POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.binaries.images : Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB) Server Time: 19 Feb 2019 23:22:27 GMT
  Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB) (Message 1 to 10 of 10)  
From: Tor Olav Kristensen
Subject: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 16 Dec 2000 04:04:49
Message: <3A3AE912.8DDE13B@online.no>
I just browsed through my older renderings
and found this one that I did one year ago.

Seeing this image reminds me of those days 
when I could render an image and actually
WATCH while the image was being rendered.

So now I'm very tempted to leave the isos
for a while and do some CSG-images.
They used to render faster than 1 pps !

When I made this image I had just finished
an attempt to make a 3D model of a nearby
company's logo. And then I wanted to see 
how it looked if I laid it down on it's 
side and spread several copies of it 
around in a circle. I liked it.

What do you think of this image?


One thing bugs me though: The fact that 
now I'm sitting here wondering if this 
image could have been done with a couple 
of iso-surfaces (@ 1E-6 pps on my P100 :)

Hmmm... Maybe I'm a little bit mad...


Tor Olav
-- 
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'oddmunck02_.jpg' (63 KB)

Preview of image 'oddmunck02_.jpg'
oddmunck02_.jpg


 

From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 16 Dec 2000 08:20:19
Message: <3A3B25C3.8CE15EA0@gmx.de>
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> 
> I just browsed through my older renderings
> and found this one that I did one year ago.
> 
> Seeing this image reminds me of those days
> when I could render an image and actually
> WATCH while the image was being rendered.
> 
> So now I'm very tempted to leave the isos
> for a while and do some CSG-images.
> They used to render faster than 1 pps !

I know that feeling, everything above one hour per line can be *really*
boring.  For example if you come back after half an hour, look at the
screen and recognize from the picture, that it's still working on the same
line.  In addition if you use radiosity you cannot interrupt and later
continue the render that easily.  

> One thing bugs me though: The fact that
> now I'm sitting here wondering if this
> image could have been done with a couple
> of iso-surfaces (@ 1E-6 pps on my P100 :)
> 
> Hmmm... Maybe I'm a little bit mad...
> 

IMO it should be possible to do it with *one* isosurface although it would
really be a long function.  But if it parses at all, i doubt it would
render that slow.  

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris Huff
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 16 Dec 2000 17:48:17
Message: <chrishuff-E9245F.12491816122000@news.povray.org>
In article <3A3B25C3.8CE15EA0@gmx.de>, Christoph Hormann 
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> In addition if you use radiosity you cannot interrupt and later 
> continue the render that easily. 

If you use MegaPOV(which you must be, since you are using isosurfaces), 
that is no longer true. You can tell it to save the radiosity info to a 
file and load that when you continue.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chrishuff@mac.com, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><


Post a reply to this message

From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 16 Dec 2000 18:47:26
Message: <3A3BB8C0.1D390C1A@gmx.de>
Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> If you use MegaPOV(which you must be, since you are using isosurfaces),
> that is no longer true. You can tell it to save the radiosity info to a
> file and load that when you continue.
> 

I know, but it does not work perfectly.  If i use '+c' and 'load_file' in
the radiosity block, i often get artefacts.  

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/


Post a reply to this message

From: Tor Olav Kristensen
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 17 Dec 2000 00:36:49
Message: <3A3C09D6.8998B696@online.no>
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> >...
> > So now I'm very tempted to leave the isos
> > for a while and do some CSG-images.
> > They used to render faster than 1 pps !
> 
> I know that feeling, everything above one hour per line can be *really*
> boring.  For example if you come back after half an hour, look at the
> screen and recognize from the picture, that it's still working on the same
> line.  In addition if you use radiosity you cannot interrupt and later
> continue the render that easily.

I haven't dared to try radiosity yet.
I'm afraid that I will get addicted to that too,
and then I'll become even more frustrated because
of my slow PC.    :(


> > One thing bugs me though: The fact that
> > now I'm sitting here wondering if this
> > image could have been done with a couple
> > of iso-surfaces (@ 1E-6 pps on my P100 :)
> >...
> IMO it should be possible to do it with *one* isosurface although it would
> really be a long function.  

But wouldn't one be needed for each texture ?
(I.e. 2 for this image)

Or is there some smart way to control the 
texture "directly" within the iso-surface ?


> But if it parses at all, i doubt it would
> render that slow.

But it would FEEL that slow !  :)


Btw.: Wouldn't it be a good idea to have POV
changing from pps to spp (seconds per pixel)
when the rendering drops below 1 pps ?


Thanks for commenting.


Best regards,

Tor Olav
-- 
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html


Post a reply to this message

From: David Fontaine
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 17 Dec 2000 04:34:08
Message: <3A3C416C.AA85DB9@faricy.net>
Christoph Hormann wrote:

> > If you use MegaPOV(which you must be, since you are using isosurfaces),
> > that is no longer true. You can tell it to save the radiosity info to a
> > file and load that when you continue.
> >
>
> I know, but it does not work perfectly.  If i use '+c' and 'load_file' in
> the radiosity block, i often get artefacts.

Guess we need freeze files. They'd only be a few hundred megs...

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/


Post a reply to this message

From: Ken
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 17 Dec 2000 05:07:35
Message: <3A3C4B0E.58E52CF7@pacbell.net>
Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:

> Btw.: Wouldn't it be a good idea to have POV
> changing from pps to spp (seconds per pixel)
> when the rendering drops below 1 pps ?

On my old system there were times I thought it was more like ppm(onth) !

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/


Post a reply to this message

From: Bill DeWitt
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 17 Dec 2000 05:43:40
Message: <3a3c528c$1@news.povray.org>
"Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] onlineno> wrote :
>
> Btw.: Wouldn't it be a good idea to have POV
> changing from pps to spp (seconds per pixel)
> when the rendering drops below 1 pps ?

    Seriously.

    I don't know how many times I have sat around timing the refresh of
lines so that I could calculate seconds per pixel and from that estimate the
remaining time needed for a render (and decide if I wanted to continue).

    ps. What was that logo before the rotation? Looks like a 'B' and an
arrow, but what was it for?


Post a reply to this message

From: Tor Olav Kristensen
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 18 Dec 2000 01:03:45
Message: <3A3D619F.5962EB34@online.no>
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> 
> "Tor Olav Kristensen" <tor### [at] onlineno> wrote :
> >
> > Btw.: Wouldn't it be a good idea to have POV
> > changing from pps to spp (seconds per pixel)
> > when the rendering drops below 1 pps ?
> 
>     Seriously.
> 
>     I don't know how many times I have sat around timing the refresh of
> lines so that I could calculate seconds per pixel and from that estimate the
> remaining time needed for a render (and decide if I wanted to continue).

Me too. I would like to have a option in POV to
have it do this estimation for me.


>     ps. What was that logo before the rotation? Looks like a 'B' and an
> arrow, but what was it for?

It's actually an "m" with an arrow sticking up from
its middle. Their name is Munck Cranes (and their main
product is overhead cranes).

You can see a small version of the logo here:
http://www.munckcranes.com/


Best regards,

Tor Olav
-- 
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html


Post a reply to this message

From: Tor Olav Kristensen
Subject: Re: Certainly NOT an iso-image (62KB)
Date: 18 Dec 2000 01:08:47
Message: <3A3D62D1.37E18D13@online.no>
Ken wrote:
> 
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> 
> > Btw.: Wouldn't it be a good idea to have POV
> > changing from pps to spp (seconds per pixel)
> > when the rendering drops below 1 pps ?
> 
> On my old system there were times I thought it was more like ppm(onth) !

Yes that would probably be a proper measure 
for the rendering of some of the iso images 
I'm fantasizing about :)

1 ppm would equal about 4E-7 pps ...


Tor Olav
-- 
mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.