It was taking too long... I had to abort the render.

I think blobs might be a good replacement for isosurfaces when it comes 
to making landscapes that render more quickly. While you can't get the 
same detail out of blobs(that is, without some hefty parsing and 
rendering times), sculpting with them can be easier.

One thing that would make it even easier would be being able to use 
torii, cones, etc. Any word on a compiled Windows version of the blob2 
patch? I would take this question to povray.unofficial.patches, but I 
don't want to clog it up with such questions.

-- 
Samuel Benge

stb### [at] hotmailcom

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'clipboard01.jpg' (26 KB)

Preview of image 'clipboard01.jpg'

Samuel Benge <sbe### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in news:3F86DA20.7090903
@hotmail.com:

> It was taking too long... I had to abort the render.
> [...]

Nice widescreen effect ;-).  Nice.

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:
> It was taking too long... I had to abort the render.

I like this a lot.  It reminds me of Fantasy Canyon.  I attached a 
picture so you can see what I mean.

-autowitch

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fantasycanyon.jpg' (26 KB)

Preview of image 'fantasycanyon.jpg'

Samuel Benge wrote:
> It was taking too long... I had to abort the render.

Nice, if you use less 'heavy' radiosity settings it will render faster 
of course. ;-)

> I think blobs might be a good replacement for isosurfaces when it comes 
> to making landscapes that render more quickly. While you can't get the 
> same detail out of blobs(that is, without some hefty parsing and 
> rendering times), sculpting with them can be easier.

I think the difference in modelling techniques between blobs and 
isosurfaces is quite significant so you can't really use them as a fast 
preview or so.

> One thing that would make it even easier would be being able to use 
> torii, cones, etc. Any word on a compiled Windows version of the blob2 
> patch? I would take this question to povray.unofficial.patches, but I 
> don't want to clog it up with such questions.

You can find some discussion about inclusion in megapov in the original 
announcement thread - with negative result for the moment so sum it up. 
  If you would like to write some user documentation for it that would 
already be a large step forward.

But you should also note that the blob2 object renders much slower than 
the regular blob.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 2 Sep. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Nice, if you use less 'heavy' radiosity settings it will render faster 
> of course. ;-)


You're right. I was meaning to fix the textures anyway, so I guess I can 
take a hit on radiosity quality.

 
> You can find some discussion about inclusion in megapov in the original 
> announcement thread - with negative result for the moment so sum it up. 
>  If you would like to write some user documentation for it that would 
> already be a large step forward.


Okay, I'm starting a new thread in the patches section.

 
> But you should also note that the blob2 object renders much slower than 
> the regular blob.


*Much* slower? I thought it was slightly slower..... At least it's still 
faster than using isosurfaces, right?

 
> Christoph
> 


-- 
Samuel Benge

stb### [at] hotmailcom

Post a reply to this message

Samuel Benge wrote:
> [...]
> 
> *Much* slower? I thought it was slightly slower..... At least it's still 
> faster than using isosurfaces, right?

Well, i have not made detailed tests myself (especially none with a lot 
of components) but it is significantly slower.

It is much faster than the function based blob in IsoCSG because it does 
not have to consider all components of the blobs at every point (only 
those close enough to have an influence)

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 2 Sep. 2003 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

If I dare ...
Your discussion makes me think that a way to turn a blob into a 
function, just like we turn a pattern into a function, would be very 
convenient. From a theorical point of view it seems quite possible, it 
would just mean taking out the threshold parameter and keep the 
efficient blob evalution algorithm. It could then be used in patterns, 
isosurfaces, media, etc ...

But I'm already getting mad with all the possibiilties of POV, so I 
should just keep messing around with them before I start dreaming about 
new ones,  :-)

JC

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Samuel Benge wrote:
> 
>> It was taking too long... I had to abort the render.
> 
> 
> Nice, if you use less 'heavy' radiosity settings it will render faster 
> of course. ;-)
> 
>> I think blobs might be a good replacement for isosurfaces when it 
>> comes to making landscapes that render more quickly. While you can't 
>> get the same detail out of blobs(that is, without some hefty parsing 
>> and rendering times), sculpting with them can be easier.
> 
> 
> I think the difference in modelling techniques between blobs and 
> isosurfaces is quite significant so you can't really use them as a fast 
> preview or so.
> 
>> One thing that would make it even easier would be being able to use 
>> torii, cones, etc. Any word on a compiled Windows version of the blob2 
>> patch? I would take this question to povray.unofficial.patches, but I 
>> don't want to clog it up with such questions.
> 
> 
> You can find some discussion about inclusion in megapov in the original 
> announcement thread - with negative result for the moment so sum it up. 
>  If you would like to write some user documentation for it that would 
> already be a large step forward.
> 
> But you should also note that the blob2 object renders much slower than 
> the regular blob.
> 
> Christoph
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3f8714d7$1@news.povray.org>, "JC (Exether)" <no### [at] spamfr> 
wrote:

> Your discussion makes me think that a way to turn a blob into a 
> function, just like we turn a pattern into a function, would be very 
> convenient. From a theorical point of view it seems quite possible, it 
> would just mean taking out the threshold parameter and keep the 
> efficient blob evalution algorithm. It could then be used in patterns, 
> isosurfaces, media, etc ...

You mean something like the blob pattern? ;-)

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

In article <oef### [at] tritonschunteretctu-bsde>,
 Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

> > *Much* slower? I thought it was slightly slower..... At least it's still 
> > faster than using isosurfaces, right?
> 
> Well, i have not made detailed tests myself (especially none with a lot 
> of components) but it is significantly slower.

From my tests, common results range from 2 to 3 times slower, in some 
cases almost as fast as the original blob, and much faster than the 
isosurface primitive.


> It is much faster than the function based blob in IsoCSG because it does 
> not have to consider all components of the blobs at every point (only 
> those close enough to have an influence)

It actually does not yet do this type of bounding. It first tests the 
ray against the bounds of each component, gathering a list of components 
that affect the ray. Intersection solving is then done with this list, 
which may have only a couple out of several thousand total components. 
This "hit gathering" stage could itself be optimized by using 
heirarchial bounding, but that isn't implemented yet.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message