hi,
I have been doing all my sequence using Mantra in Indie at 1440x1440.

I purchased a license of Octane to do the same on GPU, but found it is restricted to 1080x1080 pixels. This is 46% fewer pixels that I am allowed to render with Mantra. I asked OTOY customer support and they said it is because their legal contract with Sidefx specifies:

“The maximum resolution of any sequence of images produced by the Renderer must be 1920x1080
(x_res <= 1920 && y_res <= 1080) “

But 1920x1080 = 1440x1440 = 2,073,600 pixels, the exact same resolution. It seems plugin vendors are being constrained by second line: ”(x_res <= 1920 && y_res <= 1080)" , rather than a maximum pixel count, forcing them to restrict their output resolution by up to 46% (total pixels in 1080x1080 vs 1440x1440).

Can someone at Sidefx verify this constraint is correct or should plugin vendors be allowed to output 1440x1440, or other non-standard aspect ratios, so long as the total pixel count doesn't exceed 2.073 million?

I, and many others, think it should be the same as the Mantra Indie limit, which is 2,073,600 pixels. If this is the true intention, can someone inform the plugin vendors so they can put fair, accurate limits on their renderers?

Thanks!

#1 - Indie 3rd party render resolution restriction is for Animation (Sequence of Images) not Stills. Still images have Unlimited Resolution for 3rd Party Renders under Indie.

#2 - The price for allowing 3rd Party Renderers in Indie is that SESI explicitly provides how the Animation Resolution restriction is to be enforced with the code you've posted above.

#3 - Regardless of this Animation Resolution issue, I'd advise you to give Redshift3D a try as well for GPU rendering in Houdini.

I'd like to hear from SESI on this.

There are a lot of use cases for rendering non 16x9 frames, and counting total pixels is the fairest way. This is how they implement the restriction in Mantra internally in Indie. It makes a preponderance of sense that the same restriction would be applied to external renderers for consistency of user experience, if nothing else.

Any SESI moderators out there?

thx.

Hope you dont min me chiming in again…but this [www.sidefx.com] post has been waiting since Feb 2017 for a response on the same subject.

The resolution constraint is indeed “width <= 1920 and height <= 1080” for image sequences. Still images are not resolution limited.

Yup I've bumped into that constraint, but am wondering why it is set at that, and if SideFx will reconsider.
Wouldn't a more equitable constraint be:

width*height <= 2,073,600

Some users need to render non-16:9 frames. In my case 1440x1440. This is the exact same res as 1920x1080, the pixels are just lined up differently!

Please consider this request on behalf of all Indie user that want to render square and/or non-16:9 frames.

thanks.