 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just playing with photons...
Quess how long it took to render on 2GHz ;)
--
www.raf256.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'none1raf256_partial_hiquality.jpg' (10 KB)
Preview of image 'none1raf256_partial_hiquality.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256 com> wrote in message
news:Xns949B4C2A2411Araf256com@203.29.75.35...
>
> Guess how long it took to render on 2GHz ;)
Four or five hours...? Tilting my LCD display back a little helps it look
better IMHO, with a higher contrast.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hughes, B." <omn### [at] charternet> wrote in message
news:403dcb05$1@news.povray.org...
> "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
> news:Xns949B4C2A2411Araf256com@203.29.75.35...
> >
> > Guess how long it took to render on 2GHz ;)
>
> Four or five hours...? Tilting my LCD display back a little helps it look
> better IMHO, with a higher contrast.
I'm gonna go less and guess 45 minutes. Looks very real!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dan### [at] yahoocom news:403eb4d0@news.povray.org
>> > Guess how long it took to render on 2GHz ;)
>> Four or five hours...? Tilting my LCD display back a little helps it
>> look better IMHO, with a higher contrast.
> I'm gonna go less and guess 45 minutes. Looks very real!
Well, this render took,
.
.
.
spoiler
.
.
.
space
.
.
.
;-)
above fifteen hours to render only first 20% of it (with I posted above),
and then I was tired of waiting ;) It took so long probably because of too
high radiosity settings (count=200, error=0.5) and photons count=0.5 milon.
When I correctred settings, I was stoped by a bug (in 3.5 and 3.6) with
dispersion+radiosity with shows up always when radiosity quality is not
very high as I discovered, and I will probably pause project until fixing
this bug.
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
spa### [at] raf256com news:Xns949C2C3409CC0raf256com@203.29.75.35
> and then I was tired of waiting ;) It took so long probably because of
> too high radiosity settings (count=200, error=0.5) and photons
> count=0.5 milon.
>
Also in some parts image needs max_trace_level >= 20 to render properly,
after all there are 3 gems (+ 3 other + reflecticve floor) reflecting each
other * 2 lights * 10x10 area_light * 25 dispersion_samples....
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I knew you'd be using high quality settings!
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns949C2C3409CC0raf256com@203.29.75.35...
> dan### [at] yahoocom news:403eb4d0@news.povray.org
>
> >> > Guess how long it took to render on 2GHz ;)
> >> Four or five hours...? Tilting my LCD display back a little helps it
> >> look better IMHO, with a higher contrast.
> > I'm gonna go less and guess 45 minutes. Looks very real!
>
> Well, this render took, <snip />
Oh, I was talking dog minutes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
