Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2008 02:20:05 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> >SharkD <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> >> That's too bad because 20% is a pretty big performance hit.
> >
> >  So instead of taking 1 hour, it takes 1 hour and 12 minutes? Is that
> >a "big" performance hit?

> It is when you do animations

  So if rendering an animation with povray 3.6 takes 1 hour and rendering
the same animation with povray 3.7 takes 1 hour and 12 minutes, that's a
big performance hit?

  (IOW, I really don't understand why animations would make a difference
compared to individual images.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Jun 2008 05:27:04 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  (IOW, I really don't understand why animations would make a difference
>compared to individual images.)

Because you use many more stills in an animation

A 10 second animation at 25 fps is 250 frames that is 10 days 10
hours. With a 10% increase you can add another 2 days and 2 hours. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message