Making a background for my IRTC entry, but can't figure out how to get rid
of the nasty lines on my rr tracks.  Rendering with +a0.05 +am2 made no
difference at all except for driving the render speed down to 7 pps for most
of it :(

This render is with +a0.1 +am2.

Any suggestions?

RG

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'tracks.jpg' (70 KB)

Preview of image 'tracks.jpg'

Try a slightly different camera angle, or try making the tracks a little
larger.

Regards,
-David

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message news:3e508b94@news.povray.org...
> Making a background for my IRTC entry, but can't figure out how to get rid
> of the nasty lines on my rr tracks.  Rendering with +a0.05 +am2 made no
> difference at all except for driving the render speed down to 7 pps for
most
> of it :(
>
> This render is with +a0.1 +am2.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> RG

Post a reply to this message

Hi.
Nice pic!

I had a similar problem some time ago wich I resolve with this settings

+AM2 +A0.0 +R2 -J

as suggested in the forum.
You might want to try it out. It gets good results, but is SLOW :)

You might want to take a look at the thread:
http://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/24275/


I hope this will help.


Best regards.



gonzo wrote:
>Making a background for my IRTC entry, but can't figure out how to get rid
>of the nasty lines on my rr tracks.  Rendering with +a0.05 +am2 made no
>difference at all except for driving the render speed down to 7 pps for most
>of it :(
>
>This render is with +a0.1 +am2.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>RG
>

Post a reply to this message

When I get in these situations I usually render at 2 or 3 times the final size
with either no AA or very low AA settings like +A0.4 +Am2 +R2. Another option,
which looks better, would be to use a very slight focal blur, but this will be
very slower. If you have the ability to render just parts of an image you could
use the focal blur on the rails alone - some of the better POVers routinely
render sub parts of images with different settings and then glue the results
together to create the final image.     
Bill P.     

> 
> Making a background for my IRTC entry, but can't figure out how to get rid
> of the nasty lines on my rr tracks.  Rendering with +a0.05 +am2 made no
> difference at all except for driving the render speed down to 7 pps for most
> of it :(
> 
> This render is with +a0.1 +am2.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> RG
> 
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote in message
news:3e508b94@news.povray.org...
> Making a background for my IRTC entry, but can't figure out how to
get rid
> of the nasty lines on my rr tracks.  Rendering with +a0.05 +am2 made
no
> difference at all except for driving the render speed down to 7 pps
for most
> of it :(

Hi, nice pic. I like the sky.

I sometimes get better results by using focal blur instead of aa. It
is also sometimes faster. Try something like:

      aperture 0.05
      blur_samples 20
      focal_point <0,0,0> // Whatever you want
      confidence 0.97
      variance 0.005

Alf

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote
>
> Any suggestions?
>
At a quick guess, I'd go with Alf Peake's focal blur solution. I certainly
wouldn't go down the route of part-renders cut and pasted. IIRC it
contavenes the IRTC rules ;-) ;-)

BTW Is that the Nullarbor I see in the image?

Good luck

John
--
War is not good for children and other living things

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote in message news:
> > At a quick guess, I'd go with Alf Peake's focal blur solution.

Thanks for all the suggestions!  I'll try out JPGargoyle's aa settings, and
play around
with focal blur as Alf suggested (but the creative process has already added
objects
in the background that may make focal blur a moot remedy...)  I'm also going
to try
changing the rail object (currently a flattened cylinder) to a prism to see
if putting a
sharper edge on it helps.


> > I certainly > wouldn't go down the route of part-renders cut and pasted.
IIRC it
> > contavenes the IRTC rules ;-) ;-)

Nope.  I never use any post processing except occasional gamma or contrast
correction, and that only seldom. Part of the fun is figuring out how to get
everything
to work in one take! Pasting part-renders together would be too easy. ;)


> > BTW Is that the Nullarbor I see in the image?

Heh heh, may be.. accidentally!   I've never been there, but a friend who
has done
some cave-diving there took one look and said the same thing.  Probably the
colors.
I originally was going for a generic mid-west US of A look, but my Nebraska
plains
texture looked too green after radiosity played with it, so I backed the
greens off to
more of a gray. After looking at some of his photos, gray seems to be a
Nullarbor
specialty.

My tracks look empty, know where I can find any slightly used locomotives?
;)

RG

Post a reply to this message

"gonzo" <rgo### [at] lansetcom> wrote
>
> My tracks look empty, know where I can find any slightly used locomotives?
> ;)
>
I'd lend you mine, but I'm using it till 28th Feb :-)), besides I think that
my guage (is that how you spell it?) is wrong. The Lion was built for
51inches.

John
--
Run Fast
Run Free
Run Linux

Post a reply to this message