I liked gk's test foil so much that I raised the max_trace_level to 15 and
set adaptive to 1 on all light sources. Then, I did a +a0.2 +AM2
+r4 -w1600 -h1200 trace. The trace took over a week on a 2.4 GHz P4 machine
with a Gig of RAM. I wish I had raised the gamma a little more to lessen
some of the speculars, but all in all, I'm pleased with the result. I had to
interrupt the trace twice, so I can't post reliable stats, but needless to
say max trace level 15 was hit, so I might try 20 the next time around.

Comments from the source:

//========================================================
// Foil Vase
//========================================================

//
// FoilVase object links:
// DOS text style:
//     http://www.freelocus.com/files/foilvase.zip (~18 K)
// UNIX text style:
//     http://www.freelocus.com/files/foilvase.tar.bz2 (~16 K)
//
// Texture image:
//     http://www.freelocus.com/images/uv_grid.jpg (~80K)
//
// Feel free to use and modify
//========================================================
// Made for Persistence of vision 3.5
//========================================================

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'testfoil.jpg' (262 KB)

Preview of image 'testfoil.jpg'

I just played with raising the trace level to 20, eliminating the ambient
contribution from the vase and loweing the roughness a little. It looks even
better. I need some specialized hardware, because the next trace is going to
take over a month! :(

Post a reply to this message

my only comment is that it looks a little more like plastic than foil. other
than that it looks cool

Post a reply to this message

Michael Goldshteyn wrote:
>The trace took over a week on a 2.4 GHz P4 machine
>with a Gig of RAM.

A week! I like it too, but maybe not too much :)

Post a reply to this message

"gk" <g_k### [at] mail333com> wrote in message news:3ee75fba@news.povray.org...
> Michael Goldshteyn wrote:
> >The trace took over a week on a 2.4 GHz P4 machine
> >with a Gig of RAM.
>
> A week! I like it too, but maybe not too much :)
>

What don't you like?

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mgo### [at] n-o-s-p-a-m-earthlinknet> wrote in
message news:3ee77228@news.povray.org...
|
| What don't you like?
|

I think he means that you wasted a tremendous amount of time in order to
accomplish an only slightly better copy of someone else's work.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3ee77483$1@news.povray.org...
> I think he means that you wasted a tremendous amount of time in order to
> accomplish an only slightly better copy of someone else's work.
>

Put less bluntly, I think he simply meant that it takes so long to render,
that any "niftiness" gets lost while waiting for the render.  It becomes
impractical to use it, and it simply becomes a nifty little thing.

However, in 12 years, our micro-processors will be perhaps five thousand
times faster and it will only take a few minutes to render.  ;-)

-- 
Slash

Post a reply to this message

"Michael Goldshteyn" <mgo### [at] n-o-s-p-a-m-earthlinknet> wrote in
message news:3ee77228@news.povray.org...
>
> "gk" <g_k### [at] mail333com> wrote in message news:3ee75fba@news.povray.org...
> > Michael Goldshteyn wrote:
> > >The trace took over a week on a 2.4 GHz P4 machine
> > >with a Gig of RAM.
> >
> > A week! I like it too, but maybe not too much :)
> >
>
> What don't you like?

Well I'm glad everyone put words into gk's mouth. But now, I'd like to hear
it from the source.

Post a reply to this message