 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.12.2014 13:40, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> This is what I have got (see image).
>
> Left render with Uberpov; Right render with Pov 3.7.
>
> The only code difference is the emission value: In Uberpov it is 2; in
> POV-Ray it is 0.2. Higher values will white out the render. The
> difference remains and I think Clipka knows why :-)
At the moment I just have a hunch: There were some bogosities in
POV-Ray's media computations which would cause the results to be
systematically off (as opposed to just being imprecise) when using a
very low minimum number of samples. I fixed these, so that low minimum
number of samples would yield results closer to high minimum number of
samples.
The fix quite certainly has made it into UberPov, but may not have been
released for official POV-Ray yet due to longer release cycles there.
I can't currently verify that this is the reason for the differences you
see in this case, for the lack of round tuits; I hope to get one or two
of those in the second half of December.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-12-2014 14:26, FractRacer wrote:
> A big thanks for you, Thomas, I think I have all tried except the
> emission's value. And now I know how handle the render with Povray and
> Uberpov.
>
It's my pleasure. I seem to vaguely remember that Clipka explained the
differences, but my memory is not what it has been anymore...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-12-2014 15:49, clipka wrote:
> I can't currently verify that this is the reason for the differences you
> see in this case, for the lack of round tuits; I hope to get one or two
> of those in the second half of December.
>
There is a tuit shower due over Germany around that time I heard. Thanks
for your good work sir!
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
