 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I am rendering animations of scenes that use fairly large image_maps
(somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.2 GByte, all told). Needless to say,
these files require a significant chunk of time to load, taking up to about
a third of the total rendering time per frame.
Is there some way to tell povray that the scene's geometry and image_maps
aren't being changed for every tick of the clock and that previously loaded
data can be used?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
spl wrote:
> I am rendering animations of scenes that use fairly large image_maps
> (somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.2 GByte, all told). Needless to say,
> these files require a significant chunk of time to load, taking up to about
> a third of the total rendering time per frame.
>
> Is there some way to tell povray that the scene's geometry and image_maps
> aren't being changed for every tick of the clock and that previously loaded
> data can be used?
No, but you can be completely sure that for an animation, even of
cinema-like resolution, 2.2 GB of images is unnecessary.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/ (Last updated 24 Jul. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, but you can be completely sure that for an animation, even of
> cinema-like resolution, 2.2 GB of images is unnecessary.
Actually, it is. The display is a large display wall, significantly larger
than cinema resolution. We want to be able to see single pixel detail on
the texture maps. Figuratively, we want to see the forest, the trees, the
leaves, and the veins on the leaves.
Actually, if povray supported MIPmaps or some other form of level of detail
management, that might be useful. I though about doing some form of tiling
of the textures but given time constraints in getting this project
rendered, I didn't think I had the time to work it out, thus the brute
force approach.
But thanks for your response.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
spl nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-09-23 15:49:
>>No, but you can be completely sure that for an animation, even of
>>cinema-like resolution, 2.2 GB of images is unnecessary.
>
>
> Actually, it is. The display is a large display wall, significantly larger
> than cinema resolution. We want to be able to see single pixel detail on
> the texture maps. Figuratively, we want to see the forest, the trees, the
> leaves, and the veins on the leaves.
>
> Actually, if povray supported MIPmaps or some other form of level of detail
> management, that might be useful. I though about doing some form of tiling
> of the textures but given time constraints in getting this project
> rendered, I didn't think I had the time to work it out, thus the brute
> force approach.
>
> But thanks for your response.
>
>
>
>
In what format are those images? If not in PNG format, try to vonvert to that format,
with the
highest compression possible. You won't loose any detail and the conversion time will
probably be
regained many times while loading.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> In what format are those images? If not in PNG format, try to vonvert to that
format, with the
> highest compression possible. You won't loose any detail and the conversion time
will probably be
> regained many times while loading.
They were TIFF but you're right -- converting to PNG sped things up
considerably. Load times are about 30 or 40 percent of what they were with
TIFF.
Thanx!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
