On 2/17/21 11:40 AM, Alain Martel wrote:
> Le 2021-02-17 à 08:23, William F Pokorny a écrit :
...
> 
> In my testings, intervals 5 samples 10 run MUCH slower than samples 100 
> and default intervals 1.
> 

OK. I'm sure you see what you see. If a small scene, post it and I'll 
add it to my media test scenes. It will get run, but it's unlikely I'll 
dig into it. The intervals > 1 cases are not something we should be using.

Using the recent media scene posted by Bald Eagle I see:

intervals, samples

Constant media
---------------
1, 100 : 46.27user 0.05system 0:12.60elapsed  (51.00)
5,  10 : 29.46user 0.07system 0:08.38elapsed  (9.36)
10, 10 : 51.06user 0.04system 0:13.81elapsed  (10.10)

Non-Constant media which in fact is constant:
( density { function { 1 } }  // Fools the POV-Ray constant test.
---------------
1, 100 : 140.91user 0.10system 0:36.46elapsed  (101.00)
5,  10 :  80.60user 0.07system 0:21.24elapsed  (11.00)
10, 10 : 151.94user 0.08system 0:39.21elapsed  (11.00)

Bald Eagles original gradient x density media
---------------
1, 100 : 132.72user 0.08system 0:34.38elapsed  (101.00)
5,  10 :  76.09user 0.09system 0:20.12elapsed  (11.00)
10, 10 : 143.69user 0.07system 0:37.18elapsed  (11.00)

Intervals > 1 being slower but not too MUCH slower.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/7/2021 2:23 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>> try:
>>>
>>>
http://news.povray.org/povray.newusers/message/%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E/#%3C59a9ec1c%40news.povray.org%3E

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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.
> 


I am inside the cylinder, but the cylinder is clipped by another smaller 
cylinder to create a shell.



Mike

Post a reply to this message