 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi there.
Here're the results from the tests I promised. Sorry it took me so
long, but it's media, you know...
Please see p.b.s-f for the code and p.b.i for example images.
Type 1 - multiple densities
type1_1.tga, Quality 2 - 7 minutes
type1_2.tga, Quality 3 - 21 minutes
type1_3.tga, Quality 4 - 29 minutes
Type 2 - multiple containers
type2_0.tga, Quality 1 - 4 minutes
type2_1.tga, Quality 2 - 6 minutes
type2_2.tga, Quality 3 - 17 minutes
type2_3.tga, Quality 4 - n.a. sorry, dad played freecell :(
type2_2.tga, Quality 5 - 37 minutes
Multiple containers are faster and with better quality. The examples
posted in p.b.i. show a particle system of 50 particles. Using
multiple containers, the result was much less grainy and was rendered
in 6 minutes vs.29 for multiple media. The results differ slightly but
that's due to the small accuracy of type 1.
I also did a 100 frames 100x100 anim. It started with a single
particle and added a particle every frame (if anyone's interested I'll
post it). Here're the stats:
Type 1 (multiple media) statistics:
Total time: 3:16:34, render 3:16:11, parse 0:0:23
Intersections:
Shape Tests Succeeded Percentage
Sphere 419435 1708050 70.60
Bounding Box 3831950 3830350 99.95
Vista 1030320 1030320 100.00
Media:
Intervals 4963140
Samples 34746921 7.00 per interval
Transmitted rays 1418040
I-Stack overflows 7125
Memory:
Smallest 26
Largest 8216
Peak 134132
command line:
+w100 +h100 +mb0 +uv +kfi0 +kff99 -d +a0.4 +r2
Type 2 (multiple containers) statistics:
Total time: 2:59:18, render 2:58:39, parse 0:0:16
Intersections:
Shape Tests Succeeded Percentage
Sphere 54614525 37059270 67.86
Bounding Box 266093261 113576463 42.68
Vista 19936209 12944728 64.93
Media:
Intervals 45169600
Samples 313641496 6.94 per interval
Transmitted rays 7248496
I-Stack overflows 989
Memory:
Smallest 26
Largest 8216
Peak 198691
System: K6/233 96 RAM running POV-Ray for windows 3.1e on 98
command line: +w100 +h100 +mb0 +uv +kfi0 +kff99 -d +a0.4 +r2
(These look fine using Lucida Console)
The main disadvantage of type 1 is that all densities are calculated
for every interval and every sample. This leads to graininess and
inaccuracy because small radius densities may not be hit at all.
The main disadvantage of type 2 and it is that max_trace_level and
max_intersections should be really high. This could be really painful
in scenes with reflective / refractive objects. I've put in a type 3
which uses merge to avoid the problem, but preliminary tests show that
it's slower than type 1 (though more accurate).
Well, that's it for now. Any comments?
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, so as I understand it, the grainier image is multiple media and
the smoother of the two is multiple containers (the images posted at
p.b.i.).
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> Hi there.
>
> Here're the results from the tests I promised. Sorry it took me so
> long, but it's media, you know...
>
> Please see p.b.s-f for the code and p.b.i for example images.
>
> Type 1 - multiple densities
>
> type1_1.tga, Quality 2 - 7 minutes
> type1_2.tga, Quality 3 - 21 minutes
> type1_3.tga, Quality 4 - 29 minutes
>
> Type 2 - multiple containers
>
> type2_0.tga, Quality 1 - 4 minutes
> type2_1.tga, Quality 2 - 6 minutes
> type2_2.tga, Quality 3 - 17 minutes
> type2_3.tga, Quality 4 - n.a. sorry, dad played freecell :(
> type2_2.tga, Quality 5 - 37 minutes
>
> Multiple containers are faster and with better quality. The examples
> posted in p.b.i. show a particle system of 50 particles. Using
> multiple containers, the result was much less grainy and was rendered
> in 6 minutes vs.29 for multiple media. The results differ slightly but
> that's due to the small accuracy of type 1.
>
> I also did a 100 frames 100x100 anim. It started with a single
> particle and added a particle every frame (if anyone's interested I'll
> post it). Here're the stats:
>
> Type 1 (multiple media) statistics:
>
> Total time: 3:16:34, render 3:16:11, parse 0:0:23
>
> Intersections:
> Shape Tests Succeeded Percentage
> Sphere 419435 1708050 70.60
> Bounding Box 3831950 3830350 99.95
> Vista 1030320 1030320 100.00
>
> Media:
> Intervals 4963140
> Samples 34746921 7.00 per interval
> Transmitted rays 1418040
> I-Stack overflows 7125
>
> Memory:
> Smallest 26
> Largest 8216
> Peak 134132
>
> command line:
> +w100 +h100 +mb0 +uv +kfi0 +kff99 -d +a0.4 +r2
>
> Type 2 (multiple containers) statistics:
>
> Total time: 2:59:18, render 2:58:39, parse 0:0:16
>
> Intersections:
> Shape Tests Succeeded Percentage
> Sphere 54614525 37059270 67.86
> Bounding Box 266093261 113576463 42.68
> Vista 19936209 12944728 64.93
>
> Media:
> Intervals 45169600
> Samples 313641496 6.94 per interval
> Transmitted rays 7248496
> I-Stack overflows 989
>
> Memory:
> Smallest 26
> Largest 8216
> Peak 198691
>
> System: K6/233 96 RAM running POV-Ray for windows 3.1e on 98
> command line: +w100 +h100 +mb0 +uv +kfi0 +kff99 -d +a0.4 +r2
>
> (These look fine using Lucida Console)
>
> The main disadvantage of type 1 is that all densities are calculated
> for every interval and every sample. This leads to graininess and
> inaccuracy because small radius densities may not be hit at all.
>
> The main disadvantage of type 2 and it is that max_trace_level and
> max_intersections should be really high. This could be really painful
> in scenes with reflective / refractive objects. I've put in a type 3
> which uses merge to avoid the problem, but preliminary tests show that
> it's slower than type 1 (though more accurate).
>
> Well, that's it for now. Any comments?
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nieminen Mika
Subject: Re: Multiple media vs. multiple containers
Date: 4 Jul 1999 14:48:43
Message: <377fac8b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov <pet### [at] usa net> wrote:
: The main disadvantage of type 2 and it is that max_trace_level and
: max_intersections should be really high. This could be really painful
: in scenes with reflective / refractive objects.
It would be fine if you could specify a max_trace_level for an object.
This way you could have a very high global max_trace_level and a glass
object with a smaller one. Like this:
global_settings { max_trace_level 20 }
object { WaterGlass max_trace_level 5 }
This could mean that when a ray hits the WaterGlass object, it will be
reflected/refracted up to 5 times instead of 20 if the reflected/refracted
ray hits the same WaterGlass object again.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4 Jul 1999 14:48:43 -0400, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:
> It would be fine if you could specify a max_trace_level for an object.
>This way you could have a very high global max_trace_level and a glass
>object with a smaller one. Like this:
>
>global_settings { max_trace_level 20 }
>
>object { WaterGlass max_trace_level 5 }
>
> This could mean that when a ray hits the WaterGlass object, it will be
>reflected/refracted up to 5 times instead of 20 if the reflected/refracted
>ray hits the same WaterGlass object again.
I think this will be really helpful. Until someone actually implements
this, the two ways to avoid max_trace_level problems are blobs and
merge, but of course they are slower and with poorer quality than a
simple union of spheres.
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
