Author Topic: sbsrender default size  (Read 80 times)

If the substance is set to use parent width/height or bitdepth. It doesn't get these values based off the input bitmap resources(although you'd think it might be capable of that via metadata?). I've read that a substance like this will use a default size that varies based on applications. sbsrender defaults to 256x256 I think? While I can adjust the output size to 4096 it will still be processed/rendered via an input of 256 unless I add some exposed parameter/function manually to each substance to adjust that or set the node to use a specific size.

It's great that output can be specified, but why does sbsrender not allow to adjust the default initial/app size? (If it does this is not clear in documentation)

Hi,

You should be able to specify the resolution you want in sbsrender by modifying the "$outputsize" parameter, for example:
Code: [Select]
--set-value $outputsize@11,11
Technical Artist - Product Manager
gaetan.lassagne@allegorithmic.com

I've seen so many people being confused with the outputsize setting that it made the first entry on the frequently asked questions section of the SAT documentation:
https://support.allegorithmic.com/documentation/display/SAT/Frequently+asked+Questions

Let me know if you manage to solve your issue.

I have mentioned this in another thread, but I guess I will need to try again to confirm it.

When using the parameters you're advising in the past, the input images that were 2k in resolution were being processed as 256x256(relative to parent like FAQ link states), the outputsize value given to sbsrender only seemed to affect the rendered output size, eg it could save images at 1024, 2048, 4096(with GPU engines), etc...however the content was blurry as if it had been upscaled the input image from a 256x256 size(despite external source being 2k).

The parameter name itself makes sense that it would affect the output image size, not adjust the default 256x256 size for sbsrender(where other supported programs have varying default sizes but from my understanding can be adjusted by those programs). For the time being, I manually set the resolution of the bitmap nodes to their source size, this doesn't render output images with that blurry upscaled look, instead they're crisp and detailed like expected.

That is not the behavior I'm seeing. Do you have a sample network causing this issue I can look at?