 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
>Average pentium type computer (I'm ashgamed to admit I don't know the
stats.
>Waah!)
>
>The 3 hours comes from a 10x10 area light, and a focal vlur with 100
>samples.
I see... But I don't think the 10x10 improved the quatlity that much. Have
you tried 3x3? 4x4? Maybe it would me just as nice and one third the
rendering time? Maybe it looks crappy, but have you tried? I never use that
much myself...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'd guess it's the focal blur that slows it down...
Oh, its a killer, real nasty
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I have only found a vast improvemt over the 4x4 area light when i use 3 4x4
lights each aligned along on of the 3 axis - sort of like the peice of graph
paper used by someone here - forget who!
however, i have rended some images with upto 30x30 lights, and was very
impressed with the results, especially for simulating sunlight..
Rick
Simen Kvaal <sim### [at] student matnatuiono> wrote in message
news:37fb36ef@news.povray.org...
> >
> >Average pentium type computer (I'm ashgamed to admit I don't know the
> stats.
> >Waah!)
> >
>
>
> >The 3 hours comes from a 10x10 area light, and a focal vlur with 100
> >samples.
>
>
> I see... But I don't think the 10x10 improved the quatlity that much. Have
> you tried 3x3? 4x4? Maybe it would me just as nice and one third the
> rendering time? Maybe it looks crappy, but have you tried? I never use
that
> much myself...
>
>
>
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just the opposite for me. Heh. Damn teachers :)
--
This message brought to you by:
-=< Ian (the### [at] hotmailcom >=-
Please visit my site at http://spectere2000.cjb.net! :)
Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:37fa67fa@news.povray.org...
> Heh, I always imagine hydrogen as red and oxygen as white.
Preconditioning
> by earlier Bohr models perhaps? I too have been away from it too long to
> say.
>
> Bob
>
> Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote in message
> news:37F9F7A1.A4FE0877@peak.edu.ee...
> > Will it explode? No? Well that's no fun <sigh>...
> > I've carefully forgotten everything I ever knew about chemistry, so I
> can't
> > really comment on the accuracy. Is an oxygen atom really red and shiny?
:)
> >
> > Margus
> >
> > Simon de Vet wrote:
> > >
> > > Inspired by the reflective pics, and a diagram in my Chemistry text, I
> > > made this little pic of a NaCl crystal dissolving in water.
> > >
> > > It's not perfect, but at a render time of about 3 hours, I didn't feel
> > > like making too many changes. I'm using an 800x600 version as my
desktop
> > > wallpaper. Not too imposing, and blends in well.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > > http://home.istar.ca/~sdevet
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> > > [Image]
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
my chem education was totally different, we had a limit on certain colors,
so 'pretending' was required... maybe thats why i never took chem A levels
at high school - that an the chem teacher was a nutter - dropping a 1 inch
cube of sodium into a water filled wine demijon thingy definatly gave me
that idea, or was it the time we decided to make WW 1 mustard gas, only to
realise that the vents were knackered and the class next door got all of our
interesting concoction...... happy times [sigh]
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
