 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Isnt it amazing that POV takes 4.5 weeks to render this but nature could render
it instantly. :)
Very nice image, caustics are impressive.
Jay Raney
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]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wow! Both the coloured and black & white versions are
fantastic, I love things like this.
This reminds me that I need to read about the changes
to photons in 0.4, as I've tried a render and found
they're totally different to 0.3.
If you rerender this try a slightly wider camera
angle, just that glass on the right seems to be
leaning over a bit.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirect couk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:55am up 23:47, 5 users, load average: 1.05, 1.09, 1.06
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm... there's an idea - would there be any way to get Povray to trace more
than one ray at a time?
Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hallo,
> Despite the large download size, I had to see what took 4.5 weeks. Very
> nice. I would like to see something done with the plane it's sitting on.
I had an infinite plane in before hand, and that didn't look so weird, but I
was re-reading the photon documentation and I noticed that it says photon's
work slowly with infinite plances, so I changed it to a thin box. Also, I
though just leaving the surrounding area black would help to make the
caustics seem brighter (just relatively).
I think I need to study photons a bit more, and find less intensive settings
:)
Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
> That's some extreme detail in your caustics. What was the total photon
> count?
Sorry Nathan, as soon as the trace was finished, I upgraded to Megapov 0.4,
and traced all the demo scenes, so the stats have been cleared out of the
history. I can however tell you that calculating the photons took around 25
minutes on my P2 450 with 128mb of ram, so I saved the photons to a .ph
file, and the file's size is 30.6 megs.
Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
> Wow, I should take the comment about glass out of my reply to Andre's
"More
> Alcohol" posting and put it here instead. In case it's not seen I
basically
> said glass textures are both a good and bad thing, for obvious reasons.
I am begining to agree :)
> The B&W version is actually sepia and not all gray shades I see. Has a
good
> look to it.
I know, I thought it might help the photo look a little, plus I'm a fan of
sepia tinted grayscale images.
> That purple pitcher has too soft a highlight IMO, hate to say it because
of the
> tremendously long render time you endured.
Oh no worries. I was going for a frosted kind of plasticy (is that even a
real word?) look.
> Any plans to try a speeded up, less photon-intensive, version or has it
already
> been done?
Maybe. I really need to learn exactly what each of the settings do, so I can
balance quality with time. Though I am wondering what caused the long render
time for my image. The jug, water and glass meshes have thousands and
thousands of smooth triangles - could that be what took all the time, or was
it just that I went overboard on my settings? In global settings I used :
photons{
gather 20, 100
radius 0.1*phd, 2, 2//, 0.1*phd
autostop 0
jitter .4
expand_thresholds 0.2, 40
load_file "jugwaterglass.ph"
}
and then for the objects I used:
photons {
separation 0.02*phd
refraction on
ignore_photons
}
except for the two glasses which had reflective photons also.
Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
Thanks. That's basically what I was going for. I have some glass marbles
here that are made of frosted glass, and I though "I'm going to try that!".
I went for a frosted plastic look though in the end, to make a change from
the two glasses.
Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
Speaking of animation, before I realised how long the render was going to
take, I was considering doing an animation with photons. There is a physics
simulation program out there somewhere, can't remember the name right now,
that uses simple primitives in the simulation. So I was thinking of building
a simple jug, filling it with thousands of tiny spheres and then pouring
them into a simple glass. Then for the final animation, I would change the
spheres into spherical blob components, with the hope that they would blob
togethere to create realistic flowing water.
But I'm not going to do that now ;)
Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
> Wow! Both the coloured and black & white versions are
> fantastic, I love things like this.
Thanks. I was partially inspired by the still life rendering on the front
page of the Radiance site.
> This reminds me that I need to read about the changes
> to photons in 0.4, as I've tried a render and found
> they're totally different to 0.3.
I know, I've just noticed now. Hopefully this will make it easier though.
> If you rerender this try a slightly wider camera
> angle, just that glass on the right seems to be
> leaning over a bit.
I think the glass is leaning because I used too wide a camera angle. I think
it was somewhere near 70 degrees or something. The camera is fairly close to
the objects as well, which doesn;t help.
Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
No doubt the refraction and reflection eating into the render time. You didn't
say what 'phd' was equal to but I suppose 1.
I was thinking when I first saw the pitcher that it might be non-smooth glass or
plastic but the clear refractions don't prove that out. A good candidate for
Chris Huff's transparency blurring patch.
All in all it seems the makings of a year long project if everything you say
were to be done, either that or render farm comes to mind, heh-heh.
Bob
"Equiprawn" <equ### [at] tinetie> wrote in message
news:38b93b08@news.povray.org...
|
| > That purple pitcher has too soft a highlight IMO, hate to say it because
| of the
| > tremendously long render time you endured.
|
| Oh no worries. I was going for a frosted kind of plasticy (is that even a
| real word?) look.
|
| > Any plans to try a speeded up, less photon-intensive, version or has it
| already
| > been done?
|
| Maybe. I really need to learn exactly what each of the settings do, so I can
| balance quality with time. Though I am wondering what caused the long render
| time for my image. The jug, water and glass meshes have thousands and
| thousands of smooth triangles - could that be what took all the time, or was
| it just that I went overboard on my settings? In global settings I used :
|
| photons{
| gather 20, 100
| radius 0.1*phd, 2, 2//, 0.1*phd
| autostop 0
| jitter .4
| expand_thresholds 0.2, 40
| load_file "jugwaterglass.ph"
| }
|
| and then for the objects I used:
|
| photons {
| separation 0.02*phd
| refraction on
| ignore_photons
| }
|
| except for the two glasses which had reflective photons also.
|
| Equiprawn
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
