This sucker took 22 hours to render on a 1ghz.

They look impressive but not quite what one would expect from a real
diamond.

A diamond is know to have 58 factes (cuts) but the girdle (diameter) of
the diamond also has either 16 or 32 cuts, in my case I used 32 giving
90 cuts total.  Each cut is a plane intersection. 

Picture 1 - Plain textured diamonds
Picture 2 - The next to real thing
Picture 3 - The real thing

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'diamond.plain.jpg' (27 KB) Download 'diamond.jpg' (82 KB) Download 'diamond.picture10.jpg' (48 KB)

Preview of image 'diamond.plain.jpg'

Preview of image 'diamond.jpg'

Preview of image 'diamond.picture10.jpg'

MIKA wrote:
> This sucker took 22 hours to render on a 1ghz.
> 
> They look impressive but not quite what one would expect from a real
> diamond.

I'm curious about the settings you used, particularly the 
max_trace_level and the photons (since in both cases it appears you may 
not be using high enough values).

I would also guess that you may be using too much dispersion, as your 
render is noticibly more rainbowy than the photo.

You might consider making the surface the diamonds are resting on 
non-reflective if it results in a significant speed increase.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

And how about posting the source? :)

Aaron

Aaron Gillies
New York City
x3rxes[!]yahoo.com

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in 
news:3d756b77$1@news.povray.org:

> MIKA wrote:
>> This sucker took 22 hours to render on a 1ghz.
>> 
>> They look impressive but not quite what one would expect from a real
>> diamond.
> 
> I'm curious about the settings you used, particularly the 
> max_trace_level and the photons (since in both cases it appears you may 
> not be using high enough values).
> 
> I would also guess that you may be using too much dispersion, as your 
> render is noticibly more rainbowy than the photo.
> 
> You might consider making the surface the diamonds are resting on 
> non-reflective if it results in a significant speed increase.
> 
> -Xplo
> 
> 

Took a couple of days to put the diamond together using math (no GUI, plain 
text)

This was a test run (aren't they all..)

The diamonds are 1 POV unit in diameter.

global_settings {
  photons { spacing 0.08 count 5000 } 
  max_trace_level 60
}

light_source { < -11, 40, -7 >, White*2 parallel point_at <0,0,0> }


Box under diamonds
------------------
finish  { ambient .05 diffuse .6 reflection .1 }    	
photons { target 1 refraction off reflection off }


Diamonds
--------
finish { ambient  0    diffuse    0.2
         specular 0.8  roughness  0.003
         phong    1    phong_size 400
         reflection { 0.15, 0.05 fresnel metallic }
}
interior { ior 2.417  dispersion 1.044 dispersion_samples 30 }
photons { target 1 refraction on reflection on }

Post a reply to this message

"Aaron Gillies" <no### [at] spamcom> wrote in news:3d756c1f$1@news.povray.org:

> And how about posting the source? :)
> 
> Aaron
> 
> Aaron Gillies
> New York City
> x3rxes[!]yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 

Let me play with my toy a bit :)

Soon enough, no problem.

Post a reply to this message

Marc Champagne wrote:
> Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in 
> news:3d756b77$1@news.povray.org:
> 
>>I'm curious about the settings you used, particularly the 
>>max_trace_level and the photons (since in both cases it appears you may 
>>not be using high enough values).
>>
>>I would also guess that you may be using too much dispersion, as your 
>>render is noticibly more rainbowy than the photo.
> 
> global_settings {
>   photons { spacing 0.08 count 5000 }

You need only specify a spacing or a count; they're essentially two 
different ways to get the same effect. I don't know offhand what sort of 
results spacing .08 would give, but count 5000 is far too low; try half 
a million for good results.

>   max_trace_level 60

60 should be plenty. Guess I was wrong about that.

> interior { ior 2.417  dispersion 1.044 dispersion_samples 30 }

I don't know proper values for diamond offhand, but these sound 
plausible to me. I guess I was 1 for 3. Still, try increasing the number 
of photons (and comment out dispersion for test renders!).

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in
news:3d757bf8@news.povray.org: 

> Marc Champagne wrote:
>> Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote in 
>> news:3d756b77$1@news.povray.org:
>> 
>>>I'm curious about the settings you used, particularly the 
>>>max_trace_level and the photons (since in both cases it appears you
>>>may not be using high enough values).
>>>
>>>I would also guess that you may be using too much dispersion, as your
>>>render is noticibly more rainbowy than the photo.
>> 
>> global_settings {
>>   photons { spacing 0.08 count 5000 }
> 
> You need only specify a spacing or a count; they're essentially two 
> different ways to get the same effect. I don't know offhand what sort
> of results spacing .08 would give, but count 5000 is far too low; try
> half a million for good results.
> 
>>   max_trace_level 60
> 
> 60 should be plenty. Guess I was wrong about that.
> 
>> interior { ior 2.417  dispersion 1.044 dispersion_samples 30 }
> 
> I don't know proper values for diamond offhand, but these sound 
> plausible to me. I guess I was 1 for 3. Still, try increasing the
> number of photons (and comment out dispersion for test renders!).

The ior and disoersion values are what the real world say they are,
as usual, we must compensate in the virtual world, try, try, try...

I'm not finished playing with this one yet, i'll be posting some more
as it evolves.

-- 
(MIKA) Marc Champagne
marcch.AT.videotron.DOT.ca
Montreal, CANADA

Post a reply to this message