Yeah, I was referring to the dark lines. I hope
you receive the second image, then you can compare
that the resized container results in a somewhat
brighter media (mentioned in email as well).

Those artifacts aren't shadows, its due to sampling
and intervals which are taken between surfaces,
even if they are "invisible", and result in slighty different
approximations.

As mentioned in email, perhaps using the modified, faster
code would be better, although this might mean that
the entire batch needs to rendered with those settings,
otherwise the media will suddenly flare up with my
images...

I'm using no_shadow now and a squashed
sphere (using 0,1 scale <4.6,2.2,4.6> instead
of 0,4.6) as container, and it runs even faster,
line 272 after 13 minutes...

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> 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.
>

Post a reply to this message