 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...you ask POV-Ray to draw a 40 megapixel image, it renders at roughly 2
pixels per second, and you calculate how long it will take to render.
And then feel glad you're sitting down. (!)
40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
5,555 hours = 231.5 days.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> ...you ask POV-Ray to draw a 40 megapixel image, it renders at roughly 2
> pixels per second, and you calculate how long it will take to render.
>
> And then feel glad you're sitting down. (!)
...ah, but if I use the new POV-Ray beta, it'll render TWICE AS FAST!! >:-D
Ooo, isn't that the one where Warp implemented physically correct
hilights from area lights? I could use... uh... slow the render back
down to where it's at now. :-S
DANMIT!! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
POV-Ray, POV-Ray, in the sky,
How you make my Athlon cry.
Eating lots of gigaFLOPS,
Burn each core until it stops.
POV-Ray, POV-Ray, in the sky,
How you make my PC die...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 07:35:02
Message: <47de6576@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Ooo, isn't that the one where Warp implemented physically correct
> hilights from area lights?
They are not physically correct. They are slightly closer to correct.
Besides, the feature is not turned on by default. You have to turn it
on explicitly by using the 'area_illumination' keyword in the light_source
block.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> They are not physically correct. They are slightly closer to correct.
Well, yeah.
> Besides, the feature is not turned on by default. You have to turn it
> on explicitly.
But what I was saying is that I could turn it on - and thereby negate
the advantage of an extra rendering core. [Although thinking about it,
for such a small area light so far away from the shiny surfaces, it's
probably not worth it...]
Is that not the POV-Ray way? As soon as you have more CPU power, you
render more complex images and it *still* takes forever to finish? ;-)
Still, 10 years ago decoding MPEG video fast enough for realtime display
required custom ASICs and cost a fortune. Today I have a desktop PC that
can do it without loading one core to more than 10%. Tomorrow...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 10:11:49
Message: <47de8a35$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...you ask POV-Ray to draw a 40 megapixel image, it renders at roughly 2
> pixels per second, and you calculate how long it will take to render.
>
> And then feel glad you're sitting down. (!)
>
> 40 megapixels = 40,000,000 pixels.
> 40,000,000 pixels / 2 pixels/second = 20,000,000 seconds.
> 20,000,000 seconds = 333,333 minutes.
> 333,333 minutes = 5,555 hours.
> 5,555 hours = 231.5 days.
>
40 megapixel? Hmm how much RAM is it eating? Last time I tried an image
around that big, POV-Ray crashed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Doctor John
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 10:21:11
Message: <47de8c67$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> POV-Ray, POV-Ray, in the sky,
> How you make my Athlon cry.
> Eating lots of gigaFLOPS,
> Burn each core until it stops.
> POV-Ray, POV-Ray, in the sky,
> How you make my PC die...
>
:-D
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 40 megapixel? Hmm how much RAM is it eating? Last time I tried an image
> around that big, POV-Ray crashed.
I have no idea. I haven't looked. I wouldn't expect it to be exceptional...
Assuming the image were exactly 40,000,000 pixels (which it isn't), I
would expect roughly 40,000,000 x 3 bytes = roughly 114 MB. You'd have
to have a fairly underpowered machine to not be able to spare 114 MB.
(Especially given the sequential access - surely most of it would just
be paged out?)
Let me put it this way: I set POV-Ray running, set the processor
affinity so it only uses one core, and then went off to play Farcry.
There was no noticable performance drop. [But then, Farcry is probably
nailing my GPU more than the CPU...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: You know you've been tracing too long when...
Date: 17 Mar 2008 11:21:27
Message: <47de9a87$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (Especially given the sequential access - surely most of it would just
> be paged out?)
Not if you're using the preview window ;)
In fact, I think if preview is off, it only needs width*2 memory (plus
width*something used by libpng), not width*height. But I'm not too
sure... Warp would probably know, he has poked with the source more than
me :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (Especially given the sequential access - surely most of it would just
>> be paged out?)
>
> Not if you're using the preview window ;)
Ah yes, you're right - it might actually need 2x 114 MB = 228 MB. [Still
peanuts compared to Farcry, I would expect.] And somewhat less
sequential access.
No matter. My PC has an insane 3 GB of dual-channel RAM to play with... >:-D
> In fact, I think if preview is off, it only needs width*2 memory (plus
> width*something used by libpng), not width*height. But I'm not too
> sure... Warp would probably know, he has poked with the source more than
> me :)
Maybe.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
