 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/26/18 5:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 26/09/2018 09:44, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Very nice - I'm glad you got the radiosity worked out - it's coming
>>> along very
>>> well :)
>>
>> lol (coming along) ... i'm calling this the final version.
>
>
> With a bit of tiding up it could be a HoF entry. ;)
>
> Or it could be one now. :D
>
lofty praise indeed ... i'll take it!
/there/ is one item i'll admit might benefit from a little attention. i
settled for a pretty basic matte finish on the ground plane because
anything else just didn't showcase the glow like i wanted...for me
that's what this image was all about.
since i used radiosity, area lights, focal blur and am3...next time i
have 62 hrs of free computer time i /might/ give it some more attention
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-9-2018 10:06, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> glowing spheres on pavement plane ....
I love it. Now for a little challenge: the spheres obviously do not
reflect in the background scene, either directly or as seen in the
reflections on the spheres. It is not immediately apparent happily. I
would be at a loss about how to solve that however.
Never mind. It is a great scene.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 26.09.2018 um 12:10 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> since i used radiosity, area lights, focal blur and am3...next time i
> have 62 hrs of free computer time i /might/ give it some more attention
While quality settings normally have a tendency to stack up pretty
brutally, am3 is somewhat different in this respect, as it lets you get
away with lower settings on other features - provided they can be set to
produce random noise instead of biased artifacts.
For example, area lights can be set to produce random noise by turning
on jitter. If you're using am3 anyway, you can then crank down on the
other area light quality settings.
(Radiosity, on the other hand, is an example where this doesn't work, as
its artifacts are biased, not random-noise-ish.)
This comes in particularly handy when combining multiple "jitterable"
features, e.g. area lights + media + SSLT + micronormals (the latter two
always being "jittery" by nature).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/26/18 8:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.09.2018 um 12:10 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>
>> since i used radiosity, area lights, focal blur and am3...next time i
>> have 62 hrs of free computer time i /might/ give it some more attention
>
> While quality settings normally have a tendency to stack up pretty
> brutally, am3 is somewhat different in this respect, as it lets you get
> away with lower settings on other features - provided they can be set to
> produce random noise instead of biased artifacts.
>
> For example, area lights can be set to produce random noise by turning
> on jitter. If you're using am3 anyway, you can then crank down on the
> other area light quality settings.
>
> (Radiosity, on the other hand, is an example where this doesn't work, as
> its artifacts are biased, not random-noise-ish.)
>
>
> This comes in particularly handy when combining multiple "jitterable"
> features, e.g. area lights + media + SSLT + micronormals (the latter two
> always being "jittery" by nature).
>
yeah i think i might give relaxing area light parameters and see if i
can see any gains in time. you didn't say anything about focal blur. not
jitter per se but it's mechanism noise based... right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 27.09.2018 um 13:08 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> yeah i think i might give relaxing area light parameters and see if i
> can see any gains in time. you didn't say anything about focal blur. not
> jitter per se but it's mechanism noise based... right?
That was intentional, because I'm currently not sure how random it is,
and how reproducible the randomness is.
If focal blur uses a random seed based on "pixel address", for instance,
then oversampling the same pixel again and again will always give the
same blur sample directions, which means -am3 can't improve the blur result.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18-09-27 à 07:08, Jim Holsenback a écrit :
> On 9/26/18 8:12 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 26.09.2018 um 12:10 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>>
>>> since i used radiosity, area lights, focal blur and am3...next time i
>>> have 62 hrs of free computer time i /might/ give it some more attention
>>
>> While quality settings normally have a tendency to stack up pretty
>> brutally, am3 is somewhat different in this respect, as it lets you get
>> away with lower settings on other features - provided they can be set to
>> produce random noise instead of biased artifacts.
>>
>> For example, area lights can be set to produce random noise by turning
>> on jitter. If you're using am3 anyway, you can then crank down on the
>> other area light quality settings.
>>
>> (Radiosity, on the other hand, is an example where this doesn't work, as
>> its artifacts are biased, not random-noise-ish.)
>>
>>
>> This comes in particularly handy when combining multiple "jitterable"
>> features, e.g. area lights + media + SSLT + micronormals (the latter two
>> always being "jittery" by nature).
>>
>
> yeah i think i might give relaxing area light parameters and see if i
> can see any gains in time. you didn't say anything about focal blur. not
> jitter per se but it's mechanism noise based... right?
It's possible that you may be able to use adaptive 0 for those. If it's
not good, try adaptive 1.
With adaptive 0, you can use some insane values for your area_light, like :
area_light x y 1025 1025 circular orient adaptive 0
and still get good performances.
Using adaptive 0 don't turn the feature off, neither will using adaptive
off.
The only way to turn adaptive off is to remove adaptive from the definition.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/27/18 7:39 PM, Alain wrote:
> It's possible that you may be able to use adaptive 0 for those. If it's
> not good, try adaptive 1.
> With adaptive 0, you can use some insane values for your area_light, like :
> area_light x y 1025 1025 circular orient adaptive 0
>
> and still get good performances.
> Using adaptive 0 don't turn the feature off, neither will using adaptive
> off.
> The only way to turn adaptive off is to remove adaptive from the
> definition.
i removed jitter and used adaptive 0 (with /no/ other area light
changes) and cut 20 hours off the render time...3 cheers for +am3...i'm
a fan!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-9-2018 11:18, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 9/27/18 7:39 PM, Alain wrote:
>> It's possible that you may be able to use adaptive 0 for those. If
>> it's not good, try adaptive 1.
>> With adaptive 0, you can use some insane values for your area_light,
>> like :
>> area_light x y 1025 1025 circular orient adaptive 0
>>
>> and still get good performances.
>> Using adaptive 0 don't turn the feature off, neither will using
>> adaptive off.
>> The only way to turn adaptive off is to remove adaptive from the
>> definition.
>
> i removed jitter and used adaptive 0 (with /no/ other area light
> changes) and cut 20 hours off the render time...3 cheers for +am3...i'm
> a fan!
Out of curiosity, what were your values for +a, +ac, and +r, using +am3?
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/30/18 7:06 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 30-9-2018 11:18, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>> On 9/27/18 7:39 PM, Alain wrote:
>>> It's possible that you may be able to use adaptive 0 for those. If
>>> it's not good, try adaptive 1.
>>> With adaptive 0, you can use some insane values for your area_light,
>>> like :
>>> area_light x y 1025 1025 circular orient adaptive 0
>>>
>>> and still get good performances.
>>> Using adaptive 0 don't turn the feature off, neither will using
>>> adaptive off.
>>> The only way to turn adaptive off is to remove adaptive from the
>>> definition.
>>
>> i removed jitter and used adaptive 0 (with /no/ other area light
>> changes) and cut 20 hours off the render time...3 cheers for
>> +am3...i'm a fan!
>
> Out of curiosity, what were your values for +a, +ac, and +r, using +am3?
>
+am3 +a0.015 +ac0.995 +r3
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-9-2018 14:56, Jim Holsenback wrote:
> On 9/30/18 7:06 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 30-9-2018 11:18, Jim Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 9/27/18 7:39 PM, Alain wrote:
>>>> It's possible that you may be able to use adaptive 0 for those. If
>>>> it's not good, try adaptive 1.
>>>> With adaptive 0, you can use some insane values for your area_light,
>>>> like :
>>>> area_light x y 1025 1025 circular orient adaptive 0
>>>>
>>>> and still get good performances.
>>>> Using adaptive 0 don't turn the feature off, neither will using
>>>> adaptive off.
>>>> The only way to turn adaptive off is to remove adaptive from the
>>>> definition.
>>>
>>> i removed jitter and used adaptive 0 (with /no/ other area light
>>> changes) and cut 20 hours off the render time...3 cheers for
>>> +am3...i'm a fan!
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what were your values for +a, +ac, and +r, using +am3?
>>
> +am3 +a0.015 +ac0.995 +r3
OK, thanks. Confirms what I am using in general; been using +r4 for
serious cases. With hindsight, I see that in my Paris scene I used
adaptive 1 and jitter on for the street lights. I should turn them off
to gain much needed render time.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
