 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tony[B]
Subject: Re: Radiosity champions, here's something for you !
Date: 15 Dec 2001 15:38:16
Message: <3c1bb4b8@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh, wow. Excellent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Norbert Kern
Subject: Re: Radiosity champions, here's something for you !
Date: 15 Dec 2001 15:54:15
Message: <3c1bb877@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
One question: what is the reason for nearest count 3?
Will you increase the value for the final render?
Norbert
> global_settings{
> assumed_gamma 1.0
> radiosity{
> pretrace_start 0.04
> pretrace_end 2/400
> count 200
> recursion_limit 2
> nearest_count 3
> error_bound 0.5
> }
> }
>
> _____________
> Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> What are those white artifacts near the center of the image?
Sunlight through the windows. Where is the sun supposed to be?
The rules don't explicitly specify it. Do I have to dig out
a solar system simulator and calculate the position :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> One question: what is the reason for nearest count 3?
No reason. My plan was that in case of artefacts with
hifi rad settings I would try 10 instead :)
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Fabien Mosen
Subject: Re: Radiosity champions, here's something for you !
Date: 16 Dec 2001 03:59:01
Message: <3C1C6191.5040203@skynet.be>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> Here is my 1st try with the simulation just to see if
> it would benefit from tonal range modification. Maybe
> later.
Pretty good ! As I said earlier, commercial packages have
built-in exposure/tonal correction, and it's just right to
process the image.
Too bad it isn't possible to turn reflection off for
radiosity samples. Commercial packages does that,
and thus gain much speed without noticeable difference.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ari-Matti Leppanen
Subject: Re: Radiosity champions, here's something for you !
Date: 16 Dec 2001 06:12:52
Message: <3c1c81b4$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kari Kivisalo" <ray### [at] engineer com> wrote in message
news:3C1BBA3A.EA4AD09E@engineer.com...
>
> Where is the sun supposed to be?
You can guess it from the 3DMAX screen shot on the web page. Some where
near <-12.0, 28.0, 48.0> (the previous post had a wrong x value).
Ari-Matti
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ari-Matti Leppanen
Subject: Re: Radiosity champions, here's something for you !
Date: 16 Dec 2001 06:22:37
Message: <3c1c83fd$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Mosen" <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote in message
news:3C1### [at] skynetbe...
> Too bad it isn't possible to turn reflection off for
> radiosity samples. Commercial packages does that,
> and thus gain much speed without noticeable difference.
http://www.students.tut.fi/~leppane6/pics/sibenik_25m.jpg
http://www.students.tut.fi/~leppane6/pics/sibenik_20m.jpg
These aren't good looking, just testing this trick.
The first is a one trace image (25min ??s). The second is traced in to
steps. First commented out reflections and added save_file to the radiosity
block. After the trace (19min 27s) reflections were uncommented and in the
radiosity block save_file was replaced with load_file, pretrace_start and
pretrace_end were set to 1 and added always_sample off. This trace took 1min
16s, total time 20min 43s.
They look quite the same and later saved about 4 minutes. Looks like that in
the 20 minute version the red bleeds more.
Ari-Matti
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo wrote:
>
> There is sunpos.inc in the 3.5 distribution.
Maybe I should read the manual again :)
Anyway, I need at least 256MB more RAM to be able to render this
one with good rad settings. I'll try again in January.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Fabien Mosen
Subject: Re: Radiosity champions, here's something for you !
Date: 16 Dec 2001 09:29:41
Message: <3C1CAF12.40806@skynet.be>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ari-Matti Leppanen wrote:
> These aren't good looking, just testing this trick.
Is what you did *really* equivalent to bypassing the reflection in
radiance samples ?
There is one thing I'm absolutely sure of : LightScape, which renderings
are found great by most everyone, *doesn't* account reflection for it's
radiance solution calculation. In fact, due to it's algorithm, it
*can't* ! Energy transfers can't take specular reflection into account.
Also, please note it doesn't even take *textures* in account (for the
same reason), only a plain diffuse color. Finally, it doesn't render
bumps, but that's another issue.
As far as I could gather information, other radiance engines,
monte-carlo/bidirectional/photons/... based, also *don't* take specular
reflection into account.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Ari-Matti Leppanen
Subject: Re: Radiosity champions, here's something for you !
Date: 16 Dec 2001 09:49:55
Message: <3c1cb493@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Fabien Mosen" <fab### [at] skynetbe> wrote in message
news:3C1### [at] skynetbe...
> Ari-Matti Leppanen wrote:
>
> > These aren't good looking, just testing this trick.
>
>
> Is what you did *really* equivalent to bypassing the reflection in
> radiance samples ?
>
The documentations says: 6.11.11.1 "..provides a way to replace the last
term - the constant ambient light value - with a light level which is based
on what surfaces are nearby..".
By that I would say that reflections don't affect the result so it's *not
really* equivalent.
Then speed difference is probably from the fact that always_sample is off in
the second case. I should check if there's a difference when it's on.
Ari-Matti
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
