On 4/26/2017 8:46 PM, Alain wrote:
> Le 17-04-26 à 09:00, Stephen a écrit :
>> On 4/26/2017 12:21 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Recently, I found a blackbird eggshell and wanted to model its texture.
>>> It gave me the opportunity to play again with some (UberPOV) settings I
>>> like and using subsurface scattering throughout the scene.
>>>
>>> So, here we are with all objects showing subsurface scattering.
>>>
>>> UberPOV antialiasing set at +am3 +a0.01 +ac0.90 +r3 and using no_cache.
>>> 2h20' render time with 6 cores. This would be much longer if using
>>> +ac0.99 of course.
>>>
>>
>> Did you use stochastic rendering? It looks a little bit grainy. Other
>> than that it is excellent.
>>
>> +am3 - I see that you did.
>>
>
> You bet he did.
>

I don't gamble. At least with anything as trivial as money. ;)
I did not see Thomas's setting until I was about to post.


> no_cache and +am+ both enable stochastic rendering. The first in the
> radiosity evaluation, the second in antialiasing.

Thanks, I did not know that. At least the no_cache setting. I don't 
normally use radiosity myself.
Does that mean +am1 or +am2 enables stochastic rendering? I thought it 
was only +am3 that did that. But then I've only used UberPov when I was 
working on Dhalgren with Thomas and he set the quality settings.

I am an egg. :-)
Albeit a thousand-year-old egg. Yum yum.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26-4-2017 15:42, Jörg "Yadgar" Bleimann wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
>
> On 26.04.2017 13:21, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Recently, I found a blackbird eggshell and wanted to model its texture.
>> It gave me the opportunity to play again with some (UberPOV) settings I
>> like and using subsurface scattering throughout the scene.
>>
>> So, here we are with all objects showing subsurface scattering.
>>
>> UberPOV antialiasing set at +am3 +a0.01 +ac0.90 +r3 and using no_cache.
>> 2h20' render time with 6 cores. This would be much longer if using
>> +ac0.99 of course.
>>
>
> A dragon's egg... and when reading your subject, I initially thought (or
> better, hoped!) you tried to render the same-named neutron star of the
> cheela!
>
> That would be a cool project... but I would postpone it until I acquired
> reliable knowledge of spectral rendering, as to humans, the Egg is
> white-hot at about 9000 K, and any features on its surface are only
> discernible when viewed through cheela eyes!
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar
>
> Now playing: Under the Orangish Sky (Michael Garrison)

Only by chance I am afraid. I am not acquainted with Robert Forward's 
work so I am out. Still, a nice example of syzygy isn't it?

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 27-4-2017 0:29, Stephen wrote:
> On 4/26/2017 8:46 PM, Alain wrote:
>> Le 17-04-26 à 09:00, Stephen a écrit :
>>> On 4/26/2017 12:21 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> Recently, I found a blackbird eggshell and wanted to model its texture.
>>>> It gave me the opportunity to play again with some (UberPOV) settings I
>>>> like and using subsurface scattering throughout the scene.
>>>>
>>>> So, here we are with all objects showing subsurface scattering.
>>>>
>>>> UberPOV antialiasing set at +am3 +a0.01 +ac0.90 +r3 and using no_cache.
>>>> 2h20' render time with 6 cores. This would be much longer if using
>>>> +ac0.99 of course.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did you use stochastic rendering? It looks a little bit grainy. Other
>>> than that it is excellent.
>>>
>>> +am3 - I see that you did.
>>>
>>
>> You bet he did.
>>
>
> I don't gamble. At least with anything as trivial as money. ;)
> I did not see Thomas's setting until I was about to post.
>
>
>> no_cache and +am+ both enable stochastic rendering. The first in the
>> radiosity evaluation, the second in antialiasing.
>
> Thanks, I did not know that. At least the no_cache setting. I don't
> normally use radiosity myself.
> Does that mean +am1 or +am2 enables stochastic rendering? I thought it
> was only +am3 that did that. But then I've only used UberPov when I was
> working on Dhalgren with Thomas and he set the quality settings.

Only +am3 sets stochastic rendering. I like it but it is much slower imo 
when set to high quality like +ac99. However, I may be wrong as I have 
not compared renders seriously. Clipka would know ;-) I little bit of 
grainy image is not a problem to me although it is difficult to balance 
quality versus (acceptable) render time. I am not always that patient.

With Dhalgren, I used +am2, so no stochastic rendering there.

>
> I am an egg. :-)
> Albeit a thousand-year-old egg. Yum yum.
>

Hum... I am a bit reluctant to have a bite :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2017 7:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-4-2017 0:29, Stephen wrote:

>
> Only +am3 sets stochastic rendering. I like it but it is much slower imo
> when set to high quality like +ac99. However, I may be wrong as I have
> not compared renders seriously. Clipka would know ;-) I little bit of
> grainy image is not a problem to me although it is difficult to balance
> quality versus (acceptable) render time. I am not always that patient.
>

That is the crux of the matter. How long you are willing to wait for the 
quality you want.


> With Dhalgren, I used +am2, so no stochastic rendering there.
>

But I did a couple of runs with +am3 as it was the first time I had used 
UberPov.

>>
>> I am an egg. :-)
>> Albeit a thousand-year-old egg. Yum yum.
>>
>
> Hum... I am a bit reluctant to have a bite :-)
>

They are really nice. They are a bit like haggis, in the way the taste 
is linked to the way you catch them. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 27-4-2017 10:07, Stephen wrote:
> On 4/27/2017 7:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 27-4-2017 0:29, Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Only +am3 sets stochastic rendering. I like it but it is much slower imo
>> when set to high quality like +ac99. However, I may be wrong as I have
>> not compared renders seriously. Clipka would know ;-) I little bit of
>> grainy image is not a problem to me although it is difficult to balance
>> quality versus (acceptable) render time. I am not always that patient.
>>
>
> That is the crux of the matter. How long you are willing to wait for the
> quality you want.

Indeed. I am running a render now with slightly increased quality 
(+ac0.95 +r4) which is already more satisfactory. 80% done after 3h23'.

>
>
>> With Dhalgren, I used +am2, so no stochastic rendering there.
>>
>
> But I did a couple of runs with +am3 as it was the first time I had used
> UberPov.

I am a fan. :-)

>
>>>
>>> I am an egg. :-)
>>> Albeit a thousand-year-old egg. Yum yum.
>>>
>>
>> Hum... I am a bit reluctant to have a bite :-)
>>
>
> They are really nice. They are a bit like haggis, in the way the taste
> is linked to the way you catch them. ;-)
>

Really? Well, I shall have to taste haggis too then. ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 27-4-2017 13:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> Indeed. I am running a render now with slightly increased quality
> (+ac0.95 +r4) which is already more satisfactory. 80% done after 3h23'.
>

...which completed looks like this.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'sslt_test_uber_03.png' (672 KB)

Preview of image 'sslt_test_uber_03.png'

On 4/27/2017 12:12 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-4-2017 10:07, Stephen wrote:
>> On 4/27/2017 7:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 27-4-2017 0:29, Stephen wrote:

>>
>> But I did a couple of runs with +am3 as it was the first time I had used
>> UberPov.
>
> I am a fan. :-)
>

I had noticed. :)

I appreciate the speed up more than the other features. I have an 800 
frame animation that I am working on. I'll certainly use it for that.

>>
>>>>
>>>> I am an egg. :-)
>>>> Albeit a thousand-year-old egg. Yum yum.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hum... I am a bit reluctant to have a bite :-)
>>>
>>
>> They are really nice. They are a bit like haggis, in the way the taste
>> is linked to the way you catch them. ;-)
>>
>
> Really? Well, I shall have to taste haggis too then. ;-)
>


If you don't try it before Brexit you will have to catch your own or 
import it. ;)
Tatties and neeps are available everywhere. Although not always called 
the same thing.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/27/2017 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 27-4-2017 13:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> Indeed. I am running a render now with slightly increased quality
>> (+ac0.95 +r4) which is already more satisfactory. 80% done after 3h23'.
>>
>
> ....which completed looks like this.
>

That does make a positive difference. It is more the dragon that shows 
it up. To my eyes it looks as if it hasn't been polished to a high degree.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 27-4-2017 13:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
> > Indeed. I am running a render now with slightly increased quality
> > (+ac0.95 +r4) which is already more satisfactory. 80% done after 3h23'.
> >
>
> ...which completed looks like this.
>
> --
> Thomas

The subsurface scattering in the dragon must add to the render time.
http://www.3d-imaging.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

On 27-4-2017 17:24, j3dj3d wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>> On 27-4-2017 13:12, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed. I am running a render now with slightly increased quality
>>> (+ac0.95 +r4) which is already more satisfactory. 80% done after 3h23'.
>>>
>>
>> ...which completed looks like this.
>>
>> --
>> Thomas
>
> The subsurface scattering in the dragon must add to the render time.
> http://www.3d-imaging.co.uk
>
>

Yes indeed, and like Stephen said, it mostly shows up on the dragon too. 
To answers here stephen's other comment: the reflections have been kept 
rather low so the polish is almost absent.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message