 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
After the dearth of images a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to contribute
something, but I had no finished images. Unfortunately, I've been slow at
everything lately (medical issues). But after a week and a half of putzing
around, I decided that, finished or not, I was going to post what I have.
Better than nothing.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'unfinished.jpg' (272 KB)
Preview of image 'unfinished.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
What really shocked me was the amount of time it took to render. At 42 hours,
it's easily, and by far, the longest render I've ever done. I'm at a loss as
to why, for such a simple scene with no media, no refraction, and no
dispersion. It uses radiosity, focal blur, and an area light, but based on
past experience, I didn't expect them to slow the render by 3000x! (The render
time was only 50 seconds otherwise.)
I shudder to think how much time it will take to render when it is done.
_______________________________________________________________________
Scene Statistics
Finite objects: 2820
Infinite objects: 1
Light sources: 1
Total: 2822
Render Statistics
Image Resolution 1024 x 768
Pixels: 797041 Samples: 86647962 Smpls/Pxl: 108.71
Rays: 250420261 Saved: 11968079 Max Level: 11/15
Ray->Shape Intersection Tests Succeeded Percentage
Blob 609693596 48514335 7.96
Blob Component 2395951395 584590231 24.40
Blob Bound 9339504591 3556415770 38.08
Box 891971122 202528532 22.71
Cone/Cylinder 11326287504 3548821045 31.33
CSG Intersection 3659876407 455274493 12.44
CSG Merge 1956078928 435935774 22.29
CSG Union 820298001 126193356 15.38
Plane 5731754409 3306269810 57.68
Sphere 1407890416 697525035 49.54
Torus 2577471 2162066 83.88
Torus Bound 2577471 2256822 87.56
Bounding Object 260247717 122254933 46.98
Bounding Box 57664249098 15920548057 27.61
Function VM calls: 79
Roots tested: 191571741 eliminated: 24174561
Calls to Noise: 338101762 Calls to DNoise: 359568296
Shadow Ray Tests: 1127035193 Succeeded: 403130440
Reflected Rays: 97592799
Radiosity samples calculated: 661795 (0.42 %)
Radiosity samples reused: 155828951
Smallest Alloc: 18 bytes
Largest Alloc: 97936 bytes
Peak memory used: 104938953 bytes
Total Scene Processing Times
Parse Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 1 seconds (1 seconds)
Photon Time: 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds (0 seconds)
Render Time: 43 hours 51 minutes 28 seconds (157888 seconds)
Total Time: 43 hours 51 minutes 29 seconds (157889 seconds)
CPU time used: kernel 86.41 seconds, user 151368.00 seconds, total 151454.41
seconds
Render averaged 5.19 PPS over 786432 pixels
POV-Ray finished
_______________________________________________________________________
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:49:03 EST, "Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> I decided that, finished or not
LOL
That is brilliant
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> After the dearth of images a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to contribute
> something, but I had no finished images. Unfortunately, I've been slow at
> everything lately (medical issues). But after a week and a half of putzing
> around, I decided that, finished or not, I was going to post what I have.
> Better than nothing.
Neat! There should be a special page somehwere only for spoofs on raytracing
cliches.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> What really shocked me was the amount of time it took to render. At 42 hours,
> it's easily, and by far, the longest render I've ever done. I'm at a loss as
> to why, for such a simple scene with no media, no refraction, and no
> dispersion. It uses radiosity, focal blur, and an area light, but based on
> past experience, I didn't expect them to slow the render by 3000x! (The render
> time was only 50 seconds otherwise.)
I'm sorry to tell you that I don't think the radiosity adds a whole lot to the
image in this particular case, so you might just want to ditch it.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"SharkD" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> I'm sorry to tell you that I don't think the radiosity adds a whole lot to the
> image in this particular case, so you might just want to ditch it.
It added a lot to the scaffold tubes, especially underneath the platform.
(Just thought of something, way too late--a fill light in a light group just for
the tubes. Oh, why didn't I think of that 46 hours ago???)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
LOL. Awesome take on RSOCP!
When it's finished, it shall be the greated RSOCP ever! ;)
I too don't understand why such drop in render performance... perhaps because
it's unfinished? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> After the dearth of images a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to contribute
> something, but I had no finished images. Unfortunately, I've been slow at
> everything lately (medical issues). But after a week and a half of putzing
> around, I decided that, finished or not, I was going to post what I have.
> Better than nothing.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Excellent!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> What really shocked me was the amount of time it took to render. At 42 hours,
> it's easily, and by far, the longest render I've ever done. I'm at a loss as
> to why, for such a simple scene with no media, no refraction, and no
> dispersion. It uses radiosity, focal blur, and an area light, but based on
> past experience, I didn't expect them to slow the render by 3000x! (The render
> time was only 50 seconds otherwise.)
Awesome shot!
But the combination of radiosity, focal blur and area lights can really kill.
My advice:
- Do radiosity calculations in a separate shot (using the save_file/load_file
mechanism) WITHOUT the area light (i.e. just a point light) (and of course
without focal blur)
- Check whether you're possibly overdoing the focal blur
- Make sure you use *adaptive* area lights
Say you have set focal blur parameters to render up to 100 rays per pixel. Now
add a non-adaptive 5x5 area light (or an "adaptive 1" area light, which always
shoots 5x5 rays minimum as well) - and voila: Every pixel sufficiently out of
focus will take about 2500-fold the time required for a shot without focal blur
and area lights.
(Note the "Smpls/Pxl: 108.71" - I guess these are *initial* rays shot per
pixel.)
The weird thing about this is that with 100 rays shot per pixel, you wouldn't
actually need an area_ligt at all - if you could just jitter the light source a
bit for every ray.
So you might actually achieve the same quality 30 times faster, by doing 100
shots with some suitably jittered non-blur camera and a jittered point light
source, and finally generate an average of all the 100 shots.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
web.493bf06fff430ec385de7b680@news.povray.org...
> After the dearth of images a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to contribute
> something, but I had no finished images. Unfortunately, I've been slow at
> everything lately (medical issues). But after a week and a half of
> putzing
> around, I decided that, finished or not, I was going to post what I have.
> Better than nothing.
>
Neat :-)
Here it is finished but they dismounted the checkered floor to put water
instead
http://encreviolette.unblog.fr/files/2008/04/geode.jpg
I agree there are faces and edges but you can see mindboggling images if you
get inside (It is a Imax/Omnimax projection theatre) :-D
http://www.lageode.fr/NEW/index.html
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
