[Radiance-general] Re: resolution mismatch revisited

[John S. An]

--Apple-Mail-1-863459001
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

Jack,

Thanks for you advice.

The short invocation was what I had found in the radiance-online 
archives, in which Greg gave a step by step approach.  I did take your 
advice and tried making the -x -y and -vf parameters explicit in the 
second invocation.    I no longer get the resolution mismatch error.  
Also, although my image is only 500 by 500, the settings seem to be 
sufficiently high enough that each piece takes at least a couple 
minutes to render.

However, a few things that I have noticed are:
1) when I use the "top" command, there are 4 rpict processes.  2 seem 
to be active, and 2 are idle.  I had assumed that there should be only 
3 rpict processes (2 active, and one waiting fork).
2) when I look over the output log, both processes are working on frame 
1, then again, both working on frame 2, etc.
3) the final output .pic file only has the center (where the light 
fixture is located) rendered, and the rest of the image is completely 
black.

I'm sure I'm making a dumb newbie mistake, but can't seem to figure out 
what it is.  Could you (or someone) post a detailed printout of which 
commands with what parameters one would use to get a simple rpiece 
process going?

Thanks.

(btw, my initial attempt at the rpiece command was adapted from Greg's 
post a while back)


John

_________________________________
Jack de Valpine wrote:

John,

We use rpiece but probably a little differently in terms of invocation.
There are a couple of things to look at:

    1. typo - there is a typo in your first command line you have --aa
       which should be -a
    2. invocations - there is a short form for invoking rpiece after the
       initial invocation, which is what you are trying to do here. I
       would check the man page for rpiece carefully to make sure you are
       doing this correctly, it looks like you are leaving out the -x and
       -y image resolution parameters as well as the viewfile -vf  from
       the short version of the invocation. As an alternative to keep
       things more "simple", I would suggest just calling exactly the
       same thing as the initial invocation. This could be coded into a
       simple script or makefile to save yourself some of the headache of
       typing the whole thing our or a potentially incorrect cut and 
paste.
    3. scene complexity - depending on the simplicity or complexity of
       the scene you are trying to run here there is a another possible
       problem. If the scene is really simple and the image size small
       (500x500 is not that large) then the first rpiece process could
       have completed everything  before the next invocation (I seem to
       recall that this may produce the same kind of message?) Are you
       getting a completed image?

-Jack de Valpine

John S. An wrote:

 > Hi all,
 >
 > I had followed Andrews discussion on resolution mismatch a few weeks
 > back.  However, I seem to be running into a different type of
 > resolution mismatch problem right now.
 >
 > I am venturing into the world of parallel processing on a dual G5
 > Macintosh, and my first invocation of rpiece works fine.
 >
 > rpiece -X 5 -Y 5 -F b_b_b_sync -o b_b_b_1_indirect_plan.pic -PP
 > b_b_b.pst -af b_b_b.amb -t 600 -vf ../views/plan.vf -dt 0.05 -dc 0.10
 > -ds 0.01 -dj 0.6 -dr 3 -dp 4096 -st 0.01 -sj 1 -av 0.01 0.01 0.01 -aw
 > 1 -ab 2 ad 2048 -as 1024 --aa 0.05 -ar 256 -aE ../ambient_exclude -x
 > 500 -y 500 -ms 2.7 -lr 12 -lw 0.0005 -ps 1 -pt 0.04 -e b_b_b.out
 > b_b_b.oct &
 >
 > However, when I try to start the second process
 >
 > rpiece -F b_b_b_sync -o b_b_b_1_indirect_plan.pic -PP b_b_b.pst
 > b_b_b.oct &
 >
 > I get the error message
 >
 > rpiece: resolution mismatch on file "b_b_b_1_indirect_plan.pic
 >
 > I tried adjusting the -X -Y and -x -y parameters, but the same thing
 > happened.  Just out of curiosity, I also tried adjusting the -av and
 > -aw to 0, and the same results.
 >
 >
 > I am certain that this is not a problem with a limit on the available
 > resource.  The machine has 1.5GB of memory.
 >
 > Any hints as to what could be wrong?
 >
 >
 > Thanks.
 >
 > John

--Apple-Mail-1-863459001
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

<fontfamily><param>Courier</param><x-tad-bigger>Jack,


Thanks for you advice.


The short invocation was what I had found in the radiance-online
archives, in which Greg gave a step by step approach.  I did take your
advice and tried making the -x -y and -vf parameters explicit in the
second invocation.    I no longer get the resolution mismatch error. 
Also, although my image is only 500 by 500, the settings seem to be
sufficiently high enough that each piece takes at least a couple
minutes to render.


However, a few things that I have noticed are:

1) when I use the "top" command, there are 4 rpict processes.  2 seem
to be active, and 2 are idle.  I had assumed that there should be only
3 rpict processes (2 active, and one waiting fork).

2) when I look over the output log, both processes are working on
frame 1, then again, both working on frame 2, etc.

3) the final output .pic file only has the center (where the light
fixture is located) rendered, and the rest of the image is completely
black.


I'm sure I'm making a dumb newbie mistake, but can't seem to figure
out what it is.  Could you (or someone) post a detailed printout of
which commands with what parameters one would use to get a simple
rpiece process going?


Thanks.


(btw, my initial attempt at the rpiece command was adapted from Greg's
post a while back)



John


_________________________________

Jack de Valpine wrote:


John,


We use rpiece but probably a little differently in terms of
invocation. 

There are a couple of things to look at:


   1. typo - there is a typo in your first command line you have --aa

      which should be -a

   2. invocations - there is a short form for invoking rpiece after the

      initial invocation, which is what you are trying to do here. I

      would check the man page for rpiece carefully to make sure you
are

      doing this correctly, it looks like you are leaving out the -x
and

      -y image resolution parameters as well as the viewfile -vf  from

      the short version of the invocation. As an alternative to keep

      things more "simple", I would suggest just calling exactly the

      same thing as the initial invocation. This could be coded into a

      simple script or makefile to save yourself some of the headache
of

      typing the whole thing our or a potentially incorrect cut and
paste.

   3. scene complexity - depending on the simplicity or complexity of

      the scene you are trying to run here there is a another possible

      problem. If the scene is really simple and the image size small

      (500x500 is not that large) then the first rpiece process could

      have completed everything  before the next invocation (I seem to

      recall that this may produce the same kind of message?) Are you

      getting a completed image?


-Jack de Valpine


John S. An wrote:


></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger> Hi all,

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
I had followed Andrews discussion on resolution mismatch a few weeks 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
back.  However, I seem to be running into a different type of 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
resolution mismatch problem right now.

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
I am venturing into the world of parallel processing on a dual G5 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
Macintosh, and my first invocation of rpiece works fine.

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
rpiece -X 5 -Y 5 -F b_b_b_sync -o b_b_b_1_indirect_plan.pic -PP 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
b_b_b.pst -af b_b_b.amb -t 600 -vf ../views/plan.vf -dt 0.05 -dc 0.10 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
-ds 0.01 -dj 0.6 -dr 3 -dp 4096 -st 0.01 -sj 1 -av 0.01 0.01 0.01 -aw 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
1 -ab 2 ad 2048 -as 1024 --aa 0.05 -ar 256 -aE ../ambient_exclude -x 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
500 -y 500 -ms 2.7 -lr 12 -lw 0.0005 -ps 1 -pt 0.04 -e b_b_b.out 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
b_b_b.oct &

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
However, when I try to start the second process

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
rpiece -F b_b_b_sync -o b_b_b_1_indirect_plan.pic -PP b_b_b.pst 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
b_b_b.oct &

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
I get the error message

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
rpiece: resolution mismatch on file "b_b_b_1_indirect_plan.pic

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
I tried adjusting the -X -Y and -x -y parameters, but the same thing 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
happened.  Just out of curiosity, I also tried adjusting the -av and 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
-aw to 0, and the same results.

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
I am certain that this is not a problem with a limit on the available 

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
resource.  The machine has 1.5GB of memory.

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
Any hints as to what could be wrong?

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
Thanks.

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>

</x-tad-bigger></italic><x-tad-bigger>></x-tad-bigger><italic><x-tad-bigger>
John

</x-tad-bigger></italic></fontfamily>
--Apple-Mail-1-863459001--