|
|
Thomas de Groot wrote:
> This is almost 'perfect' :-)
> Still a bit of artifacts visible, but not much.
> Essentially, what I have changed since the preceding render are:
> increasing nearest_count to 10
> increasing error_bound at 0.5 in the first pass
> increasing low_error_factor to 0.9
> increasing count to 250
> decreasing recursion_limit to 2
> decreasing brightness to 0.8 in the second pass
It looks much better (although difficult to judge at this small size)
but under the aspect of the argument i gave concerning the adaptive
error_bound using a higher one in the pretrace than in the final trace
is counterproductive. Of course the adaptation will automatically
increase it in the final pass but this will make it slower than
necessary. If you set the starting value of the adaptation to the same
as in the pretrace this will probably make it quite a bit faster and not
much worse (although it is difficult to say for sure). Since there have
not been a lot of tests made with the adaptive error_bound it might be
interesting to see the (non-jpeg-compressed) results of this in
comparison. If you could quote the number of samples taken in pretrace
and in the final pass that would also help to say if these assumptions
are correct.
BTW using different brightness in two passes is handled by POV-Ray AFAIK
but there is not much point in doing this.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 20 Aug. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|