Slow.. slow... slow...

Welcome to the MAIN AND GREATEST PROBLEM of Filter Forge that is SLOW!!

This is a self generated filter of FF so is slower than others filters, BUT if you say that it takes 1 HOUR, 2 Hours and 1,5 Hours to make a 2000 x 2000 is TOO slow, and I think that there may be something wrong in the settings or something weird is happening

I suposse that you are testing the FF Professional version and you have activated the multicore option setting.

If you have a 88 core computer it CAN´T take 1,5 hours to render

I will make a test myself and will tell you

You are right, you have a problem.

I have just made a test for you, and in my computer it takes 10 MINUTES to render the 2000 x 2000 of the Simple Stone filter

i just ran a 2000 x 2000 on my i7 pc, with anti-aliasing turned on. the result was 27.26 seconds. so, it's definitely NOT filter itself which is giving you problems.

Quote
For information, if i use the same components but in a "filter type : simple", time is perfect : down to 50secondes (with AA) on the macbook air. But when it's a "filter type : surface" : bad results.

If you change the result you will not get the same result I think, although it may be much faster.

Here below I show you my configuration of FF

Ok, thanks !

I am currently testing on Windows and I come back here, this could perhaps help someone else ..

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i just ran a 2000 x 2000 on my i7 pc, with anti-aliasing turned on. the result was 27.26 seconds. so, it's definitely NOT filter itself which is giving you problems.

PLEASE, PLEASE Tell me HOW you have been able to get JUST 27.26 seconds with a intel i7 and I that also have an intel i7 have taken 10 minutes ???

I have an intel i7 2600K 3.5Ghz

And I have activated the 4 cores + the 4 HT cores

Ok, so MacOs is the problem, don't use it for rendering.

With AA on, i rendering in 75secondes (2000x2000).

Configuration :
Windows Seven
MacBook Air 2012
Ivy Bridge i5 1.8ghz
4go ddr3
SSD

Thanks for your help, and if i can help you SpaceRay with another test, just tell me.

an i7 has 8 cores and 8 more virtual cores. i have 6 gigs of ram and an ssd drive (solid state drive) as my C:/ drive. i keep my system fairly trim. i dont allow a lot of startup programs. and yes, it's the simple stone filter by jitspoe and yes, my imaze size is set for 2000 x 2000 (i just checked both to make sure). i also turn off a lot of unnecessary services (go to blackviper.com for info on this). i also monitor my cpu usage, drive usage and network usage with those little gadgets on the desktop. this helps me understand and handle lags, memory leaks, network traffic and so on.

also note, my 27.26 seconds was on the default preset. i dont know if any of the other presets would run the same.

as a suggestion, go to www.blackviper.com for help with turning off unneeded windows crap!
do not use active virus scanners. put all that stuff on manual, except maybe for the active email scanning.
programs that actively scan for problems actually become a problem in that they tend to eat a lot of system resources.
i can always tell when filter forge is about to crash due to the memory allocation bug because the ram usage will hit a certain level and if it gets pushed over that, boom!
understand that folks that want to sell you anti-malware and anti-anything-bad-happening-to-my-computer are playing on your fear of those things happening. it doesnt mean their programs are any good. i use a minimum of anti-virus and anti-malware junk, but i use reputable stuff. the trend lately in anti-virus has been to give you the anti-virus for free and then sell you the anti-malware stuff. the more stuff you buy, the more it clogs your computer. i use a good firewall, a good, free anti-virus and one other very smart program that keeps crap out of my startup. for browser problems i use hijackthis, for the most part.

computers get bogged down. this is especially true if you just allow programs to put anything they want, anywhere they want. i dont. i disallow a lot of stuff into my startup routine. my computer boots up in about 30 seconds, fully to windows with everything loaded that i want loaded. the SSD drive helps a ton here. it's a LOT faster than a normal drive.

filter forge is a hefty program. when it first went into beta i seem to recall it being around 20 gigs, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. it's now over 60 gigs. surface filters do generally take longer to render than simple ones. anti-aliasing does tend to take long that not. filters can sometimes be optimized with little loss in function, but not always. i often see my cpu usage climb to near maximum when i run a filter. just remember, ram is the workspace and cpu is the worker. those two combined give you your overall speed. with filter forge currently capped at 2 gigs, the 32 bit maximum, your cpu has to work harder. if you dont have 2 gigs available, then your swap file kicks in and that slows things WAAAAAAAAY down!

oh, and keep your swap file fairly large. if you have 4 gigs of ram or more, you'll probably never hit the max with filter forge and your swap file wont kick in, but you shld keep it fairly large anyways.

oh, and if you dont know what a swap file is, it's the way windows makes up for the lack of ram. it simply takes a portion of your harddrive and uses it as if it was ram. it allocates a certain amount and simply uses it for ram. you can set this amount manually, if you want, or just let windows manage it. the choice is yours and i dont know if one is better than the other, but if your harddrive light is coming on a lot when rendering, i'd start buying more ram.

the reason filter forge can only use 2 gigs of ram is that it's 32 bit and 32 bit basically can only count as high as 2 gigs. it just goes dumb after that and cant use anything larger. 64 bit would remove that particular barrier and we'd love it if FF could go 64 bit, but vladimir has already stated that's not going to happen any time soon, i seem to recall. that was a while back, so i'm not sure how that stands right now.

also, if you have any of the occlusions turned on, like ambient occlusion, in the surface filter, this can add a ton of time to rendering. sometimes that doesnt make a bit of difference to the look of the render so just turn it off when you can.

so, trim the fat from your system and things shld run more quickly!

oops! an i7 has 4 cores and 4 virtual.

also, i was using the smaller preview for the render. i'm rendering in full view now. hang on... it's definitely a bit longer but shldnt be 10 minutes. this will be with ambient occlusion turned on and anti-aliasing set at 5 samples and 'actual' size turned on.

all cores are working their butts off, from about 94% to 100% and ram is hanging around right at 2174MB.

hehehe, ok, my apologies, SR. with the actual size turned on this is running quite a bit slower. lol. my bad.

ok, 8 minutes, 40 seconds for the full render in 'actual' size.

with ambient occlusion and anti-aliasing turned off, 16.74 seconds.

Vincs, in the lighting tab of the filter, click outside the shiny orb (which is the enviroment setings) and you get the ambience options.
Turn shadowing off to remove any ambient rendering.

Thanks very much for all the information

One VERY IMPORTANT THING if you use the Reduced view, the render time is NOT REAL and is only for the 600 x 600 reduced size preview

if you really want to know THE REAL time it takes to render and save the result you have to turn on the "ACTUAL SIZE" view and then you will be able to know the real and true render speed.

Quote
With AA on, rendering time is to 521 secondes, so 8,5 minutes.

WHich of the Antialias have you made this test with of the ones available in the list



I mean if it is 5 samples, 9 samples or... and also if it is "edges only" or "all pixels"

I think I have solved the mystery behind the great difference in rendering times.

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: I have just made a test for you, and in my computer it takes 10 MINUTES to render the 2000 x 2000 of the Simple Stone filter

This the real render time when saving the file with antialias and Ambient oclusion

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i just ran a 2000 x 2000 on my i7 pc, with anti-aliasing turned on. the result was 27.26 seconds. so, it's definitely NOT filter itself which is giving you problems.

This is from a Reduced mode preview that IS NOT the real time and as shown above I have been to get 29.91 seconds in in this same mode.

Quote
Vincs wrote: With AA on, i rendering in 75secondes (2000x2000). Configuration : Windows Seven MacBook Air 2012 Ivy Bridge i5 1.8ghz 4go ddr3 SSD

This must be also a Reduced mode preview with the 600 x 600 time

Quote
Kraellin wrote: ok, 8 minutes, 40 seconds for the full render in 'actual' size.

YES, this is better than 27 seconds ,I mean that this is the REAL time in ACTUAL size

Quote
Kraellin wrote: with ambient occlusion turned off, 1 minute, 10 seconds. with ambient occlusion and anti-aliasing turned off, 16.74 seconds.

Also this is REAL time in Actual Size

and here is without Antialias

Quote
WHich of the Antialias have you made this test with of the ones available in the list

5 samples / Edges Only.

I think you are a render-time master now !

SpaceRay, I totaly agree than in this filter the 8 minute difference between AA5 and no AA is a waste of time... I can hardly see the difference.
There are filters that the AA is a must, but there are filters that it's just a wate of time.
I guess it's worth trying to turn off AA if a filter is sluggish.

I am making a 6000 x 6000 test

Quote
Kraellin wrote: also, if you have any of the occlusions turned on, like ambient occlusion, in the surface filter, this can add a ton of time to rendering. sometimes that doesnt make a bit of difference to the look of the render so just turn it off when you can. so, trim the fat from your system and things shld run more quickly!

YES, is true this is very important, thanks

AND what is more important in this case is that the difference in quality does NOT justify the difference in time

Here is WITHOUT the Ambient Occlusion and Antialias OFF at 100% view size

AA5 = Antialias 5 Samples

Quote

Morgantao wrote: SpaceRay, I totaly agree than in this filter the 8 minute difference between AA5 and no AA is a waste of time... I can hardly see the difference. And what do you think about the above example ? Would you wait 1 Hour and 16 minutes more ? There are filters that the AA is a must, but there are filters that it's just a wate of time. I guess it's worth trying to turn off AA if a filter is sluggish

AND I totally agree with you that is not worth the 8 minute difference for getting the same or nearly the same result.

Is true that this is IN THIS specific case, and on others filter the AA and also Ambient Occlusion may be important or really needed, BUT as you say, is really worth trying to see to turn them off first and see if the quality is much worse than the filter preview or preset.

Quote
Skybase wrote: ... this calls for a video tutorial on how to speed things up just a notch!

Does this means that you are going to make a video tutorial to explain about this important and interesting topic?

Thanks very much

And here is WITHOUT it, do you see any difference