Seeing as there has been a bit of discussion on the subject of water
images lately, I thought I'd submit a recent experimental image of mine.

The water in the tank is made using an intersection of a cylinder and an
isosurface. The robot is just boxes, cylinders and a sphere. There are
five lights in the scene - one above the tank, and four in the corners
to add a bit of light to the overall scene. And, as you have probably
already guessed, photom mapping has been used on the tank and water.

The damn thing took 2.5 hours to render, thereby making it my slowest
scene yet.

Rohan _e_ii

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'watertest2b.jpg' (87 KB)

Preview of image 'watertest2b.jpg'

> The water in the tank is made using an intersection of a cylinder and an
> isosurface. The robot is just boxes, cylinders and a sphere. There are
> five lights in the scene - one above the tank, and four in the corners
> to add a bit of light to the overall scene. And, as you have probably
> already guessed, photom mapping has been used on the tank and water.
I like the figure pose, and the water looks great!
Could've needed som AA though..

> The damn thing took 2.5 hours to render, thereby making it my slowest
> scene yet.
*sigh* I remember my first IRTC image back in 1999:
RENDER TIME:  22m 9s
HARDWARE USED: Pentium 133, 32MB ram
Man did that feel long!

My second (and latest) IRTC entry (2002):
RENDER TIME: 1d 4h 58m 11s
HARDWARE USED: Pentium II 450mhz 256ram
And that isn't even considered a long rendering time! Did I hear weeks?
months?

Enough babbeling.. Welcome to the real world! =)

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

>I like the figure pose, and the water looks great!

Thanks! I had to try the pose myself to work out the bends for the joints,
then drew it up on paper and from there, the scene you see.

>Could've needed som AA though..

I hardly ever think of using AA, most likely because it is so slow. I have
no idea how much slower using AA would make the scene, but I really don't
want to have to wait who-knows-how-much-longer just to use AA, which
doesn't give that big an increase in image quality.

>*sigh* I remember my first IRTC image back in 1999:
>RENDER TIME:  22m 9s
>HARDWARE USED: Pentium 133, 32MB ram
>Man did that feel long!

You're right about that. That's what quite a few of my scenes are like, and
I'm always complaining about how slow they are. Still, that's nothing
compared to your second scene (or even some IRTC entries, I saw one that
took 14 days to render!).

>My second (and latest) IRTC entry (2002):
>RENDER TIME: 1d 4h 58m 11s
>HARDWARE USED: Pentium II 450mhz 256ram
>And that isn't even considered a long rendering time! Did I hear weeks?
>months?

This rendering was done on a P3/500Mhz @ 515MHz with 384 meg ram, running
WinXP Pro. If your scene took over a day to render on a p2/450, I wonder
how much faster it would render on my computer, 5% faster? 10% faster?

Rohan _e_ii

Post a reply to this message

> Thanks! I had to try the pose myself to work out the bends for the joints,
:) It's always funny when someone enters the room while you're doing stuff
like that.

> doesn't give that big an increase in image quality.
I disagree with you there.. Yes, it is slower to use AA, but it's worth it,
and it does a lot for image quality! I always use it for the final render.

> I'm always complaining about how slow they are. Still, that's nothing
You are perhaps not into over-night rendering? :) Crank up the resolution,
add AA, area lights and more CPU-consuming stuff.. Then go to bed and look
at the great image the next morning/afternoon!

> compared to your second scene (or even some IRTC entries, I saw one that
> took 14 days to render!).
IIRC, someone posted a picture here a while ago, which took 3 months to
render? (correct me if I'm wrong folks, it was the one with the cigar,
sherlock holmes thing).

> This rendering was done on a P3/500Mhz @ 515MHz with 384 meg ram, running
> WinXP Pro. If your scene took over a day to render on a p2/450, I wonder
> how much faster it would render on my computer, 5% faster? 10% faster?

450*1.11111 ... = 500
That should be 11.11% faster, but you have a P3, so it might be even more? I
guess it's because of the way the CPU is built (it's late, can't remember
the correct terms). I can't wait for AMD 64bit CPU :) They'll rock! Is there
a POV-Ray version that supports 64bit CPUs?

*installing Myst III: Exile* perhaps I should go to bed...? =)

-Peter

Post a reply to this message

> I can't wait for AMD 64bit CPU :) They'll rock!

Drool, drool, drool...

Makes you wonder why Intel is still selling 32bit CPUs, seeing as they have
already made the 64bit Itanium. You'd expect such a superior processor to
immediatly replace the inferior P3 and P4.

> Is there a POV-Ray version that supports 64bit CPUs?

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already made a 64bit
compile to run on the Itanium. I think if it has been done, it was probably
been done for Linux first (although there would probably have been a
Windows version shortly after).

Rohan _e_ii

Post a reply to this message