=?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=b6rg_=22Yadgar=22_Bleimann?= <yaz### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> Hi(gh)!
>
> And once more digging in the history of POV-Ray... and perhaps finding
> something to adopt for own projects.

> (and I wonder why the rendering in 3.1 looks so much darker and grainier
> than the one done with 3.7... and how abysmally slow my old laptop is
> compared to my hexacore main computer!)

> I rendered all "suggestion versions" with 3.1 on my laptop (did not try
> them in 3.7 yet) - to me, Hendrik Knaepen's suggestion looks most
> promising, I would lower the emission value to something like 3... what
> do you think?
>
> See you in Khyberspace!
>
> Yadgar


Hello,

obviously we've similar "projects", here is, what I did with this source.
First I assume, it's darker because of the old standard assumed_gamma 2.2.
The source doesn't make problems with 3.7 IIRC.

I changed a bit of the media code -

media {
        emission <1,0.8,0.3>*2.3
        intervals 1
        samples 50
        confidence 0.999
        variance 0.001
        density {
                spherical
                ramp_wave
                color_map {
                        [0      srgb <0,0,0>]
                        [0.2    srgb <1,0,0>]
                        [1      srgb <1,1,0>]
                }
                turbulence 1.9
                frequency 2
                scale 3 warp {turbulence <1,8,1>} scale 1/3
                scale 0.7
        }
}

Norbert

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fire problem with pov-ray 3.1.jpg' (649 KB)

Preview of image 'fire problem with pov-ray 3.1.jpg'