Le 16-11-25 à 04:12, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> On 11/25/2016 3:30 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/25/2016 8:15 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> On 11/25/2016 1:43 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>> Can anyone recommend the scripts on this site?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
>>>>
>>>> I am currently rendering an image of my LCH color solid isosurface, and
>>>> it is at 11% after 2.2 hours. And so far only the easiest parts.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think I could benefit from converting to a mesh instead? Or is
>>>> the benefit only if you want to render the scene multiple times
>>>> (such as
>>>> an animation)?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> I tried it and it's a bad choice I think. Edges aren't sufficiently
>>> sharp and smooth.
>>>
>>
>> Did you use the version with subdivision and variable depth?
>> And you can always edit it to give sharp edges. In fact I would edit it
>> anyway to make some faces flat and the curved face smooth.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, I tried with subdivision and the following values:
>
>     #declare isoSegs = <32,32,32>;
>     #declare Depth = 3;
>
> The edges are still too rough. I've attached the result. I'm not good
> with modifying meshes by hand, so I will forego doing that. I will
> instead wait for the true isosurface to finish rendering.
>
> There's one thing I'm worried about though. The place where the
> isosurface meets the cylinder showed holes or gaps last time I rendered
> a test image. But hopefully decreasing "accuracy" will clear up the issue.
>
> Mike

It's a accuracy isue, but not the one you think of. It's a isue of 
floating point accuracy, or FPU accuracy.
In this case, try increasing the overall scale of your scene by 10: Put 
every objects and light_source into an union and add scale 10, then 
apply the same to the camera by multiplying the location and look_at 
also by 10.

Post a reply to this message