Here's a quick example animation of a spotlight shone upon a rotating box
while the camera rotates to face the pointing direction around to the light
source  (into shadow of box) direction.  Each of the 3 media methods is used in
succession.  The camera just jumps back to the start each time the method is
changed.  The media scattering uses type 5 Henyey-Greenstein eccentric haze (of
0.25) for all with the settings of media all the same so as to see the
differences only of the method.
  Starting with 1, the granular and most dusty, is the usual official POV-Ray
media.  Method 2 only shows this same dust when looking back at the spotlight
through the box shadow and otherwise has noticeable color banding like a
highcolor (16bit or lower) display screen does.  3 is smoothed yet still has
almost imperceptable banding.
  The final frame image of each had a ratio of 1:1, 0.83:1, and 1.7:1 (if I
figured this right); based on the official unchanged media type.  They were 58s
for type 1, 48s for type 2, and 99s for type 3 (ratio is more to the point
though).
  I'll post the small text file of this at p.t.s-f. too so you can see the
setup.

Bob
--
// omniVERSE
// http://users.aol.com/inversez/

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '3mdalite.mpg' (189 KB)

i like the last one best - nice idea to put 3 different methods in one
animation - what was the render time for each of the 3 segments btw - would
be interesting to see if there is any difference

Rick

"omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:38791f69@news.povray.org...
>   Here's a quick example animation of a spotlight shone upon a rotating
box
> while the camera rotates to face the pointing direction around to the
light
> source  (into shadow of box) direction.  Each of the 3 media methods is
used in
> succession.  The camera just jumps back to the start each time the method
is
> changed.  The media scattering uses type 5 Henyey-Greenstein eccentric
haze (of
> 0.25) for all with the settings of media all the same so as to see the
> differences only of the method.
>   Starting with 1, the granular and most dusty, is the usual official
POV-Ray
> media.  Method 2 only shows this same dust when looking back at the
spotlight
> through the box shadow and otherwise has noticeable color banding like a
> highcolor (16bit or lower) display screen does.  3 is smoothed yet still
has
> almost imperceptable banding.
>   The final frame image of each had a ratio of 1:1, 0.83:1, and 1.7:1 (if
I
> figured this right); based on the official unchanged media type.  They
were 58s
> for type 1, 48s for type 2, and 99s for type 3 (ratio is more to the point
> though).
>   I'll post the small text file of this at p.t.s-f. too so you can see the
> setup.
>
> Bob
> --
> // omniVERSE
> // http://users.aol.com/inversez/
>
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Sorry, I'm a bit slow, but what three media methods are used?

Rick wrote:

> i like the last one best - nice idea to put 3 different methods in one
> animation - what was the render time for each of the 3 segments btw - would
> be interesting to see if there is any difference
>
> Rick
>
> "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:38791f69@news.povray.org...
> >   Here's a quick example animation of a spotlight shone upon a rotating
> box
> > while the camera rotates to face the pointing direction around to the
> light
> > source  (into shadow of box) direction.  Each of the 3 media methods is
> used in
> > succession.

Post a reply to this message

Standard method, Minipatch method 2, and Nathan's method 3 (or as I call it:
"the Halo method").

Post a reply to this message

Thanks Tony.  Yeah, those 3; just figured anyone looking into MegaPOV media
would know.

Bob

"TonyB" <ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote in message
news:3879f711@news.povray.org...
> Standard method, Minipatch method 2, and Nathan's method 3 (or as I call it:
> "the Halo method").
>

Post a reply to this message

Didn't see all the message stream to know how long for each but it was a total
of 3h:28m.  That's why I said what the last frame rendertime of each was.  58s
for method 1, 48s for method 2, and 99s for method 3.  Should basically be
likewise ratios for the entire series of each, that being probably around 1h:5m,
0h:50m, and 1h:30m approximately.  Oh, and 40 frames apiece too at the 240x180
res., AA at 0.4 with AA depth 2 AA method 1 (rough sketch only you see), render
and gui set to normal in WinMegaPov 0.3, on 500MHz PIII with 256MB 100MHz SDRAM.
Hope that's enough info now  :-)

Bob

"Rick" <pov### [at] dialpipexcom> wrote in message news:3879d976@news.povray.org...
> i like the last one best - nice idea to put 3 different methods in one
> animation - what was the render time for each of the 3 segments btw - would
> be interesting to see if there is any difference
>
> Rick
>
> "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:38791f69@news.povray.org...
> >   Here's a quick example animation of a spotlight shone upon a rotating
> box
> > while the camera rotates to face the pointing direction around to the
> light
> > source  (into shadow of box) direction.  Each of the 3 media methods is
> used in
> > succession.  The camera just jumps back to the start each time the method
> is
> > changed.  The media scattering uses type 5 Henyey-Greenstein eccentric
> haze (of
> > 0.25) for all with the settings of media all the same so as to see the
> > differences only of the method.
> >   Starting with 1, the granular and most dusty, is the usual official
> POV-Ray
> > media.  Method 2 only shows this same dust when looking back at the
> spotlight
> > through the box shadow and otherwise has noticeable color banding like a
> > highcolor (16bit or lower) display screen does.  3 is smoothed yet still
> has
> > almost imperceptable banding.
> >   The final frame image of each had a ratio of 1:1, 0.83:1, and 1.7:1 (if
> I
> > figured this right); based on the official unchanged media type.  They
> were 58s
> > for type 1, 48s for type 2, and 99s for type 3 (ratio is more to the point
> > though).
> >   I'll post the small text file of this at p.t.s-f. too so you can see the
> > setup.
> >
> > Bob
> > --
> > // omniVERSE
> > // http://users.aol.com/inversez/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message