Slow rendering

I am running a fast Mac laptop and I have very slow rendering times. I installed FF on my Windows (via parellels) and it too takes forever to render to file.

I am rendering a 6700 x 8300 photo. I am using the Old Photo filter. I am guessing it based on the progress indicator it will takes 1-2 hours (I abandon after 20 minutes or so) on the Windows version and it seems about the same on the Mac OS version.

I really like FF and I want to purchase it but the render times are not workable and from other threads I have read are not typical although other have certainly complained about the same problem.

Help please....

Quote
I am running a fast Mac laptop and I have very slow rendering times. I installed FF on my Windows (via parellels) and it too takes forever to render to file.

I wonder why are you using the Windows version having already a fast Mac computer?

Why are you not using the Mac version instead?

I read about slow render times in some posts. The common consensus (fr om 2012) at the time render times were slow because of the MAC OS. So I just experimented in Windows and the render times are about the same.

Some of the filters are very cool but if you are experimenting and you have to wait hours to see if you like an effect and if you are combining with other FF effects in Photoshop you literally could spend 20+ hours rendering a few variations out.

I guess I should experiment with very small jpgs and that might help speed the proof-of-concept stage up.

I am used to software programs like NIK tools wh ere 5 seconds to render out a large file seems pretty normal.

SPEED TEST MADE with 8400x9000 pixels

I have made the test in my own computer for you with the defailt first preset and it takes for a 8400x9000 pixels 43 minutes to finish rendering

I have Windows 8 with Intel Quad Core 3.4Ghz i2600K and configured RAM to 60%

Quote
johnE I guess I should experiment with very small jpgs and that might help speed the proof-of-concept stage up.

Fr om the speed tests I have already done before, this does not work, because on smaller jpgs the difference may be very little, and will not help to really test the speed difference. If you want to use smaller jpgs I can suggest to begin with at least 2000 x 2000 pixels or higher.

The time of the rendering increases much with higher resolutions

Quote
johnE I am used to software programs like NIK tools wh ere 5 seconds to render out a large file seems pretty normal.

Well, you CAN´T compare the rendering time of Filter Forge (FF) with any other plugin like Nik, OnOne or Topaz Labs, because they are NOT generating the image as it happens inside FF, they are only applying an effect to an image or photo that is already created AND as Skybase have said very well, the filters that you use in FF are not hardcoded and very well optimized as they are in these other tools.

The only way that FF could be faster is to have a monster faster CPU or that the FF team could make a new render engine with OpenCL hardware acceleration or find another way to improve the render speed

ABOUT RENDER SPEED OF FILTER FORGE

As Skybase have said right, the speed issue, is NOT for ALL the filters, and it will depend very much on the filters you choose, there are available filters very fast, and some very slow, and a whole range of different speeds in the middle.

I can´t tell how many filters are fast or slow, you have to test them, some filters only takes a few seconds, others a few minutes and others could take take hours.

And of course ALL depends very much at how big is the resolution

Quote
What can I do to reduce rendering times?

One method is to go into the filter itself and render out specific sections contributing to the filter's look. This is slightly advanced as a technique but just like how you'd compile your stuff in layers, many filters have specific "layers" to them in which results in the overall image. In some cases you can manually achieve the same effect in Photoshop alone.

In some cases you can simply render out the diffuse map and manually add in the lighting effects later.

I also suggest manually going in and optimizing the filter itself. Which is tricky. There's a tendency for novice filter authors to leave a bunch of slow-moving, unoptimized loads of stuff in filters. These things can sometimes lead to extremely slow renders.

I should have mentioned that these are all relatively advanced techniques.

Quote
Is there a tutorial on how to do that?

Nop, and it also depends on a filter. There are some filters where you can't do some things. For example, Spherical Displacement is one of those effects where you can't really separate out specific layers to recombine them later in Photoshop. It takes a bit of understanding of FilterForge and Photoshop skills to determine if you can recombine elements of a filter later in Photoshop manually.

With the diffuse map, you basically just get the "color" pass. Generally it's intended to be for 3D texture work. The idea being the diffuse pass gives you no lighting what-so-ever hence less calculation and therefore less render time. I generally hand-paint lighting so this method works for me... if I ever want something fast.

Quote
How does one manually optimize a filter? That Spherical Displacement filter has a lot of nodes. A pretty complicated filter.

Probably not for Spherical Displacement after all, it's created by a very advanced user. This technique is intended more for filters that have sloppy construction or unoptimized junk. The method does require some advanced FilterForge understanding.

ONE MORE THING since those methods I mentioned are PRETTY advanced I thought of another one that I forgot... I should have said it first.

Try disabling anti-alias. By default it's set to 5 samples. It usually significantly reduces render time at the cost of jaggy edges, although if the images are large enough, you can surely get away without it.