 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I have a planetary atmosphere with both scattering and absorption
> interior media. It renders very slowly. Any tips on speeding it up? Thanks.
>
>
> Mike
it's likely not your media - but your media settings.
try:
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/message/%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2/5/2021 5:59 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> > I have a planetary atmosphere with both scattering and absorption
> > interior media. It renders very slowly. Any tips on speeding it up? Thanks.
>
> Here is the media: ...
tweaking the code may gain you some, but, perhaps, you can cheat and clip the
sphere/planet just behind the horizon, saving ~40%.
> [0 rgb 0/10]
confused why you don't write just '[0 rgb 0]'.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 05/02/2021 om 11:59 schreef Mike Horvath:
> On 2/5/2021 5:59 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> I have a planetary atmosphere with both scattering and absorption
>> interior media. It renders very slowly. Any tips on speeding it up?
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Here is the media:
>
I am studying/testing your media, but need a little time...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2021 6:56 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> it's likely not your media - but your media settings.
>
> try:
>
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/message/%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E
>
>
I'm not sure how that applies to my case. I am not using emissive media
or the "samples" keyword.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/5/2021 9:52 AM, jr wrote:
> hi,
>
> Mike Horvath <mik### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2021 5:59 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> I have a planetary atmosphere with both scattering and absorption
>>> interior media. It renders very slowly. Any tips on speeding it up? Thanks.
>>
>> Here is the media: ...
>
> tweaking the code may gain you some, but, perhaps, you can cheat and clip the
> sphere/planet just behind the horizon, saving ~40%.
>
>
It's actually a cylinder or ring, so it reflects upon itself on the insides.
>> [0 rgb 0/10]
>
> confused why you don't write just '[0 rgb 0]'.
>
>
> regards, jr.
>
>
I use fractions a lot and like to keep the source code tidy.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 07/02/2021 om 04:41 schreef Mike Horvath:
> On 2/5/2021 6:56 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>> it's likely not your media - but your media settings.
>>
>> try:
>>
>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/message/%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure how that applies to my case. I am not using emissive media
> or the "samples" keyword.
>
There is nothing really wrong with your code as far as I can tell and
from own experience. From the outside (of the media) it is even rather
fast due to the default intervals 1 and samples 1 (Yes! you /do/ use
samples, even if you don't).
However, depending on the location of the camera within or without the
media, render times can be very different; you even may need to increase
the samples value to avoid splotches, and that will decrease render time
even more although not that much.
Using media is time consuming. There is no alternative.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2021-02-07 à 02:23, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> Op 07/02/2021 om 04:41 schreef Mike Horvath:
>> On 2/5/2021 6:56 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>> it's likely not your media - but your media settings.
>>>
>>> try:
>>>
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/message/%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how that applies to my case. I am not using emissive
>> media or the "samples" keyword.
>>
>
> There is nothing really wrong with your code as far as I can tell and
> from own experience. From the outside (of the media) it is even rather
> fast due to the default intervals 1 and samples 1 (Yes! you /do/ use
> samples, even if you don't).
>
> However, depending on the location of the camera within or without the
> media, render times can be very different; you even may need to increase
> the samples value to avoid splotches, and that will decrease render time
> even more although not that much.
>
> Using media is time consuming. There is no alternative.
>
The default for samples is 10.
samples default to 1 when using sampling method 1 or 2.
The default are, as of version 3.6 :
sampling_method 3
intervals 1 //DO NOT increase !
samples 10
Increasing intervals dramatically increase the rendering time without
giving any appreciable improvement.
samples 10 intervals 3 render slower than samples 50 intervals 1.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 08/02/2021 om 16:16 schreef Alain Martel:
> Le 2021-02-07 à 02:23, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> Op 07/02/2021 om 04:41 schreef Mike Horvath:
>>> On 2/5/2021 6:56 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>>> it's likely not your media - but your media settings.
>>>>
>>>> try:
>>>>
>>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/message/%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how that applies to my case. I am not using emissive
>>> media or the "samples" keyword.
>>>
>>
>> There is nothing really wrong with your code as far as I can tell and
>> from own experience. From the outside (of the media) it is even rather
>> fast due to the default intervals 1 and samples 1 (Yes! you /do/ use
>> samples, even if you don't).
>>
>> However, depending on the location of the camera within or without the
>> media, render times can be very different; you even may need to
>> increase the samples value to avoid splotches, and that will decrease
>> render time even more although not that much.
>>
>> Using media is time consuming. There is no alternative.
>>
>
> The default for samples is 10.
> samples default to 1 when using sampling method 1 or 2.
> The default are, as of version 3.6 :
>
> sampling_method 3
> intervals 1 //DO NOT increase !
> samples 10
>
> Increasing intervals dramatically increase the rendering time without
> giving any appreciable improvement.
>
> samples 10 intervals 3 render slower than samples 50 intervals 1.
I don't know where in the wiki there was a line saying defaults being
intervals 1 and samples 1,1. Of course, I cannot find that paragraph
anymore (typical!); but you are right of course: default samples is 10.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2021-02-09 à 02:30, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> Op 08/02/2021 om 16:16 schreef Alain Martel:
>> Le 2021-02-07 à 02:23, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>>> Op 07/02/2021 om 04:41 schreef Mike Horvath:
>>>> On 2/5/2021 6:56 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>>>> it's likely not your media - but your media settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> try:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/message/%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how that applies to my case. I am not using emissive
>>>> media or the "samples" keyword.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is nothing really wrong with your code as far as I can tell and
>>> from own experience. From the outside (of the media) it is even
>>> rather fast due to the default intervals 1 and samples 1 (Yes! you
>>> /do/ use samples, even if you don't).
>>>
>>> However, depending on the location of the camera within or without
>>> the media, render times can be very different; you even may need to
>>> increase the samples value to avoid splotches, and that will decrease
>>> render time even more although not that much.
>>>
>>> Using media is time consuming. There is no alternative.
>>>
>>
>> The default for samples is 10.
>> samples default to 1 when using sampling method 1 or 2.
>> The default are, as of version 3.6 :
>>
>> sampling_method 3
>> intervals 1 //DO NOT increase !
>> samples 10
>>
>> Increasing intervals dramatically increase the rendering time without
>> giving any appreciable improvement.
>>
>> samples 10 intervals 3 render slower than samples 50 intervals 1.
>
> I don't know where in the wiki there was a line saying defaults being
> intervals 1 and samples 1,1. Of course, I cannot find that paragraph
> anymore (typical!); but you are right of course: default samples is 10.
>
You have a mixup between the old version 3.5 and newer version 3.6
documentations.
The format : samples 1,1
is that of method 1 and 2. It's used to set the number of samples for
dark, bright intervals.
It's a leftover from the pre 3.6 version when the default sampling
method was method 1. It demanded an intervals number large enough to
match the number of distinct illuminated areas along a tracing path. If
you had 20 spotlights shining through some media, then, you needed 40,
or more, intervals : One interval for each illuminated part and one
interval for each non-illuminated parts between the illuminated ones.
When using the default method 3, when you have two values for samples,
the second is silently ignored.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Op 11/02/2021 om 16:45 schreef Alain Martel:
> Le 2021-02-09 à 02:30, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> I don't know where in the wiki there was a line saying defaults being
>> intervals 1 and samples 1,1. Of course, I cannot find that paragraph
>> anymore (typical!); but you are right of course: default samples is 10.
>>
> You have a mixup between the old version 3.5 and newer version 3.6
> documentations.
>
> The format : samples 1,1
> is that of method 1 and 2. It's used to set the number of samples for
> dark, bright intervals.
> It's a leftover from the pre 3.6 version when the default sampling
> method was method 1. It demanded an intervals number large enough to
> match the number of distinct illuminated areas along a tracing path. If
> you had 20 spotlights shining through some media, then, you needed 40,
> or more, intervals : One interval for each illuminated part and one
> interval for each non-illuminated parts between the illuminated ones.
>
> When using the default method 3, when you have two values for samples,
> the second is silently ignored.
The wiki documentation then needs some updating here or a further
elaboration.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
