Gilles Tran wrote:
> BTW, I was too optimistic about my current test renders as the first one (with
> pretrace<1) is crawling at 150 points per minute. No answers (checking rule [2])
> until next Monday at best.
Much too optimistic... The second render just finished. The comparison was between a
pretrace_start/pretrace_end =1/1 render and a 0.08/0.01 one.
Note that the experiment was not scientific, because Povray was running in the
background with a low priority while I working with other CPU-consuming apps
(databases) during half of the renders. I also had to make a slight change on a
texture between the two renders (I guess with no effect on the render time).
- identical render times : 27h 46 min
- substracting the image shows some little differences (in the parts not touched by
the texture change) but final appearance could be said identical apart one
antialiasing problem with the 0.08/0.01 image.
Other rad params were :
count 400
error_bound 0.05
nearest_count 4
recursion_limit 1
low_error_factor 1
gray_threshold 0.15
minimum_reuse 0.015
brightness 1.5
adc_bailout 0.01/2
normal on
Attached: two PNG (extracts of the final images) of 58 kbu each.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
Graphic experiments
Pov-ray gallery
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'periph2.png' (58 KB)
Download 'periph1.png' (58 KB)
Preview of image 'periph2.png'
![periph2.png](/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C3B6914F7.5D8E369A%40inapg.inra.fr%3E/periph2.png?preview=1)
Preview of image 'periph1.png'
![periph1.png](/povray.binaries.images/attachment/%3C3B6914F7.5D8E369A%40inapg.inra.fr%3E/periph1.png?preview=1)
|