viewport vs screen renders

[grant_PD]

I've been doing some interior renders of a bathroom, and for kicks tried doing my renders as viewports instead of exporting the render out as .tiff file. I've noticed two things, and wondering if others can comment:

1) Renders via viewport are extremely slow. I have two renders at 150 dpi that can take anywhere up to 45 minutes to render. Vs. an export that takes maybe 5.

2) The lighting is shifted in a viewport render. I'm using an HDRI background, with interior and exterior lights for fill and kick. The viewports come out darker than the actual renderings.

I'll try to post some differences when this project is done. But wondered if others had experienced the same thing.

[Elite Exhibits]

I have also had similar results when I attempted to "Batch Print" to PDFs. (Never had one run past 20min before I escaped.) - (I have a request into VW Training as to what the issue is -

Traditionally we used the Batch Render Feature, although there are limitations in this process when some drawing items are changed (lighting is an example) and there is a class based Bug that makes for some work around fun. (With Batch Render you are able to specify a very high resolution output with the Batch Render Que -

Ironically we do some screen captures (32 in cinema displays make for a nice big screen capture ... ) that rival export, mostly sent as PDF to clients, but they look good even when printed to 11x17 laser - Peter

[grant_PD]

Oh yea. I know all about the screen capture from the cinema display. It's the best way to roll.

I've had major issues with my file today. With viewports not rendering and the file choking up. All I can figure is that after each render VW keeps that viewport in RAM or something, so that it eventually runs out of memory. Not so with the batch render I believe.