Bill Pragnell wrote:
> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>>> (took 140 hours to render at 2000x2000 - eek!)
>> Sounds to me like a case of "ur doin' it wrong": I see nothing in that shot that
>> would justify such a long render time.
>
> Yes, it's entirely possible.
I'm pretty certain that if instead of an isosurface you used a plane
with the proper normal block, you would get an almost identical image in
1/10th of the rendering time, if not even faster.
Post a reply to this message
|
