David Fontaine wrote:

> Sorry, but the purple glass needs a tighter highlight and there's some banding
> in the shadows. Try for a ten-week render. ;-)
> wow

Oh, I didn't know you were going for plasticity...

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> That's more than my IRTC animations spend rendering...

If they did, half your design time would be gone! ouch

--
___     ______________________________________________________
 | \     |_                 <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
 |_/avid |ontaine               http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/

"Sitting on a cornflake, waiting for the van to come" -Beatles

Post a reply to this message

It's worth the wait. I would expect to see this in an advertisement for fine
glassware in the kind of department store that throws me out for being too poor
to enter it...

wow.

Josh

Equiprawn wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I haven't posted anything for a while, because I have been doing a render
> that took overall around 4.5 weeks! Now, I had Unreal running at the
> weekends, but during the week Pov was the only thing running. I was just
> originally a test in Rhino to merge a wandle into a jug body, but I thought
> I would test Photon's with it. I must have gone overboard in the settings. I
> can't give a definite time for render, as it was stopped and continued may
> times, and there is a bug in the Windows version where the trace time
> doesn't stop when the render is paused. I think is looks nice in black and
> white, so I have included a post processed version as well. Originally
> rendered in 1280x1024.
>
> Equiprawn
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Wherever you go, there you are - Buckaroo Banzai
>        http://m3.easyspace.com/equiprawn/
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>  [Image]
>
>  [Image]

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

One of my ambitions is to be able to open up a yuppie store where you
have to throw your wallet in the door first, and if there's enough money
or credit cards you can come in and spend it... The kind of store that
would pay for such fine art...  :)

Josh English wrote:
> 
> It's worth the wait. I would expect to see this in an advertisement for fine
> glassware in the kind of department store that throws me out for being too poor
> to enter it...
> 
> wow.
> 
> Josh
> 
> Equiprawn wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > I haven't posted anything for a while, because I have been doing a render
> > that took overall around 4.5 weeks! Now, I had Unreal running at the
> > weekends, but during the week Pov was the only thing running. I was just
> > originally a test in Rhino to merge a wandle into a jug body, but I thought
> > I would test Photon's with it. I must have gone overboard in the settings. I
> > can't give a definite time for render, as it was stopped and continued may
> > times, and there is a bug in the Windows version where the trace time
> > doesn't stop when the render is paused. I think is looks nice in black and
> > white, so I have included a post processed version as well. Originally
> > rendered in 1280x1024.
> >
> > Equiprawn
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Wherever you go, there you are - Buckaroo Banzai
> >        http://m3.easyspace.com/equiprawn/
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> >  [Image]
> >
> >  [Image]
> 
> --
> Josh English
> eng### [at] spiritonecom
> "May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

Simen Kvaal wrote:

> Quantuum-processors would reduce the rendering-time tremendously. Not only
> would they be fast, but they calculate implicit equations instantly, just
> like optimal angles between atoms in molecules are found instantly with
> quantuum-porcesses. Ray-object intersections could be calculated instatly
> for _any_ surface. Now _that_ would be something.
>
> I've heard that they now have constructed a simple quantuum-ciruit that does
> some simple calculations. Int the future ... blabla.
>
> Simen.
>
> John VanSickle skrev i meldingen <38B992D0.DF970A41@erols.com>...
> >Equiprawn wrote:
> >>
> >> Hmmm... there's an idea - would there be any way to get Povray to
> >> trace more than one ray at a time?
> >
> >On less than two processors, no.  If a processor is designed a
> >particular way, it is possible for it to trace two rays at once, but it
> >would be far more trouble than it's worth; the rendering engive would
> >almost certainly have to be rewritten directly in assembler, and I doubt
> >the POV team is interested in doing that.
> >
> >Regards,
> >John
> >--
> >ICQ: 46085459

The One and ONLY QUantum computer takes up an entire lab of MIT (I think) and
can only process only one program as of October of 1999 (it answers a series of
simple questions...)  there was an article on it in Discovery magazine a few
months back...  try looking it up in the library cause i may be wrong on the
Location, size and program types.....  but It is supposed to be at least 1000
times faster than the standard supercomputer ( is there really such a thing as
standard supercomputers??????   ).

Post a reply to this message

Hi!

David Fontaine wrote:

> Jay Raney wrote:
>
> > Isnt it amazing that POV takes 4.5 weeks to render this but nature could render
> > it instantly. :)
> > Very nice image, caustics are impressive.
>
> No, nature's render time is however long it takes the light to get from the source
> to the destination. Now if you factor in the miniscule, unnoticable effects of
> distant stars, nature took billions of years to render it! :-)

So then we don't know how much time the nature uses for rendering anything!
-> because we don't know what destination the nature has choosen for its photons ;-)

Tor Olav

mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html

Post a reply to this message