Oops - I don't remember, but I'm guessing that when I first added the
glowing media, my first estimate for the sphere radius was 8, and when I
adjusted the size of the media I forgot to adjust the container size as
well. You're right, I don't see any other reason for such a large container.
And the no_shadow keyword would also be an improvement that I didn't think
of.

What kind of artifacts do you see? I see some occasional dark lines in the
green media, is that what you're referring to? I think those are shadows
too. I tried to get rid of them using light_groups, but that didn't help.
But they are minor.

--
-David

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3d9f825a$1@news.povray.org...
> And, another thing: I was just looking through
> the source-code...
>
> The media-glow are objects which shouldn't leave a
> shadow, right? Why didn't you use no_shadow to avoid
> some extra calculation?
> Also, the sphere's radius is 8, though the spherical
> media inside is just <4.5,2.1,4.5>, so you could've used
> only 4.5 (or perhaps 4.6 to be on the safe side), to make
> boundary objects smaller and also leave some intense
> media-calculations out...
> Also, the media uses default sampling/intervals/method,
> setting those could've perhaps made the calculations quicker,
> but I'm not too sure about that...
>
> If you don't mind, I'll try to use a smaller sphere and render
> the next frame that way, if it works, I'll keep it, and otherwise
> I'll use your settings again. But using a sphere with media where
> the density doesn't fill the entire sphere doesn't make much sense
> to me... But perhaps shadowing could interfere with this...
>
> Hm. Looking at the first image, I also notice artifacts showing
> up. These line up with the size of the containers for the media...
>
> I'll see. 5 lines left for the first image.
>
> --
> Tim Nikias
> Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
> Email: Tim### [at] gmxde
>
>

Post a reply to this message