Le 2021-02-07 à 02:23, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> Op 07/02/2021 om 04:41 schreef Mike Horvath:
>> On 2/5/2021 6:56 AM, Bald Eagle wrote:
>>> it's likely not your media - but your media settings.
>> I'm not sure how that applies to my case. I am not using emissive
>> media or the "samples" keyword.
> There is nothing really wrong with your code as far as I can tell and
> from own experience. From the outside (of the media) it is even rather
> fast due to the default intervals 1 and samples 1 (Yes! you /do/ use
> samples, even if you don't).
> However, depending on the location of the camera within or without the
> media, render times can be very different; you even may need to increase
> the samples value to avoid splotches, and that will decrease render time
> even more although not that much.
> Using media is time consuming. There is no alternative.
The default for samples is 10.
samples default to 1 when using sampling method 1 or 2.
The default are, as of version 3.6 :
intervals 1 //DO NOT increase !
Increasing intervals dramatically increase the rendering time without
giving any appreciable improvement.
samples 10 intervals 3 render slower than samples 50 intervals 1.
Post a reply to this message