Op 08/02/2021 om 16:16 schreef Alain Martel:
> 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 :
> sampling_method 3
> intervals 1 //DO NOT increase !
> samples 10
> Increasing intervals dramatically increase the rendering time without
> giving any appreciable improvement.
> samples 10 intervals 3 render slower than samples 50 intervals 1.
I don't know where in the wiki there was a line saying defaults being
intervals 1 and samples 1,1. Of course, I cannot find that paragraph
anymore (typical!); but you are right of course: default samples is 10.
Post a reply to this message