|
 |
Jeremy M. Praay nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 07-03-2007 10:17:
> "Alain" <ele### [at] netscape net> wrote in message
> news:45edf061@news.povray.org...
>> I always wonder WHY peoples think that they need very low error_bound?
> www.beantoad.com/newimages/shaker16.jpg
> versus
> www.beantoad.com/newimages/shaker20b.jpg
> If you're dealing with a situation where you want deep shadows, a lower
> error bound keeps objects from floating on the floor. Unfortunately, it
> results in some splotchies, so I then turned on focal blur to smooth them
> out a bit. (Yes, in the above, my "sun" was a bit too yellow)
>> (0.1 IS very low: 1/18 default value) It increase the rendering time,
>> requier higher count value (500 is to low in your case) and tend to cause
>> major slpotchiness. It also greatly increase memory use.
>> If you need more samples increase count first. Try using a smaler
>> pretrace_end, like 0.01 or 0.005. You may set low_error_factor to a
>> smaler value than default, like 0.3 or somewhat less.
>> Upping nearest_count can help reduce splotchiness, it maxes out at 20.
>> You may have to increase max_trace_level by 2 or 3, maybe more, during the
>> second pass.
OK, reducing the value for error_bound help deepen the shadows, but when you
don't need to deepen your shadows, why use a low error_bound?
Also, why use very low values? You should try reducing it slowly to find the
optimum value instead of immediately jumping to a very, probably to small value,
then wondering: WHY do I have so much splotchiness?
You have a very good example of the use of a small value, but you had to do
several test before you got a good error_bound value for your scene, and you
used a large count value.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
EVERYTHING HAS A GENDER
You may not know this but many nonliving things have a gender...
A Subway is Male, because it uses the same old lines to pick people up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
