 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I realize the whole diamond craze is now over, but the reason I'm late with
this post is because of how long it took to render this image.
I took the diamond source from a few weeks back, put 3 diamonds into the
scene and changed the 3 spotlights to 3 5x5 area lights. I also kept the
photons, but no radiosity.
The composition isn't great, but I'm not re-doing it. :)
If you're thinking this took a long time, you are right. I rendered it on a
few Sun Sparc Ultra 5's with 256MB of RAM. I "borrowed" some co-worker's
machines during the night. There were usually 3-5 machines rendering at the
same time. I then stuck the parts back together and got this image. The
parsing and photon generation took about 9 hours. I saved the photon map
for the other renders. The rending took around 690-720 hours. I'm
estimating because I lost some log files. The render used 138MB of RAM
except for the very first render which went to about 570MB to generate the
photon map.
At one point, I was going to stop rendering, but then I thought that if I
went this far, I might as well finish it now.
I'm never rendering a diamond again. :)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'diamonds.jpg' (61 KB)
Preview of image 'diamonds.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Richard Dault" <rda### [at] yahoo com> wrote in message
news:395a428c@news.povray.org...
| The rending took around 690-720 hours.
| The render used 138MB of RAM
| except for the very first render which went to about 570MB to generate the
| photon map.
|
| At one point, I was going to stop rendering, but then I thought that if I
| went this far, I might as well finish it now.
|
| I'm never rendering a diamond again. :)
But it needs 'reflection_blur' on that wood surface! heh-heh-heh
Can't imagine stopping a render at 500 hours into it. This is probably the
most time spent on one I've ever heard about. Dang good thing it's half
decent.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yikes, that's a long render. Still wish those photons could earn their cpu
time some more and the reflections are perhaps somewhat distracting. Don't get
me wrong, I really enjoyed seeing this!
> I'm never rendering a diamond again. :)
Never say never. I wonder how long it takes before we're all laughing at those
stats :)
--
ICQ 74734588
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> But it needs 'reflection_blur' on that wood surface! heh-heh-heh
> Can't imagine stopping a render at 500 hours into it. This is probably the
> most time spent on one I've ever heard about. Dang good thing it's half
> decent.
>
> Bob
on principal alone it should go into the pov hall of fame!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I realize the whole diamond craze is now over, but the reason I'm late
with
> this post is because of how long it took to render this image.
worth the wait!, they look mighty like diamonds.
maybe if you added a ceiling to your scene, it would improve the look, but
if know you arnt planning a re render (and i dont blame you!!)
Rick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, looks more like cubic zirconia to me, maybe you should tweak and rerender.
j/k ;)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Richard Dault" <rda### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:395a428c@news.povray.org...
>
> The composition isn't great, but I'm not re-doing it. :)
>
> The parsing and photon generation took about 9
> hours. I saved the photon map for the other renders.
> The rending took around 690-720 hours.
Send me the code and I'll re-render it. I have a 486-33 that's not doing
anything.
Or if anyone can get POV to run on an IBM Displaywriter I've got one of
those, too.
;-)
Eric
--------------------
http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree
--------------------
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
- Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Mechanics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eric Freeman wrote in message <395b92ed@news.povray.org>...
>Send me the code and I'll re-render it. I have a 486-33 that's not doing
>anything.
I look forward to seeing it in the year 2005.
;-)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Now finally I understand what j/k means...
--
Regards, Sander
-----------------------------
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> schreef in berichtnieuws
395B77B5.DF441777@faricy.net...
> Hmm, looks more like cubic zirconia to me, maybe you should tweak and
rerender.
> j/k ;)
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> Please visit my website: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
