 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warren" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> That's a really nice image. A paradise for butterflies indeed. It reminds me of
> the 'marais ( =swamp ) Poitevin' in west of France.
Thank you for pointing to marais poitevin.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 25.12.19 12:14, Norbert Kern wrote:
> I redid my 18 years old image, since it hasn't aged well.
>
> Back then it was impossible to optimize textures, lighting and so on. Render
> speed was 1.2 pps and memory need was at the limit.
>
> So I recently changed most plants, lighting, added a media effect and the water
> flows now in different directions...
>
> Media is faked, because I rendered an image from light position, made an
> height_field, filled it with emitting media and added it via a separate render.
Stunning! I would like to (like I already did in back 2001, when I saw
the last version) see an olive-skinned mustached "swamp gypsy" with
waist-long black hair wading through the water...
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 26.12.19 08:57, Norbert Kern wrote:
> A nearly identical 3.5 version of the old image takes 349 s trace time with the
> same settings (800*600 AA0.1 /3.0 GHz/16 threads/64 GB system). In 2001 a brand
> new 1.4 GHz Athlon C / 1 GB system needed 101 h 18 m trace time.
>
> So my current and slightly outdated system is 1045 times faster - astonishing...
Too bad that I lost my first Moray-powered POV-Ray 2.2 scenes long
ago... would be very intriguing to compare rendering times on my current
AMD FX-6200 six-core machine with those on the Cyrix 80486 40DX back in
1996!
But... 64 GB? Wow... and I thought, at 24 GB, I was "over-motorized"! If
I only could afford my own scaled-down liquid salt moderated thorium
fission reactor on the balcony, I also would go for a such powerful machine!
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote on 25/12/2019 12:14:
> I redid my 18 years old image, since it hasn't aged well.
>
> Back then it was impossible to optimize textures, lighting and so on. Render
> speed was 1.2 pps and memory need was at the limit.
>
> So I recently changed most plants, lighting, added a media effect and the water
> flows now in different directions...
>
> Media is faked, because I rendered an image from light position, made an
> height_field, filled it with emitting media and added it via a separate render.
>
>
> Merry x-mas to all
> Norbert Kern
>
An incredible image.
A very credible image.
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/25/19 9:57 AM, Norbert Kern wrote:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degroot org> wrote:
>
...
>
> I simply made an black-white image of the trees alone and used it as an
> height_field filled with emitting media after orienting it towards the
> light_source.
> Despite using emitting media only it is slow when incorporated in the original
> scene, so it had to be rendered separatedly and combined in an extra scene.
>
Amazing image - then and again now.
I found myself this morning pondering - not for the first time since
your post - why the emitting media was so slow you couldn't use it in
scene.
Radiosity?
Are the heightfield and scene shapes getting tangled causing messier
media intervals in the full scene?
Do you have thoughts as to why? Guess, I expected such a technique to
more or less be a direct adder compute wise in scene.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
