I lightened the scene, moved the space ships and added a runway.
Now, I have 232 light sources ! And still 4h to render on my 486DX2-66
8Mo under DOS.

                                David GEMELLI

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'area51.jpg' (17 KB)

Preview of image 'area51.jpg'

Been watching X-files.  Your ships look like the ones from there.  maybe
you should have the 'standard' shaft of light coming from the ship.  I
think you need it a little lighter too.  Area51 is in the middle of the
desert so tons of stars would be visable.

gemelli david wrote:
> 
> I lightened the scene, moved the space ships and added a runway.
> Now, I have 232 light sources ! And still 4h to render on my 486DX2-66
> 8Mo under DOS.
> 
>                                 David GEMELLI
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

Post a reply to this message

If you're wondering what the layout of Area51 looks like you can visit
http://www.artbell.com/images/area51.jpg

There's no way of telling whether or not this is the real Area51, but it
looks big enough.
Art Bell's show isn't known for it's believability though.

Michael

P.S.
If you're wondering if I took this picture with my U-2
spy-plane...........No, I did not.
And if anyone asks if I own a U-2 spy-plane............No, I don't (I
decided to spoil myself and got a B-2 bomber instead).

Post a reply to this message

Amazing isn't it? That you can have so many "spotlights" and not turn a
render into a week long event. I noticed this before myself.
Looking good enough to me (it is supposed to be in darkess after all)
except for the UFO lights; you are probably going to have to do
artificial adjustments on them to get a proper amount of light while
both in complete darkness and under a light source. The one down by the
buildings is noticably brighter (light-wise) than the other 2. Darkening
its lights and brightening the other two UFOs lights would seem in
order, unless you don't want to listen to me.
This is the same problem that occurs in many situations, where the
illumination of lights or objects appear to increase too much. Like an
addition of the colors rather than some form of multiplication, ie.
rgb<0.9,0.8,0.7> + rgb<0.7,0.8,0.9> = rgb<1.6,1.6,1.6> which could
instead be (rgb<0.9,0.8,0.7> * rgb<0.7,0.8,0.9>) * Lfactor =
rgb<1.26,1.28,1.26>, where Lfactor is 2 in this case. Brighter yet not
as bright as the other way.
I don't know the inner workings of the actual scheme at all, mind you,
just suggesting what seems to be going on. And this seemed yet another
example to bring it up. Sorry if I've annoyed anyone.
Nice picture, Gemelli.


gemelli david wrote:
> 
> I lightened the scene, moved the space ships and added a runway.
> Now, I have 232 light sources ! And still 4h to render on my 486DX2-66
> 8Mo under DOS.
> 
>                                 David GEMELLI
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message

I agree that lights adjustments are necessary. The UFO near the buildings has to
be
modified. I wanted it to be more visible but, the "light addition" you explain
make the lights
too bright. I'll work on it.
About the rendering time, is a light faster to render when it uses
"fade_distance" ?
Maybe it is the reason why it is still "fast" to render.

Thanks for your comments.

                        David GEMELLI



> Amazing isn't it? That you can have so many "spotlights" and not turn a
> render into a week long event. I noticed this before myself.
> Looking good enough to me (it is supposed to be in darkess after all)
> except for the UFO lights; you are probably going to have to do
> artificial adjustments on them to get a proper amount of light while
> both in complete darkness and under a light source. The one down by the
> buildings is noticably brighter (light-wise) than the other 2. Darkening
> its lights and brightening the other two UFOs lights would seem in
> order, unless you don't want to listen to me.
> This is the same problem that occurs in many situations, where the
> illumination of lights or objects appear to increase too much. Like an
> addition of the colors rather than some form of multiplication, ie.
> rgb<0.9,0.8,0.7> + rgb<0.7,0.8,0.9> = rgb<1.6,1.6,1.6> which could
> instead be (rgb<0.9,0.8,0.7> * rgb<0.7,0.8,0.9>) * Lfactor =
> rgb<1.26,1.28,1.26>, where Lfactor is 2 in this case. Brighter yet not
> as bright as the other way.
> I don't know the inner workings of the actual scheme at all, mind you,
> just suggesting what seems to be going on. And this seemed yet another
> example to bring it up. Sorry if I've annoyed anyone.
> Nice picture, Gemelli.
>
> gemelli david wrote:
> >
> > I lightened the scene, moved the space ships and added a runway.
> > Now, I have 232 light sources ! And still 4h to render on my 486DX2-66
> > 8Mo under DOS.
> >
> >                                 David GEMELLI
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  [Image]
>
> --
>  omniVERSE: beyond the universe
>   http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
>  mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message

gemelli david wrote:
> 
> I agree that lights adjustments are necessary. The UFO near the buildings has to
> be
> modified. I wanted it to be more visible but, the "light addition" you explain
> make the lights
> too bright. I'll work on it.
> About the rendering time, is a light faster to render when it uses
> "fade_distance" ?
> Maybe it is the reason why it is still "fast" to render.
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
>                         David GEMELLI

  I have found using fade distance a fade power generaly slower in most cases.
At times a lot slower !

  Then again my use of these functions has been where there are many different
objects in the path of the light source specified that way. When this happens
pov has to calculate the different intereactions with the surface finishes
and colors for each level of light intensity along the path of the ray of
light from the source.

  I once noticed when I had a single light source with fade distance and power
specified inside of a room you could see intensity banding along the length of
the wall from where the camera and light was to the ends of the room.
I attribured this to the way Pov caluculates the formula for the function
believing that it is a stepped linear function instead of a smooth seemless
integration.

-- 
Ken Tyler

mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

Post a reply to this message

Yes, could be variable depending on the scene alright. One major factor
is shadows, remember, they are heavy on the render time. A scene like
this and you have little shadow areas similar to smaller objects in a
scene which speeds things up.


Ken wrote:
> 
> gemelli david wrote:
> >
> > I agree that lights adjustments are necessary. The UFO near the buildings has to
> > be
> > modified. I wanted it to be more visible but, the "light addition" you explain
> > make the lights
> > too bright. I'll work on it.
> > About the rendering time, is a light faster to render when it uses
> > "fade_distance" ?
> > Maybe it is the reason why it is still "fast" to render.
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> >
> >                         David GEMELLI
> 
>   I have found using fade distance a fade power generaly slower in most cases.
> At times a lot slower !
> 
>   Then again my use of these functions has been where there are many different
> objects in the path of the light source specified that way. When this happens
> pov has to calculate the different intereactions with the surface finishes
> and colors for each level of light intensity along the path of the ray of
> light from the source.
> 
>   I once noticed when I had a single light source with fade distance and power
> specified inside of a room you could see intensity banding along the length of
> the wall from where the camera and light was to the ends of the room.
> I attribured this to the way Pov caluculates the formula for the function
> believing that it is a stepped linear function instead of a smooth seemless
> integration.
> 
> --
> Ken Tyler
> 
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV

Post a reply to this message