 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 8/10/2016 um 10:25 schrieb Paolo Gibellini:
> Ive wrote on 09/08/2016 22:45:
>> And no, the Mule is not meant to be part of my Metal Monster entry but
>> now I'm pretty sure to miss the deadline there...
>>
>> -Ive
> This is an exceptional image!
> Paolo
Thanks!
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 8/10/2016 um 11:01 schrieb Bill Pragnell:
> Very realistic. In fact, in many shots, the original is *less* realistic!
>
I guess this is mostly because they do not want to take a render a few
hours per single frame.
> Needs more grenades though.
>
This is so true. Blowing things up and doing explosions is on my CGI
todo list since quite some time. Let's see.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/10/2016 12:27 PM, Ive wrote:
> Am 8/9/2016 um 23:26 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 8/9/2016 9:45 PM, Ive wrote:
>>> And no, the Mule is not meant to be part of my Metal Monster entry but
>>> now I'm pretty sure to miss the deadline there...
>>
>> You do know that you are not suppose to post photographs here. ;)
>>
> Really? That's a shame as I intend to produce more and better
> "photographs" in the future.
>
Suppose to is not the same as cannot.
And for an old timer, exceptions are always available. :)
>> And it looks like a metal monster to me. :)
>>
> It surely is. But it is not what I have in mind for the the TC round.
> When I started, the deadline was 80 days away and I thought: well, no
> problem, I can do something big in this time easily. But now are only 6
> days left, some part are still missing and I'm not sure how long it will
> take for a final render. Let's see how it goes.
>
I understand but not even if it where titled, Ive's unfinished symphony?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
:O
Holy cow!
That looks so jaw-droppingly shiny, I think I swallowed a bug!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.08.2016 um 18:44 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> Holy cow!
Wrong animal ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 8/11/2016 um 18:44 schrieb Bald Eagle:
>
> That looks so jaw-droppingly shiny, I think I swallowed a bug!
LOL. This made my day, ...and caused another image posting!
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoft org> wrote:
> Rendered with MC-Pov it is first of all a study for painted, scratched,
> dirty and rusty metal textures and while some look quite right others
> didn't turn out as good as I had hoped for.
Awesome execution. Good job!
> Tried it first with UberPOV but - as I'm getting more and more impatient
> in my old days - it is too slow for all the layered textures where all
> of them use blurred reflections.
Blurred reflections in UberPOV /are/ slow. If we could specify the number of
reflection blur samples (like we already do with area lights and radiosity) we
could then use antialiasing and/or focal blur to improve the overall quality.
I've already tested this with radiosity and area lights in UberPOV and it looks
very promising.
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 8/11/2016 um 21:21 schrieb Samuel B.:
> Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
>> Rendered with MC-Pov it is first of all a study for painted, scratched,
>> dirty and rusty metal textures and while some look quite right others
>> didn't turn out as good as I had hoped for.
>
> Awesome execution. Good job!
>
>> Tried it first with UberPOV but - as I'm getting more and more impatient
>> in my old days - it is too slow for all the layered textures where all
>> of them use blurred reflections.
>
> Blurred reflections in UberPOV /are/ slow. If we could specify the number of
> reflection blur samples (like we already do with area lights and radiosity) we
> could then use antialiasing and/or focal blur to improve the overall quality.
> I've already tested this with radiosity and area lights in UberPOV and it looks
> very promising.
>
Hmm. I was under the impression UberPOV tries to unify all the different
oversampling mechanisms so the sample count for the blurred rays already
benefits from antialiasing/focal blur. But I might be mistaken.
I think the problem are those internal reflections that do happen with
any object that is not just a reflective sphere. This seems to cause an
exponential grow of the rendertime. I don't know enough of the inner
working but MC-Pov (and all the other unbiased render engines out there)
do not have this problem.
Anyway, let me know if you find ways to improve the render time with
UberPOV, as I can't live without blurred reflections anymore.
-Ive
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.08.2016 um 23:43 schrieb Ive:
> Hmm. I was under the impression UberPOV tries to unify all the different
> oversampling mechanisms so the sample count for the blurred rays already
> benefits from antialiasing/focal blur. But I might be mistaken.
> I think the problem are those internal reflections that do happen with
> any object that is not just a reflective sphere. This seems to cause an
> exponential grow of the rendertime. I don't know enough of the inner
> working but MC-Pov (and all the other unbiased render engines out there)
> do not have this problem.
I wouldn't be surprised about that; UberPOV's algorithm to determine the
number of secondary rays per reflection is still very primitive, and
leaves much to be desired.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftorg> wrote:
> Hmm. I was under the impression UberPOV tries to unify all the different
> oversampling mechanisms so the sample count for the blurred rays already
> benefits from antialiasing/focal blur.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that UberPOV automatically calculates how
many reflection samples it needs depending on what is passed to roughness. It
would be great to be able to set it to a low value like 1 or 2 and just let
focal blur or aa take care of the rest.
> Anyway, let me know if you find ways to improve the render time with
> UberPOV, as I can't live without blurred reflections anymore.
For reflection/refraction blurring you can do something like the following:
normal{bumps .025 scale 1e-4}
For your scene you can set the radiosity count to 1 and area_light samples to 2,
2.
To get the most out of aa use the new method:
+a0.01 +am3 +r3
The aa threshold can be lowered and +r can be raised as needed. Final renderings
will probably require +r4 or higher.
Focal blur is easy. Just adjust blur_samples to your liking and keep variance at
or near zero.
-Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
