"Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] cabassoncom> wrote:
> Hello again.
>
> I revisited the patio_radio scene so as to try to reach perfection. For that
> purpose, I perform my attempts on high resolution images (1600*1200).
>
> For this attempt #1, it still remains :
>     -) some light areas in some corners
>        (to the left, on the floor, under the arches)
>     -) tiny splotchy zones by the arch half-rings,
>        at the top right of the image
>
> The fringe under the balcony seems correct.
>
> Render time : 1 hour and 10 mn on a quad xeon @ 3.7GHz.
>
> B.

Better with the image ...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'patio-radio_37_bc_1.png' (959 KB)

Preview of image 'patio-radio_37_bc_1.png'

On 2/3/2016 7:59 AM, Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> "Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] cabassoncom> wrote:
>> Hello again.
>>
>> I revisited the patio_radio scene so as to try to reach perfection. For that
>> purpose, I perform my attempts on high resolution images (1600*1200).
>>
>> For this attempt #1, it still remains :
>>      -) some light areas in some corners
>>         (to the left, on the floor, under the arches)
>>      -) tiny splotchy zones by the arch half-rings,
>>         at the top right of the image
>>
>> The fringe under the balcony seems correct.
>>
>> Render time : 1 hour and 10 mn on a quad xeon @ 3.7GHz.
>>
>> B.
>
> Better with the image ...
>

One hour is pretty good for such a large image.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Nice design and decorations! Yes, some colors would be a nice addition,
like colorful fabrics as curtains, some early evening sky and some
colorful not too bright lights. Looking forward!

Post a reply to this message

Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Nice design and decorations! Yes, some colors would be a nice addition,
> like colorful fabrics as curtains, some early evening sky and some
> colorful not too bright lights. Looking forward!

The original scene is shipped-in with POV-Ray. The header of the file does not
mention
the author. Like most shipped-in scenes, it is intended to be for demonstration
purposes.

Post a reply to this message

Well, it gives me some ideas for a nice oriental city scene. :-D

Post a reply to this message

On 3-2-2016 13:59, Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> "Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] cabassoncom> wrote:
>> Hello again.
>>
>> I revisited the patio_radio scene so as to try to reach perfection. For that
>> purpose, I perform my attempts on high resolution images (1600*1200).
>>
>> For this attempt #1, it still remains :
>>      -) some light areas in some corners
>>         (to the left, on the floor, under the arches)
>>      -) tiny splotchy zones by the arch half-rings,
>>         at the top right of the image
>>

Very good indeed. The artefacts you mention are hardly visible, 
especially the second ones. The first ones are a bit more obvious.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> Hello again.
>
> I revisited the patio_radio scene so as to try to reach perfection. For that
> purpose, I perform my attempts on high resolution images (1600*1200).
>
> For this attempt #1, it still remains :
>      -) some light areas in some corners
>         (to the left, on the floor, under the arches)
>      -) tiny splotchy zones by the arch half-rings,
>         at the top right of the image
>
> The fringe under the balcony seems correct.
>
> Render time : 1 hour and 10 mn on a quad xeon @ 3.7GHz.

Don't forget you can always use the "no_cache" option (I think uberPOV 
only?) to get a "reference" image. See attached, that took about 25 mins 
on my machine using "count 10" and "recursion_limit 3". You'd obviously 
need higher settings to get rid of the graininess, but at least then 
you'd have something to compare the radiosity version with.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'patio-radio_37.png' (3716 KB)

Preview of image 'patio-radio_37.png'

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 3-2-2016 13:59, Bruno Cabasson wrote:
> > "Bruno Cabasson" <bru### [at] cabassoncom> wrote:
> >> Hello again.
> >>
> >> I revisited the patio_radio scene so as to try to reach perfection. For that
> >> purpose, I perform my attempts on high resolution images (1600*1200).
> >>
> >> For this attempt #1, it still remains :
> >>      -) some light areas in some corners
> >>         (to the left, on the floor, under the arches)
> >>      -) tiny splotchy zones by the arch half-rings,
> >>         at the top right of the image
> >>
>
> Very good indeed. The artefacts you mention are hardly visible,
> especially the second ones. The first ones are a bit more obvious.
>
> --
> Thomas

Here is another attempt. A bit better for the top right artifacts. Could not get
rid of the others. Anybody wants to give a try ?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'patio-radio_37_bc_2.png' (991 KB)

Preview of image 'patio-radio_37_bc_2.png'

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Hello again.
> >
> > I revisited the patio_radio scene so as to try to reach perfection. For that
> > purpose, I perform my attempts on high resolution images (1600*1200).
> >
> > For this attempt #1, it still remains :
> >      -) some light areas in some corners
> >         (to the left, on the floor, under the arches)
> >      -) tiny splotchy zones by the arch half-rings,
> >         at the top right of the image
> >
> > The fringe under the balcony seems correct.
> >
> > Render time : 1 hour and 10 mn on a quad xeon @ 3.7GHz.
>
> Don't forget you can always use the "no_cache" option (I think uberPOV
> only?) to get a "reference" image. See attached, that took about 25 mins
> on my machine using "count 10" and "recursion_limit 3". You'd obviously
> need higher settings to get rid of the graininess, but at least then
> you'd have something to compare the radiosity version with.

Though I know about "no_cache" feature, I am not sure I know what it does
exactly. The point /IS/ to get rid of /ALL/ graininess and splotched, at high
resolution.

Post a reply to this message

>> Don't forget you can always use the "no_cache" option (I think uberPOV
>> only?) to get a "reference" image. See attached, that took about 25 mins
>> on my machine using "count 10" and "recursion_limit 3". You'd obviously
>> need higher settings to get rid of the graininess, but at least then
>> you'd have something to compare the radiosity version with.
>
> Though I know about "no_cache" feature, I am not sure I know what it does
> exactly.

It provides an "unbiased" result - meaning that (assuming you use enough 
samples) there is nothing in the algorithm used that will give rise to 
any error in each pixel value. Even with far too few samples (as in my 
image) the error is purely random noise in each pixel, there are no 
systematic errors possible like bright or dark splotches.

> The point /IS/ to get rid of /ALL/ graininess and splotched, at high
> resolution.

Use "no_cache" with a high number of samples and just let it run. With 
traditional radiosity, even after a lot of parameter tweaking, there is 
always the risk you have a bright/dark area somewhere that you don't 
notice is there. That's why I suggested using "no_cache" to generate a 
reference image to compare the traditional radiosity versions with. 
Doing a "difference" in a graphics package should make it obvious if 
there are any splotches of dark/light where there shouldn't be.

Post a reply to this message