 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-3-2016 18:23, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Ah, yes... I didn't remember that one, but do remember now. Looks
> gorgeous too. But here the threads seem all vertical? On my towel I used
> a pigment (bumps) as a guide to tilt the threads smoothly.
>
I used a slight perturbation on the threads' angles. Nothing fancy I
confess. It was a kind of proof of concept for me and I might dig into
the code some day when I shall need a carpet badly (that is how things
work for me most of the time).
I checked the code and saw it dropped 500k threads on the whole carpet.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Both the towel and the carpet are very nice !
Well done :-)
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
> On 8-3-2016 18:23, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> > Ah, yes... I didn't remember that one, but do remember now. Looks
> > gorgeous too. But here the threads seem all vertical? On my towel I used
> > a pigment (bumps) as a guide to tilt the threads smoothly.
> >
>
> I used a slight perturbation on the threads' angles. Nothing fancy I
> confess. It was a kind of proof of concept for me and I might dig into
> the code some day when I shall need a carpet badly (that is how things
> work for me most of the time).
>
> I checked the code and saw it dropped 500k threads on the whole carpet.
>
>
> --
> Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These are GREAT looking renders :)
I went back and looked at the carpet I did for TINA-CheP, and it looks more like
a dog ate crayons and then vomited them in a rectangle on the floor.
:(
That may be a project I revisit at another time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/10/2016 9:10 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> These are GREAT looking renders :)
>
> I went back and looked at the carpet I did for TINA-CheP, and it looks more like
> a dog ate crayons and then vomited them in a rectangle on the floor.
> :(
>
Invokes an image. :)
But you do yourself down. Your carpet was furnishing. At that level of
detail it would have distracted from the overall image.
> That may be a project I revisit at another time.
>
And there is no time like... ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> These are GREAT looking renders :)
Thanks!
> I went back and looked at the carpet I did for TINA-CheP, and it
> looks more like a dog ate crayons and then vomited them in a
> rectangle on the floor. :(
As Stephen said, it was a very ambitious project and the carpet was
just a little part of it, and not entirely visible.
> That may be a project I revisit at another time.
Revisiting old scenes is a great way to keep tracing when inspiration
for new ones is missing... I do it from time to time, tough most times
they end being very different.
--
jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-3-2016 23:40, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> Revisiting old scenes is a great way to keep tracing when inspiration
> for new ones is missing... I do it from time to time, tough most times
> they end being very different.
>
<grin> yes indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08.03.2016 05:24, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> This is an old mesh generated with Megapov back in 2006, but now
> resurrected to try some "furrifying" experiments. It uses some 260000
> mesh threads traced randomly onto the mesh. No hg-povray yet... just a
> test with regular pov for later comparison. Renders really fast using
> default radiosity (1m46s), and parse time is not that bad (1m3s).
>
> The lovely image map used as base is from archivetextures.net.
>
> I like the look of it... like a softener ad: makes you want to rub your
> face on it.
>
> --
> jaime
>
To me, it lools almost real. Add a little bit more light to hit, so the
white is brighter. Or some Ariel washing solution. The light should come
slightly from a side beside the middle. Just my imagination.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08.03.2016 06:05, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> I love it - do you remember memory need?
>
> No, but I just rendered it again, and I can't see it reported anywhere
> on the output:
>
>
> ==== [Parsing...]
> ==========================================================
> Parsing 98471K tokens
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Parser Statistics
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Finite Objects: 260003
> Infinite Objects: 1
> Light Sources: 1
> Total: 260005
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Parser Time
> Parse Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 3 seconds (63.464 seconds)
> using 1 thread(s) with 48.768 CPU-seconds total
> Bounding Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0.913 seconds)
> using 1 thread(s) with 0.911 CPU-seconds total
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Render Options
> Quality: 9
> Bounding boxes.......On Bounding threshold: 3
> Antialiasing.........On (Method 1, Threshold 0.300, Depth 3, Jitter
> 1.00,
> Gamma 2.50)
> ==== [Rendering...]
> ========================================================
> Rendered 786432 of 786432 pixels (100%)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Render Statistics
> Image Resolution 1024 x 768
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Pixels: 836189 Samples: 6236739 Smpls/Pxl: 7.46
> Rays: 8784686 Saved: 0 Max Level: 4/5
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Box 12303161 12303161 100.00
> Mesh 359030468 34685638 9.66
> Plane 12303161 7880984 64.06
> Sphere 12303161 12303161 100.00
> Bounding Box 3818952101 1488571642 38.98
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Shadow Ray Tests: 5559559 Succeeded: 3350070
> Shadow Cache Hits: 2041084
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiosity samples calculated: 51432 (0.59 %)
> discarded due to low quality: 4356
> retained for re-use: 47076
> Radiosity samples reused: 8649801
> Radiosity sample rays shot: 1711758
> Radiosity octree nodes: 1181
> Radiosity octree samples/node: 39.86
> Radiosity blocks examined: 10482324788
> Radiosity blocks passed test 0: 10482324788 (100.00 %)
> Radiosity blocks passed test 1: 1227842362 (11.71 %)
> Radiosity blocks passed test 2: 913390395 (8.71 %)
> Radiosity blocks passed test 3: 184540151 (1.76 %)
> Radiosity blocks passed test 4: 63080136 (0.60 %)
> Radiosity blocks passed test 5: 59940830 (0.57 %)
> Radiosity blocks rejected: 10422383958 (99.43 %)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiosity Depth 0 calculated: 46523 (0.66 %)
> Radiosity Depth 0 reused: 7026405
> Radiosity Depth 0 rays shot: 1628305
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiosity (final) calculated: 46109 (0.53 %)
> Radiosity (final) reused: 8633344
> Radiosity (final) rays shot: 1610377
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Pass Depth 0 Depth 1 Total
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1 130 1220 1350
> 2 475 3498 3973
> Final 45918 191 46109
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Total 46523 4909 51432
> Weight 0.451 0.269
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Render Time:
> Photon Time: No photons
> Radiosity Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0.723 seconds)
> using 6 thread(s) with 3.843 CPU-seconds total
> Trace Time: 0 hours 1 minutes 27 seconds (87.606 seconds)
> using 6 thread(s) with 517.339 CPU-seconds total
> ==== [Paused]
> ==============================================================
> Press a key or click the display to continue...
>
> POV-Ray finished
>
>
> --
> jaime
The memory consumption is displayed during the render, at the bottom,
somewhere at the right side. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08.03.2016 07:29, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-3-2016 11:24, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> This is an old mesh generated with Megapov back in 2006, but now
>> resurrected to try some "furrifying" experiments. It uses some 260000
>> mesh threads traced randomly onto the mesh. No hg-povray yet... just a
>> test with regular pov for later comparison. Renders really fast using
>> default radiosity (1m46s), and parse time is not that bad (1m3s).
>>
>> The lovely image map used as base is from archivetextures.net.
>>
>> I like the look of it... like a softener ad: makes you want to rub your
>> face on it.
>>
>> --
>> jaime
>>
>
Beautiful.
> Reminds me of this render from 2014. I don't know how many threads were
> used in this one; quite a lot for the whole carpet and it was pretty
> fast too iirc.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 13/03/2016 06:42, Sven Littkowski a écrit :
>
>
> On 08.03.2016 06:05, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> El 08/03/16 a las 11:45, Norbert Kern escribió:
>>> I love it - do you remember memory need?
>>
>> No, but I just rendered it again, and I can't see it reported anywhere
>> on the output:
>>
>
>
> The memory consumption is displayed during the render, at the bottom,
> somewhere at the right side. :-)
>
I'm afraid it is visible only on Windows.
for other systems, it might be useful to use a bit of encapsulating command like
*time* (or /usr/bin/time)
with some switch to get the desired values (--verbose is nice).
Or to monitor some parallel utilities like *top*.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
