 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Can anyone recommend the scripts on this site?
http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
I am currently rendering an image of my LCH color solid isosurface, and
it is at 11% after 2.2 hours. And so far only the easiest parts.
Do you think I could benefit from converting to a mesh instead? Or is
the benefit only if you want to render the scene multiple times (such as
an animation)?
Thanks.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/25/2016 1:43 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Can anyone recommend the scripts on this site?
>
> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
>
> I am currently rendering an image of my LCH color solid isosurface, and
> it is at 11% after 2.2 hours. And so far only the easiest parts.
>
> Do you think I could benefit from converting to a mesh instead? Or is
> the benefit only if you want to render the scene multiple times (such as
> an animation)?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Mike
I tried it and it's a bad choice I think. Edges aren't sufficiently
sharp and smooth.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/25/2016 6:43 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Can anyone recommend the scripts on this site?
>
> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
>
Yes Mike's page is a treasure trove of hints and examples.
Thomas used Mike's Cityscape in our image "Dhalgren".
I have not used the isosurface approximation macro but I notice that
there are two files adapted by Jaap Frank. I have a couple of macros
written by Jaap and they work very well.
> I am currently rendering an image of my LCH color solid isosurface, and
> it is at 11% after 2.2 hours. And so far only the easiest parts.
>
Oh! Joy. :)
> Do you think I could benefit from converting to a mesh instead? Or is
> the benefit only if you want to render the scene multiple times (such as
> an animation)?
>
But you might want to render it many times as you adjust things like
your texture or camera view. Just a thought.
Looking at your image in p.b.i. it is quite regular. I would try the
approximation macro.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/25/2016 8:15 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 1:43 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend the scripts on this site?
>>
>> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
>>
>> I am currently rendering an image of my LCH color solid isosurface, and
>> it is at 11% after 2.2 hours. And so far only the easiest parts.
>>
>> Do you think I could benefit from converting to a mesh instead? Or is
>> the benefit only if you want to render the scene multiple times (such as
>> an animation)?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
> I tried it and it's a bad choice I think. Edges aren't sufficiently
> sharp and smooth.
>
Did you use the version with subdivision and variable depth?
And you can always edit it to give sharp edges. In fact I would edit it
anyway to make some faces flat and the curved face smooth.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/25/2016 3:30 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 8:15 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 11/25/2016 1:43 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> Can anyone recommend the scripts on this site?
>>>
>>> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
>>>
>>> I am currently rendering an image of my LCH color solid isosurface, and
>>> it is at 11% after 2.2 hours. And so far only the easiest parts.
>>>
>>> Do you think I could benefit from converting to a mesh instead? Or is
>>> the benefit only if you want to render the scene multiple times (such as
>>> an animation)?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> I tried it and it's a bad choice I think. Edges aren't sufficiently
>> sharp and smooth.
>>
>
> Did you use the version with subdivision and variable depth?
> And you can always edit it to give sharp edges. In fact I would edit it
> anyway to make some faces flat and the curved face smooth.
>
>
Yes, I tried with subdivision and the following values:
#declare isoSegs = <32,32,32>;
#declare Depth = 3;
The edges are still too rough. I've attached the result. I'm not good
with modifying meshes by hand, so I will forego doing that. I will
instead wait for the true isosurface to finish rendering.
There's one thing I'm worried about though. The place where the
isosurface meets the cylinder showed holes or gaps last time I rendered
a test image. But hopefully decreasing "accuracy" will clear up the issue.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cielch_color_solid_cylinder_isosurface_mesh.png' (181 KB)
Preview of image 'cielch_color_solid_cylinder_isosurface_mesh.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/25/2016 9:12 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 11/25/2016 3:30 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Did you use the version with subdivision and variable depth?
>> And you can always edit it to give sharp edges. In fact I would edit it
>> anyway to make some faces flat and the curved face smooth.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, I tried with subdivision and the following values:
>
> #declare isoSegs = <32,32,32>;
> #declare Depth = 3;
>
> The edges are still too rough. I've attached the result. I'm not good
> with modifying meshes by hand, so I will forego doing that. I will
> instead wait for the true isosurface to finish rendering.
>
Yes, that is rough and I wouldn't want to clean it up, myself.
> There's one thing I'm worried about though. The place where the
> isosurface meets the cylinder showed holes or gaps last time I rendered
> a test image. But hopefully decreasing "accuracy" will clear up the issue.
>
I have had to abandon several projects because the future did not arrive
fast enough and my machine was vastly underpowered for what I wanted to
do. :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 16-11-25 à 04:12, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> On 11/25/2016 3:30 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 11/25/2016 8:15 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>> On 11/25/2016 1:43 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>>>> Can anyone recommend the scripts on this site?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/isotut/approx.htm
>>>>
>>>> I am currently rendering an image of my LCH color solid isosurface, and
>>>> it is at 11% after 2.2 hours. And so far only the easiest parts.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think I could benefit from converting to a mesh instead? Or is
>>>> the benefit only if you want to render the scene multiple times
>>>> (such as
>>>> an animation)?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> I tried it and it's a bad choice I think. Edges aren't sufficiently
>>> sharp and smooth.
>>>
>>
>> Did you use the version with subdivision and variable depth?
>> And you can always edit it to give sharp edges. In fact I would edit it
>> anyway to make some faces flat and the curved face smooth.
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, I tried with subdivision and the following values:
>
> #declare isoSegs = <32,32,32>;
> #declare Depth = 3;
>
> The edges are still too rough. I've attached the result. I'm not good
> with modifying meshes by hand, so I will forego doing that. I will
> instead wait for the true isosurface to finish rendering.
>
> There's one thing I'm worried about though. The place where the
> isosurface meets the cylinder showed holes or gaps last time I rendered
> a test image. But hopefully decreasing "accuracy" will clear up the issue.
>
> Mike
It's a accuracy isue, but not the one you think of. It's a isue of
floating point accuracy, or FPU accuracy.
In this case, try increasing the overall scale of your scene by 10: Put
every objects and light_source into an union and add scale 10, then
apply the same to the camera by multiplying the location and look_at
also by 10.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
