 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And everything but the water...
Render Time:
Photon Time: No photons
Radiosity Time: 0 hours 27 minutes 9 seconds (1629.585 seconds)
using 48 thread(s) with 9335.010 CPU-seconds total
Trace Time: 3 hours 2 minutes 41 seconds (10961.487 seconds)
using 48 thread(s) with 63746.286 CPU-seconds total
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rebuild.png' (836 KB)
Preview of image 'rebuild.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Anthony D. Baye wrote on 14/09/2015 15.19:
> And everything but the water...
>
>
> Regards,
> A.D.B.
>
A nice scene and a nice mood!
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paolo Gibellini <p.g### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Anthony D. Baye wrote on 14/09/2015 15.19:
> > And everything but the water...
> >
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > A.D.B.
> >
> A nice scene and a nice mood!
> Paolo
Thank you.
And here's with the water. Such as it is.
I felt that the light was a little too bright so I cut the fade distance in
half. Might take it down even further.
Render Time:
Photon Time: No photons
Radiosity Time: 0 hours 27 minutes 27 seconds (1647.759 seconds)
using 48 thread(s) with 9805.663 CPU-seconds total
Trace Time: 2 hours 29 minutes 33 seconds (8973.296 seconds)
using 48 thread(s) with 53585.490 CPU-seconds total
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'rebuild.png' (701 KB)
Preview of image 'rebuild.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.09.2015 um 23:44 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> I felt that the light was a little too bright so I cut the fade distance in
> half. Might take it down even further.
Hint: If striving for realism, avoid random tweaking of fade_distance;
if you feel that the light is too dim or too bright, always directly
tweak the light source's brightness instead - even if that means using
apparently insane brightness values to achieve the desired result.
Unless using an area_light with area_illumination on, fade_distance
should typically be roughly equal to the hypothetical radius of whatever
light source you are trying to simulate. So for instance, to simulate a
classic frosted E27 incandescent light bulb, and presuming you're using
a scale of 1m per POV-Ray unit for your scene, a fade_distance of 0.03
would be about the right value.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Unless using an area_light with area_illumination on, fade_distance
> should typically be roughly equal to the hypothetical radius of whatever
> light source you are trying to simulate. So for instance, to simulate a
> classic frosted E27 incandescent light bulb, and presuming you're using
> a scale of 1m per POV-Ray unit for your scene, a fade_distance of 0.03
> would be about the right value.
I wonder what part of the bulb determines this fade_distance: the frosted part,
the diameter of the socket (E27) or the incandescent part? I suppose the power
consumption given in Watt (Germany) with this kind of bulbs in former years and
now replaced by lumen with energy saving lamps usually influence the general
brightness only and not the fade_distance. The "incandescent" should influence
the color of the light source, so only the "frosted" remains. 3 cm is the
approximated radius of this bulbs and as they are frosted the point where their
full light intensity should arise. Is this the reason for this fade_distance?
Best regards,
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.09.2015 um 20:57 schrieb MichaelJF:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>> Unless using an area_light with area_illumination on, fade_distance
>> should typically be roughly equal to the hypothetical radius of whatever
>> light source you are trying to simulate. So for instance, to simulate a
>> classic frosted E27 incandescent light bulb, and presuming you're using
>> a scale of 1m per POV-Ray unit for your scene, a fade_distance of 0.03
>> would be about the right value.
>
>
>
> I wonder what part of the bulb determines this fade_distance: the frosted part,
> the diameter of the socket (E27) or the incandescent part? I suppose the power
> consumption given in Watt (Germany) with this kind of bulbs in former years and
> now replaced by lumen with energy saving lamps usually influence the general
> brightness only and not the fade_distance. The "incandescent" should influence
> the color of the light source, so only the "frosted" remains. 3 cm is the
> approximated radius of this bulbs and as they are frosted the point where their
> full light intensity should arise. Is this the reason for this fade_distance?
Exactly. As you get closer to the surface of the light bulb, the light
source gets more and more non-point-like, and the inverse square law
they teach us at school breaks down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Am 18.09.2015 um 20:57 schrieb MichaelJF:
>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless using an area_light with area_illumination on, fade_distance
>>> should typically be roughly equal to the hypothetical radius of whatever
>>> light source you are trying to simulate. So for instance, to simulate a
>>> classic frosted E27 incandescent light bulb, and presuming you're using
>>> a scale of 1m per POV-Ray unit for your scene, a fade_distance of 0.03
>>> would be about the right value.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder what part of the bulb determines this fade_distance: the frosted part,
>> the diameter of the socket (E27) or the incandescent part? I suppose the power
>> consumption given in Watt (Germany) with this kind of bulbs in former years and
>> now replaced by lumen with energy saving lamps usually influence the general
>> brightness only and not the fade_distance. The "incandescent" should influence
>> the color of the light source, so only the "frosted" remains. 3 cm is the
>> approximated radius of this bulbs and as they are frosted the point where their
>> full light intensity should arise. Is this the reason for this fade_distance?
>
> Exactly. As you get closer to the surface of the light bulb, the light
> source gets more and more non-point-like, and the inverse square law
> they teach us at school breaks down.
>
For an infinitely long linear light source, the illumination is
effectively intencity/distance. When you get closer from a long light
source, when the distance becomes small to very small relative to the
lenght, you have a similar effect.
For an infinite plane, the illumination becomes independent from the
distance. Here, also, when a planar light source is viewed from a small
distance relative to it's extent, it can be approximated as an infinite
plane.
I remember that I had to perform the demonstration for both cases using
some intergral manipulations back in colege.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-9-2015 17:07, clipka wrote:
> Unless using an area_light with area_illumination on, fade_distance
> should typically be roughly equal to the hypothetical radius of whatever
> light source you are trying to simulate. So for instance, to simulate a
> classic frosted E27 incandescent light bulb, and presuming you're using
> a scale of 1m per POV-Ray unit for your scene, a fade_distance of 0.03
> would be about the right value.
>
Could you elaborate a bit on (the use of) /area_illumination/ please? I
have tried to look up info in the docs but there is nothing
comprehensive there (or is there?). Thanks!
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.09.2015 um 09:17 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 18-9-2015 17:07, clipka wrote:
>> Unless using an area_light with area_illumination on, fade_distance
>> should typically be roughly equal to the hypothetical radius of whatever
>> light source you are trying to simulate. So for instance, to simulate a
>> classic frosted E27 incandescent light bulb, and presuming you're using
>> a scale of 1m per POV-Ray unit for your scene, a fade_distance of 0.03
>> would be about the right value.
>
> Could you elaborate a bit on (the use of) /area_illumination/ please? I
> have tried to look up info in the docs but there is nothing
> comprehensive there (or is there?). Thanks!
Normally, using an area_light only affects brightness attenuation due to
occlusion - in other words, soft shadows. For all other purposes - most
notably the angle of incidence to compute highlights and diffuse
brightness (but also the distance to compute distance-based falloff) -
the light source still behaves like a spotlight.
Consider you want to simulate a fluorescent light tube mounted close to
a wall. If you do this with an array of, say, 1000 tiny point light
sources, the illumination of the wall will be computed correctly, giving
you a long patch of diffuse light and (if the wall is somewhat shiny) a
distinctively line-shaped highlight.
If you try the same feat with a 1x1000 area_light, even if you don't use
the "adaptive" keyword you'll find that both the patch of diffuse light
as well as the highlight will /not/ have the expected linear shape, and
instead look like you had only one bright point light source at the center.
Using "area_illumination" forces POV-Ray to do the diffuse and
highlights computations for each "lightlet" separately, to give you the
proper illumination effect.
(I don't know off the top of my head whether area_illumination also
affects distance-based falloff; I guess so, but I'm not sure.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-9-2015 16:27, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.09.2015 um 09:17 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
>> On 18-9-2015 17:07, clipka wrote:
>>> Unless using an area_light with area_illumination on, fade_distance
>>> should typically be roughly equal to the hypothetical radius of whatever
>>> light source you are trying to simulate. So for instance, to simulate a
>>> classic frosted E27 incandescent light bulb, and presuming you're using
>>> a scale of 1m per POV-Ray unit for your scene, a fade_distance of 0.03
>>> would be about the right value.
>>
>> Could you elaborate a bit on (the use of) /area_illumination/ please? I
>> have tried to look up info in the docs but there is nothing
>> comprehensive there (or is there?). Thanks!
>
> Normally, using an area_light only affects brightness attenuation due to
> occlusion - in other words, soft shadows. For all other purposes - most
> notably the angle of incidence to compute highlights and diffuse
> brightness (but also the distance to compute distance-based falloff) -
> the light source still behaves like a spotlight.
>
> Consider you want to simulate a fluorescent light tube mounted close to
> a wall. If you do this with an array of, say, 1000 tiny point light
> sources, the illumination of the wall will be computed correctly, giving
> you a long patch of diffuse light and (if the wall is somewhat shiny) a
> distinctively line-shaped highlight.
>
> If you try the same feat with a 1x1000 area_light, even if you don't use
> the "adaptive" keyword you'll find that both the patch of diffuse light
> as well as the highlight will /not/ have the expected linear shape, and
> instead look like you had only one bright point light source at the center.
>
> Using "area_illumination" forces POV-Ray to do the diffuse and
> highlights computations for each "lightlet" separately, to give you the
> proper illumination effect.
>
> (I don't know off the top of my head whether area_illumination also
> affects distance-based falloff; I guess so, but I'm not sure.)
>
Excellent! Thanks indeed.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
