nemesis wrote:
> Gee, man!  The render time was already 72 hours for quite low resolution, let
> alone with higher blur_samples.

Aren't I a bastard? ;-)

I look at the shoreline in the extreme foreground, and I see random blue 
and green pixels sprinkled around, which bugs me. With higher samples, 
you'll get more of a smooth gradient.

Another option would be to tweak the aperture, reducing the amount of 
blur, and reducing the number of samples needed to eliminate the grain.

Then again, some people are fine with the grain. You decide whether the 
render time is worthwhile. :-)

BTW, now that you mention it, what hardware is this running on?

-- 
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

(10:16:43 PM) Ryuho: but they are physically turned off
(10:16:58 PM) Ryuho: so you can't connect to them right now
(10:16:58 PM) DanaG: I wonder if you could ssh-tunnel wake-on-lan packets.
     -- seen on #cplug

Post a reply to this message