Hi! I just uploaded this 10-minutes isosurface animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btVGCqpIoyk&fmt=22

18210 frames, 854x480 resolution, 30fps.
Rendering time: 3 weeks (on a quad core system).

Cheers,
Burkhard

Post a reply to this message

moppel wrote:
> Hi! I just uploaded this 10-minutes isosurface animation:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btVGCqpIoyk&fmt=22
> 
> 18210 frames, 854x480 resolution, 30fps.
> Rendering time: 3 weeks (on a quad core system).
> 
> Cheers,
> Burkhard
> 

The music is not to my taste but it does go well with your beautiful 
animation. :D

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Nice!  Did you use multiple instances of v3.6 or were you using b3.7?

Post a reply to this message

"Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Nice!  Did you use multiple instances of v3.6 or were you using b3.7?

Four instances of 3.6. That's where a multi-core CPU comes in really handy :)

Post a reply to this message

"moppel" <mop### [at] tutututututude> wrote:
> Hi! I just uploaded this 10-minutes isosurface animation:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btVGCqpIoyk&fmt=22
>
> 18210 frames, 854x480 resolution, 30fps.
> Rendering time: 3 weeks (on a quad core system).
>
> Cheers,
> Burkhard

Beautiful!
The music fits very well, too.

Regards,

Simone

Post a reply to this message

"mone" <mon### [at] alienenterprisesde> wrote:
> Beautiful!
> The music fits very well, too.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simone


Sine then I always wanted to use it as background music for some video. Well now
I made the video for it :o)

Cheers, Burkhard

Post a reply to this message

"moppel" <mop### [at] tutututututude> wrote:
> "Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Nice!  Did you use multiple instances of v3.6 or were you using b3.7?
>
> Four instances of 3.6. That's where a multi-core CPU comes in really handy :)

Cool. That's what I do too. Often my parse time is way longer than the render
time so multiple instances even of 3.7 is what I'll probably end up doing in the
future.

Charles

PS, I had a certain special appreciation for your video after spending some
20-something days rendering something sort-of related.  ("psychedelic scrambler"
if curious.)

Post a reply to this message

"moppel" <mop### [at] tutututututude> wrote:
> "Charles C" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Nice!  Did you use multiple instances of v3.6 or were you using b3.7?
>
> Four instances of 3.6. That's where a multi-core CPU comes in really handy :)

Cool. That's what I do too. Often my parse time is way longer than the render
time so multiple instances even of 3.7 is what I'll probably end up doing in the
future.

Charles

PS, I had a certain special appreciation for your video after spending some
20-something days rendering something sort-of related.  ("psychedelic scrambler"
if curious.)

Post a reply to this message

moppel wrote:

> Hi! I just uploaded this 10-minutes isosurface animation:

It's beautiful, but also a bit repetetive to watch it
actively for a full 10 minutes. But in the right chill
out setting it's probably appropriate ;)

Also, it seemed to freeze sometimes although data
was still buffered in the player, so I wondered if this
was part of the actual animation.

Post a reply to this message

Charles C wrote:

> Cool. That's what I do too. Often my parse time is way longer than the render

I also had this problem recently when animating the galaxy data
from the 6df survey. I ended up hacking 3.7b to allow variables
which persist their values between individual renders. It wasn't
a clean solution (more like a designed memory leak) and would
require much additional work to make it a real feature (if
the pov team even wished to include such a feature).

But I'd be interested to hear if long parse times are a common
problem for animations, and if those parse times could be reduced
by reusing a variable, such as a large array or a complex CSG
object, from the previous frame.

Post a reply to this message