 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/20/2016 1:20 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/19/2016 11:57 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/19/2016 3:48 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2016 7:06 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2016 10:18 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>>> On 10/26/2016 10:17 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>>>> i'm shooting for porcelain
>>>>>
>>>>> how about jade instead ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like it. :)
>>>> How about a bit more colour variation? (I know I am a pleb with cheap
>>>> tastes ;) )
>>>
>>> mo betta? ... also changed the pose a bit and darkened it some as in
>>> "after hours"
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I like that. :)
>>
>>> "after hours"
>>
>> ? ^_^
>
> like in a gallery after it's closed.
Of course. Adjusting the gamma in an editor didn't cross my mind.
<Whistling> <blush>
> i'm also working on a monochrome
> version with scattering media.
>
I would not mind seeing that when it has finished rendering.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/20/2016 1:31 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 3:14 AM, omniverse wrote:
>> Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanks net> wrote:
>>> mo betta? ... also changed the pose a bit and darkened it some as in
>>> "after hours"
>>
>> Only problem now is that I imagine it doing twisting motions and the
>> patterned
>> tiles rotating... animation possible? Or is that asking too much? :}
>> The image along with my imagination does okay enough if you can't do
>> that so
>> don't feel pressured.
>
> lol don't worry i won't ... area lights + subsurface pushed the render
> time into the 10 hr range on my machine, so i can't see any animations
> happening on this one
>
I chuckled when I read it. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 11/20/2016 1:31 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> > On 11/20/2016 3:14 AM, omniverse wrote:
> >>
> >> The image along with my imagination does okay enough if you can't do
> >> that so
> >> don't feel pressured.
> >
> > lol don't worry i won't ... area lights + subsurface pushed the render
> > time into the 10 hr range on my machine, so i can't see any animations
> > happening on this one
> >
>
> I chuckled when I read it. :)
Can't let it churn something out over the next month that would only be a second
or two of animation? LOL
Come to think of it I haven't animated anything with subsurface scattering yet,
probably because I almost always use radiosity together with it. And you're not
kidding about the slowness of area lights, makes me reduce SSS samples and light
grid number out of desperation.
Will be watching, and waiting, for the monochrome version.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.11.2016 um 16:52 schrieb omniverse:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2016 1:31 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2016 3:14 AM, omniverse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The image along with my imagination does okay enough if you can't do
>>>> that so
>>>> don't feel pressured.
>>>
>>> lol don't worry i won't ... area lights + subsurface pushed the render
>>> time into the 10 hr range on my machine, so i can't see any animations
>>> happening on this one
>>>
>>
>> I chuckled when I read it. :)
>
> Can't let it churn something out over the next month that would only be a second
> or two of animation? LOL
>
> Come to think of it I haven't animated anything with subsurface scattering yet,
> probably because I almost always use radiosity together with it. And you're not
> kidding about the slowness of area lights, makes me reduce SSS samples and light
> grid number out of desperation.
Have you considered trying UberPOV? It does include some mechanisms that
might trim down render times considerably when multiple oversampling
effects (e.g. focal blur, SSS, area lights, anti-aliasing) are combined.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-11-19 à 10:48, Jim Holsenback a écrit :
> On 11/2/2016 7:06 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/2/2016 10:18 AM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2016 10:17 PM, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>> i'm shooting for porcelain
>>>
>>> how about jade instead ...
>>>
>>
>> I like it. :)
>> How about a bit more colour variation? (I know I am a pleb with cheap
>> tastes ;) )
>
> mo betta? ... also changed the pose a bit and darkened it some as in
> "after hours"
>
Very good. My only complain would be about those area_light artefacts in
the left anf right shadowed areas. Try increasing the adaptive value by
1, it should help, but it will obviously take longer to render.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 20.11.2016 um 16:52 schrieb omniverse:
> > probably because I almost always use radiosity together with it. And you're not
> > kidding about the slowness of area lights, makes me reduce SSS samples and light
> > grid number out of desperation.
>
> Have you considered trying UberPOV? It does include some mechanisms that
> might trim down render times considerably when multiple oversampling
> effects (e.g. focal blur, SSS, area lights, anti-aliasing) are combined.
I'm using UberPOV mostly for the things specific to it so haven't really
compared until now.
Checking on that I found good news and bad news. The bad first.
Shadows from area light looks like jitter is always on even though that keyword
is left out.
The good news is it can be very fast.
More bad news, because even when attempting to equal the shadow appearances (and
they won't for whatever reason unknown to me) the subsurface scattering gets
worse not better. This with everything the same other than changing area_light
adaptive. Can only guess SSS requires more sampling when adaptive is increased,
just not tried yet.
Sorry Jim, for not starting a new topic. Will do so here in image group to show
the comparison.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/20/2016 11:16 AM, clipka wrote:
> Have you considered trying UberPOV? It does include some mechanisms that
> might trim down render times considerably when multiple oversampling
> effects (e.g. focal blur, SSS, area lights, anti-aliasing) are combined.
not lately ... although in tinkering around i've gained some render
speed regarding area lights. i'd been using area_illumination on
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/20/2016 5:35 PM, Alain wrote:
> Very good. My only complain would be about those area_light artefacts in
> the left anf right shadowed areas. Try increasing the adaptive value by
> 1, it should help, but it will obviously take longer to render.
ah ... thanks for jogging my memory on that i was wondering how to
address that issue
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/20/2016 5:35 PM, Alain wrote:
> Very good. My only complain would be about those area_light artefacts in
> the left anf right shadowed areas. Try increasing the adaptive value by
> 1, it should help, but it will obviously take longer to render.
sa-weeeet ... increasing adaptive to 2 fixed it
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-11-21 à 07:16, Jim Holsenback a écrit :
> On 11/20/2016 5:35 PM, Alain wrote:
>> Very good. My only complain would be about those area_light artefacts in
>> the left anf right shadowed areas. Try increasing the adaptive value by
>> 1, it should help, but it will obviously take longer to render.
>
> sa-weeeet ... increasing adaptive to 2 fixed it
>
Good :)
Remember:
adaptive 0 = start with only the 4 corners of the area_light.
adaptive 1 = start with 1 subdivision, or a 3*3 array.
adaptive 2 = start with 2 subdivisions, or a 5*5 array.
...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
