 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Render in Progress.
Yet another variation on my checkered ball desktop image...
Render-time thus far: 2d:23h:25m
Its slow. Very slow. Painfully slow. But, darnit, it looks sooo cool... :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'ball-rip.jpg' (48 KB)
Preview of image 'ball-rip.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, I'd like to see the code for it (so I can see if it would be that slow
here).
- Grim
"Mike Raiford" <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:41c725f3@news.povray.org...
> Render in Progress.
>
> Yet another variation on my checkered ball desktop image...
>
> Render-time thus far: 2d:23h:25m
>
> Its slow. Very slow. Painfully slow. But, darnit, it looks sooo cool... :)
> --
> ~Mike
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude wrote:
> Yeah, I'd like to see the code for it (so I can see if it would be that slow
> here).
Its in p.t.sf, now
It probably will be, unless you turn off focal blur and area lights.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Render in Progress.
>
> Yet another variation on my checkered ball desktop image...
>
> Render-time thus far: 2d:23h:25m
>
> Its slow. Very slow. Painfully slow. But, darnit, it looks sooo cool... :)
> --
> ~Mike
Nice reversal of tradition! This time it's a checkered sphere on a
reflective surface. Nice bending of rules :)
Nice image also....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Yet another variation on my checkered ball desktop image...
This one looks very nice, almost as if the marble texture had
subsurface scattering...
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike Raiford wrote:
| Render-time thus far: 2d:23h:25m
|
| Its slow. Very slow. Painfully slow. But, darnit, it looks sooo
cool... :)
|
After a bit of fiddling with your code, I've just finished rendering
a 800x600 version of this image. It took 11h39m on my Athlon XP
2700+, so I think it should take around 1 day at 1152x864.
Here are my optimizations:
- - I reduced the number of focal blur samples from 128 to 64. This is
the only questionable change I made, but it's not the biggest time
saver anyway. The results look aren't too bad at 800x600, it might be
worth a couple of tests without the media ball to see what happens at
higher resolutions;
- - I tweaked the media parameters for the ball:
+ for both medias, I reduced the sample count to 4, I increased the
aa_level from the default (4) to 6 and I decreased the aa_threshold
from the default (0.1) to 0.001;
+ with high density medias like these, only a thin layer near the
surface actually does something. The rest is black but POV wastes
time sampling it anyway (there is no easy way for POV to know that
the time is wasted). To circumvent this, I've added another sphere
inside yours with a slightly lower radius (0.95) and a plain white
pigment. This forces POV to take all its samples where they are
needed and prevents it from wasting time with the black inside;
- - I removed the pretrace_end radiosity option and went with the
default settings. In fact for such a scene where the background is
pure black and the main object is media based, radiosity is pretty
useless and could probably be removed without changing the visual result.
The sphere in my image is darker than yours and has a slightly
reddish-brown color. This is not due to the parameter changes as a
quick try with your media settings (but lower res and no focal blur)
gives the same result. I think it comes from the fact that I used
MegaPov 0.7 instead of whichever version you're using.
The result is here:
http://jeberger.free.fr/tmp/test.jpg
Jerome
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrancecom *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFByI5mqIYJdJhyixIRAk/KAJ44KJRA6nD3IuuK06T16lCz717b2gCdE4Tk
8D1jjg6f3JpB8NzTjFMAZYI=
=3h+n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, I reduced the blur samples to 32, but increased the area lights to 5x5
arrays (adaptive 2) with similar other modifications along the lines Jerome
used. I was going to run it tonight at 1280x1024, but I may wait now that I
see your results. (Athlon XP 3000+)
- Grim
news:41c88e67@news.povray.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> | Render-time thus far: 2d:23h:25m
> |
> | Its slow. Very slow. Painfully slow. But, darnit, it looks sooo
> cool... :)
> |
> After a bit of fiddling with your code, I've just finished rendering
> a 800x600 version of this image. It took 11h39m on my Athlon XP
> 2700+, so I think it should take around 1 day at 1152x864.
>
> Here are my optimizations:
> - - I reduced the number of focal blur samples from 128 to 64. This is
> the only questionable change I made, but it's not the biggest time
> saver anyway. The results look aren't too bad at 800x600, it might be
> worth a couple of tests without the media ball to see what happens at
> higher resolutions;
>
> - - I tweaked the media parameters for the ball:
> + for both medias, I reduced the sample count to 4, I increased the
> aa_level from the default (4) to 6 and I decreased the aa_threshold
> from the default (0.1) to 0.001;
> + with high density medias like these, only a thin layer near the
> surface actually does something. The rest is black but POV wastes
> time sampling it anyway (there is no easy way for POV to know that
> the time is wasted). To circumvent this, I've added another sphere
> inside yours with a slightly lower radius (0.95) and a plain white
> pigment. This forces POV to take all its samples where they are
> needed and prevents it from wasting time with the black inside;
>
> - - I removed the pretrace_end radiosity option and went with the
> default settings. In fact for such a scene where the background is
> pure black and the main object is media based, radiosity is pretty
> useless and could probably be removed without changing the visual result.
>
> The sphere in my image is darker than yours and has a slightly
> reddish-brown color. This is not due to the parameter changes as a
> quick try with your media settings (but lower res and no focal blur)
> gives the same result. I think it comes from the fact that I used
> MegaPov 0.7 instead of whichever version you're using.
>
> The result is here:
> http://jeberger.free.fr/tmp/test.jpg
>
> Jerome
>
> - --
> ******************************
> * Jerome M. Berger *
> * mailto:jbe### [at] ifrancecom *
> * http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
> ******************************
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFByI5mqIYJdJhyixIRAk/KAJ44KJRA6nD3IuuK06T16lCz717b2gCdE4Tk
> 8D1jjg6f3JpB8NzTjFMAZYI=
> =3h+n
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GrimDude nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004-12-21 18:27... :
>Hmm, I reduced the blur samples to 32, but increased the area lights to 5x5
>arrays (adaptive 2) with similar other modifications along the lines Jerome
>used. I was going to run it tonight at 1280x1024, but I may wait now that I
>see your results. (Athlon XP 3000+)
>
>- Grim
>
>
5*5 area_light with adaptive 2 is like NO adaptive at all!
adaptive 0 use a minimum of 2*2
adaptive 1 use a minimum of 3*3
adaptive 2 use a minimum of 5*5
adaptive 3 use a minimum of 9*9
... or the size of the aray if it's smaler
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Si, I used the minimum! :)
- Grim
"Alain" <aze### [at] qwertygov> wrote in message
news:41c8ea7e$1@news.povray.org...
> GrimDude nous apporta ses lumieres ainsi en ce 2004-12-21 18:27... :
>
>>Hmm, I reduced the blur samples to 32, but increased the area lights to
>>5x5 arrays (adaptive 2) with similar other modifications along the lines
>>Jerome used. I was going to run it tonight at 1280x1024, but I may wait
>>now that I see your results. (Athlon XP 3000+)
>>
>>- Grim
>>
> 5*5 area_light with adaptive 2 is like NO adaptive at all!
> adaptive 0 use a minimum of 2*2
> adaptive 1 use a minimum of 3*3
> adaptive 2 use a minimum of 5*5
> adaptive 3 use a minimum of 9*9
> ... or the size of the aray if it's smaler
>
> Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
<Text of Reply Snipped>
Wow,
Thanks for the tips :)
Actually, the radiosity settings are kind of a cheat to get mosaic
preview, w/o entering command line options... Yeah, yeah, I know mosaic
would be so much faster..
I never could get the hang of doing media efficiently, maybe your
suggestions will help. The result you posted looks good, imo. The
lighter veins, however are just a bit too light, but that could probably
be fixed.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
