I have always been kind of fond of scenes/advanced/piece3/piece3.pov
It's not only a classic from the early past of POV-Ray, but a comment
in it is really telling:

// Rendering time using a 25Mhz 386 w/Cyrix fpu is approximately 60 hours.

  This is a really excellent testament on how much computers have advanced
since those times. Current top-line PCs can render this scene at a high
resolution in question of seconds.
  In fact, now it can be raytraced almost in real-time. I suppose Truman's
jaw would have dropped if he had seen that after he waited 60 hours for
the render to finish.

  For a nice animation of this scene, open scenes/advanced/piece3/piece3.pov
and substitute the camera block with this:

#declare Clock=0;
#while(Clock<1)
camera {
   location  <  7.0,     50.0+10*sin(4*pi*Clock), -30.0 >*(1+.5*sin(2*pi*Clock)) /* Up
high and in close.         */
   direction <  0.0,      0.0,   2.0 > /* Though this doesn't highlight */
   up        <  0.0,      1.0,   0.0 > /* the height of the piece, it   */
   right     <  4/3,      0.0,   0.0 > /* gives the effect i'm looking  */
   look_at   <  0.0,     15.0,   0.0 > /* for.  Feel free to change.    */
   rotate y*Clock*360
}
#declare Clock=Clock+.01;
#end

and then render with eg. +w320 +h240 +bm2 +rtr +kla

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gave that a try and it rendered at half frame per second with a Pentium 4-M 
2.0 GHz.

I had to see it going faster so I changed to a tiny resolution of 40x30 and 
saw it doing 30+ FPS. Not easy to see but great to watch it animate in "real 
time".

Makes a person dream of previewed scenes while broswing through files. What 
chance would there be of parsing files and saving a renderable state ready 
for preview?

Post a reply to this message

Bob H <omniverse@charter%net> wrote:
> Gave that a try and it rendered at half frame per second with a Pentium 4-M 
> 2.0 GHz.

  Rendered at about 1fps in my 3.4GHz P4. I suppose in the newest intel
quad-core it would render at least at 10fps or more.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Bob H <omniverse@charter%net> wrote:
> > Gave that a try and it rendered at half frame per second with a Pentium 4-M
> > 2.0 GHz.
>
>   Rendered at about 1fps in my 3.4GHz P4. I suppose in the newest intel
> quad-core it would render at least at 10fps or more.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp


I renderd 300 Frames of the Scene on a Core 2 Duo E6400 @2.13 Ghz.
Result: 2.25 Frames/Second.

Projected on a QX6700(? the Quad-Core with 2,66 Ghz) it would be ~5,6 fps,
accourding the first Benchmarks with Pov (somewhere in the latest news)

-- Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Schwan379" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.454b88d3bf0a728b9d30be920@news.povray.org...
>
> I renderd 300 Frames of the Scene on a Core 2 Duo E6400 @2.13 Ghz.
> Result: 2.25 Frames/Second.

Good to know, my next notebook might have a C2D in it. I had looked at 
benchmarks for those and they seem to do great for most things except maybe 
floating point. Intel never wins those FP benchmarks, you know.

Post a reply to this message

"Bob H" <omniverse@charter%net> wrote:
> "Schwan379" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
> news:web.454b88d3bf0a728b9d30be920@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I renderd 300 Frames of the Scene on a Core 2 Duo E6400 @2.13 Ghz.
> > Result: 2.25 Frames/Second.
>
> Good to know, my next notebook might have a C2D in it. I had looked at
> benchmarks for those and they seem to do great for most things except maybe
> floating point. Intel never wins those FP benchmarks, you know.

Its a "normal" CPU, no Notebook-CPU.
The "normal" C2D winns those FP Benchmarks afaik - until the next Athlon...

Post a reply to this message

"Schwan379" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.454bbae1bf0a728bb6c403170@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> > I renderd 300 Frames of the Scene on a Core 2 Duo E6400 @2.13 Ghz.
>> > Result: 2.25 Frames/Second.
>>
>> Good to know, my next notebook might have a C2D in it. I had looked at
>> benchmarks for those and they seem to do great for most things except 
>> maybe
>> floating point. Intel never wins those FP benchmarks, you know.
>
> Its a "normal" CPU, no Notebook-CPU.
> The "normal" C2D winns those FP Benchmarks afaik - until the next 
> Athlon...

Ok, that explains the "E6400".  :)  I had been looking at the T7200, T7400 
and T7600.

There was one chart showing a C2D scoring lower on (memory?) FP than a AMD 
processor, no idea where that is now. I've found out Intel might have an 
improved mobile C2D in the works, basically increasing the FSB speed yet 
still not equaling their desktop cousins.

This old notebook of mine is what determines when I must get a new one while 
it slowly falls apart.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> FYI, some tests:
>
>   http://www.legitreviews.com/article/412/10/
>   http://www.legitreviews.com/article/412/19/
>
> -- Chris

Chris, I love this idea and the fact that you made it real. I had an idea
for MegaPOV XRS to avoid reparsing the scene if only the camera changed,
but this takes that concept to a whole new level! I can't do this with
MegaPOV XRS just yet... touche ;-)

Rock on,
George
http://www.gammaburst.net

Post a reply to this message

> For those interested, please visit http://www.povray.org/beta/rtr/
>
> It's not very well tested (only on the systems I had available to
> me), so YMMV. Expect it to have some rough edges. Please report
> issues here.

The test scenes crashed POV because I had no video capture device installed 
(changing the pigment to something other than video capture works fine). 
Just installed my webcam and works ok now.  If I unplug the webcam it 
crashes again with access violation.

How difficult would it be to provide the output from the RTR as another 
"video" device within windows?  Could allow you to use POV as a sort of 
video processor and allow cool effects for using your webcam within MSN 
messenger and so on.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Actually, that's an interesting point... Would presumably mean the very
> > first frame still takes 20 minutes, and all the subsequent ones are
> > reasonably fast unless/until you expose new geometry.
>
> well, it might be interesting to work this out at some point ... if you were
> comparing a scene lit completely with radiosity (and presuming that the
> radiosity cache had already been built) against one with several traditional
> point light sources, at what point does the savings of not having to trace a
> shadow ray overcome the cache lookup time?
>
> I would suspect that the answer is 'very early', except perhaps in very
> simple scenes with little geometry. The more geometry is there, the more time
> spent doing lookups of the bounding structure (BVH or BSP) against each
> shadow ray - the more light sources, the more time, with the relationship
> being fairly linear.
>
> the rad cache lookup, however, would not suffer from this problem.
>
> therefore it is entirely possible that, as counterintuitive as it may seem,
> there is potential for a scene with global illumination to be *faster* in
> interactive rendering than one without.
>
> -- Chris


I used the POV-Ray 3.6 Radiosity Demoscene with the "fast"- Radiositysetting
to test it...
To get a "real" Framerate for Radiosity I tried measure the time to render
the Frames 400 to 900. The Result was about 4,23 FPS at 160x120 Pixels.
I started after a few complete loops at Frame 400 to be sure, that all
necessary Radiositysamples are calculated.
Withour Radiosity, only with the "Light 2", I get about 11,5 FPS at 160x120
Pixels.

I know that the Radiosity is very alpha (it works in this scene) - how much
faster it may get until the next full release?

-- Thomas

Post a reply to this message