Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 12/4/2016 8:53 AM, omniverse wrote:
> > Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> >> On 12/2/2016 3:01 PM, clipka wrote:
> >>> Go ahead and try.
> >>
> >> hmmm ... with uber subsurface + area lights render was > 14 hrs. pov is
> >> /still/ ~ 38 % faster
> >
> > That's a curious thing because I found subsurface together with area lights and
> > radiosity to be faster in most recent UberPOV versus the 3.7.1.1-alpha
>
> maybe it was edge of that blackhole gravity well that passed through our
> sector last evening

Could be. :) Rendering with POV and its variations takes more scientific methods
than I'm usually capable of. The seldom mentioned findings like yours (and mine)
is very little to go on I'm sure. I'm always making guesses about what or why
something is so different regarding render times.

Funny thing about that. Just a while ago I mistakenly had 2 sets of scene
objects occupying the same space, and I couldn't understand why a slowdown and
strange artifacts was happening. Not typical coincident surfaces I'm used to
seeing, more like box shadows. Possibly the subsurface scattering causing the
change in appearance. Won't really ever know I guess, unless I encounter that
enough times to learn why.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/1/2016 6:35 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 8:20 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> i'm also working on a monochrome version with scattering media.
>
> i reworked the material a bit ... gave blend_mode and blend_gamma a test
> drive. i have a cool purple one but like this jade-ish version the best.
> type 5 scattering media turned out ok too. i don't dare release the
> kraken (area lights) on this one ... wondering if there is a chance of a
> new subsurface option? ignore area lights for finish (subsurface) but
> use with object (shadows)
>

a change in test object ... best so far!!!!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'chromeknot.png' (811 KB)

Preview of image 'chromeknot.png'

On 12/10/2016 6:29 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 12/1/2016 6:35 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 11/20/2016 8:20 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> i'm also working on a monochrome version with scattering media.
>>
>> i reworked the material a bit ... gave blend_mode and blend_gamma a test
>> drive. i have a cool purple one but like this jade-ish version the best.
>> type 5 scattering media turned out ok too. i don't dare release the
>> kraken (area lights) on this one ... wondering if there is a chance of a
>> new subsurface option? ignore area lights for finish (subsurface) but
>> use with object (shadows)
>>
>
> a change in test object ... best so far!!!!

render time:

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'time.png' (1 KB)

Preview of image 'time.png'

On 10-12-2016 12:29, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> a change in test object ... best so far!!!!

I love this one.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 12/10/2016 7:09 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 10-12-2016 12:29, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> a change in test object ... best so far!!!!
>
> I love this one.
>
thanks ... can't take credit for model: 
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1263333

it's in .stl format ... blender was able to import (no cleanup needed) 
and i believe Jerome's pov branch can handle .stl

Post a reply to this message

On 12/10/2016 06:29 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 12/1/2016 6:35 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 11/20/2016 8:20 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> i'm also working on a monochrome version with scattering media.
>>
>> i reworked the material a bit ... gave blend_mode and blend_gamma a test
>> drive. i have a cool purple one but like this jade-ish version the best.
>> type 5 scattering media turned out ok too. i don't dare release the
>> kraken (area lights) on this one ... wondering if there is a chance of a
>> new subsurface option? ignore area lights for finish (subsurface) but
>> use with object (shadows)
>>
>
> a change in test object ... best so far!!!!

Yes indeed! This one has a great look.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 12/10/2016 6:29 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > On 12/1/2016 6:35 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2016 8:20 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> >>> i'm also working on a monochrome version with scattering media.
> >>
> >> i reworked the material a bit ... gave blend_mode and blend_gamma a test
> >> drive. i have a cool purple one but like this jade-ish version the best.
> >> type 5 scattering media turned out ok too. i don't dare release the
> >> kraken (area lights) on this one ... wondering if there is a chance of a
> >> new subsurface option? ignore area lights for finish (subsurface) but
> >> use with object (shadows)
> >>
> >
> > a change in test object ... best so far!!!!
>
> render time:

That render time is depressing.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 12/1/2016 6:35 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > On 11/20/2016 8:20 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> >> i'm also working on a monochrome version with scattering media.
> >
> > i reworked the material a bit ... gave blend_mode and blend_gamma a test
> > drive. i have a cool purple one but like this jade-ish version the best.
> > type 5 scattering media turned out ok too. i don't dare release the
> > kraken (area lights) on this one ... wondering if there is a chance of a
> > new subsurface option? ignore area lights for finish (subsurface) but
> > use with object (shadows)
> >
>
> a change in test object ... best so far!!!!

nice metal material
But the room is too dark, my opinion.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2016 6:49 AM, And wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
>> On 12/1/2016 6:35 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2016 8:20 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> i'm also working on a monochrome version with scattering media.
>>>
>>> i reworked the material a bit ... gave blend_mode and blend_gamma a test
>>> drive. i have a cool purple one but like this jade-ish version the best.
>>> type 5 scattering media turned out ok too. i don't dare release the
>>> kraken (area lights) on this one ... wondering if there is a chance of a
>>> new subsurface option? ignore area lights for finish (subsurface) but
>>> use with object (shadows)
>>>
>>
>> a change in test object ... best so far!!!!
>
> nice metal material

thanks ...
> But the room is too dark, my opinion.

perhaps ... room not as important as scattering media and object.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/12/2016 4:06 AM, Mr wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2016 6:29 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2016 6:35 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2016 8:20 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>>> i'm also working on a monochrome version with scattering media.
>>>>
>>>> i reworked the material a bit ... gave blend_mode and blend_gamma a test
>>>> drive. i have a cool purple one but like this jade-ish version the best.
>>>> type 5 scattering media turned out ok too. i don't dare release the
>>>> kraken (area lights) on this one ... wondering if there is a chance of a
>>>> new subsurface option? ignore area lights for finish (subsurface) but
>>>> use with object (shadows)
>>>>
>>>
>>> a change in test object ... best so far!!!!
>>
>> render time:
>
> That render time is depressing.
>

well i suppose to be fair about it my system wasn't exclusive on the 
render all the times ... maybe some gains from decreasing area light 
density but then scattering and shadows suffer

Post a reply to this message