Samuel Benge wrote:
> Tim, it's a crazy thing you tried. It did work out, though! The render time
> isn't as bad as I would expect with such high settings. The emitting media is
> meant to simulate a plasma screen, yes?

LCD.  One of the newfangled insanely-bright ones.

> I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there is a way to reduce radiosity
> artifacts even when you've reached your 1600 samples limit. You can do this by
> adding a tiny surface normal to your objects. I usually use normal{bumps /*.25*/
> scale .001} and antialiasing with a low threshold (+a0.01). You should still
> keep a low error_bound, but you can get away with lowering the nearest_count
> down to 1 and maybe even use a lower samples count.
> The biggest problem is reducing the appearance of noise, but with adequate AA
> settings you can make things look pretty smooth. IMO, it's preferable to the
> standard radiosity artifacts. I think even Thomas would agree :)

Huh.  I should try that.  Due to egging on from someone on 4chan's /3/ 
board, I bit the bullet and finally downloaded the latest beta and am 
rendering a version with an image that has a better range of colours. 
Holy crap 3.7 is faster than 3.5.  So much so that I decided to really 
push the settings...

I dropped the brightness from 10 to 2, kept 1600 samples, dropped error 
bound to 0.01, 0.005 minimum reuse, 20 nearest count (to keep the sharp 
edge of the shadow from being all grainy), but lowered recursion limit to 2.

I wanted to show as much of the colour-bleed effect as possible, so had 
to hunt around for a better image...I actually tried setting gray 
threshold to less than 0 (shouldn't that in theory increase saturation? 
  haha) but it only allows 0--1.  :(

It's coming along quite nicely.  The walls are a bit sluggish, but it 
flies through the media itself like it's not even there.

I long for the day when I can use Moray in conjunction with this.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message