William Tracy wrote:
> 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.

Yep, I guess I'll do both: lower the aperture and increase samples. Or
if Alain can explain that blurred transparency to me well enough that I
can code it, I might try it first :P

> 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?
> 

The 72 hours was on my own computer, AMD 64 3500+. The bigger version
(now 140:57:56 Rendering line 130 of 720, 89598 rad. samples) is running
on Eero Ahonen's bit more faster AMD 4450e.

-- Arttu Voutilainen

Post a reply to this message