[numerobis]

I just noticed that using render region combined with network rendering results in a wrong SL for the merged MXI - three SL lower.
When i set it to stop at SL18 the SL displayed in the MXI is SL15. When i set SL19 i get SL16. SL17=SL14
The same file without region is ok.

(render started from Studio)

[numerobis]

It looks like this problem is still existing in v3...

coop render region on 10 nodes; multilight;HDRi: Win 7 x64
SL16 = SL11.47


but it seems that i'm the only one with this problem...

[numerobis]

no problem at all?!?

I still get a different (lower) sl in the region render MXI compared to the sl that i set in the network monitor... sl14.88 instead of 17 in my last region render.

[dariolanza]

Hello numerobis,

No, you are not the only one experiencing this, but the good news is that it is not a bug or malfunction.

The issue comes on the concept of what is the SL of an image that has certain pixels inside the region at certain SL (in your example 17), and others out of the region that are no sampled (internally they present SL 0).
Although the network system takes this into account and stops the render properly when it is the region what reaches the desired SL, the numerical value you see displayed on the Maxwell interface when you open that MXI is in fact an average of the SL of all the pixels that compose the image, showing a lower average value (in your case 14). Of course usually, on full image renders, the SL value is identical for them all.

So don't worry for the value outputted in the Maxwell interface when you open that MXI. Although it may lead to think that the SL of the render is lower, the region has the corresponding SL you ordered.

Let me know if this clarifies your question.

Greetings

Dario Lanza

[numerobis]

Ok, thanks for clarification!
I just saw that it is resuming at sl17, so everything works ok - it's only a bit confusing that the wrong number is saved.

[dariolanza]

Yes,

It is only the outputted value what can be a bit confusing (but basically because of the mere definition of what the global SL of an image should be when it presents different areas sampled differently).
Nowadays the outputted global value is an average, which is the best solution for 99% of the cases, but can be confusing in cases like this.
Other solutions aside from the average (like outputting the higher value among all the pixels) could fit better in cases like this, but could generate similar problems in others.

It is just a "philosophic" question ; )

Good to know that aside from the apparent confusion, everything is working fine there as expected.

Greetings

Dario Lanza