large images? Hasn't large dimension rendering been a feature in FF for a long time?

If I may ask what filter were you using?
There's a tenancy for some filters to contain unoptimal parts which kinda leads to sluggish renders. In this case it appears the problem's somewhat solved but I'll write in for future reference.

1. User submitted filters can somewhat have weird, unoptimal stuff going on. Partially because not everyone's on the same technical spec level with an ideal filter. It's not to say all filters likewise are slow, but it highly depends on the method used by the author which can lead to fast or slow filters. I'd be able to help you out here with finding these kinds of things out.

2. I often render just "base level" elements of the filter. In other words, I look in a filter and judge which layers are creating the bulk of the effect and which ones are doable in Photoshop (or whatever program you're using). Of course the convenience of a filter is that it's got every step of the way somehow done for you. But note that sometimes if you need the full speed, it's somewhat a lot faster to accomplish somethings manually. This technique requires you to understand both Photoshop and FilterForge at an advanced level so it's not for everyone.

Thanks Skybase and GMM,

That makes sense about different complexities for different filters. In all honestly I'm mostly a vector graphics guy. I do some bitmap work, but most of it is not large scale. So scanned textures work most of the time. I also do some 3d work, but again, it's a mix of procedural shaders and small scale UV Texturing. It's one of the reasons I bought FilterForge in the first place.

I'm using a modified version of the cold pressed watercolor paper filter. https://www.filterforge.com/filters/11073.html
The only change I made was to add a scale node to make the texture pattern larger since it will be seen from a distance. This broke the seamless tiling, hence the reason I needed to render the full size image.

I work backwards from Photoshop for the size. I enter the panel size and target DPI, which gives me the overall pixel dimensions. I tested an 800dpi image last night, and it also came out fine. So I'm guessing there is some hardware limitation that I'm hitting in the 1000dpi range for this size image?

I appreciate the feedback. Hopefully the client will be ok with 800dpi instead of 1000. I've tried to tell them several times that I think 1000dpi is overkill for the graphics they need on their panel.

Thanks for the feedback Carl.

I figured there may be a way to adjust some of the individual nodes, but I'm just not savvy enough to do it (yet). I'll play around with the advice you've given and see if I can get it working that way. I'm sure it will come in handy in the future.

Ha yeah, I thought about it!

They ended up giving me the phone number of the printer they are using so I could call them I found out that the printer wants 300dpi. They told me they increase the file up to 1000dpi and then print it at 25%. I guess that packs more info in? I've never heard of anyone doing it that way, but that's ok with me. Makes it a lot easier to create a full size image at 300dpi than a 800 – 1000 one!