> Gilles Tran wrote:
> >
> > What seems strange to me is that the memory use is lower when only a part of
> > the picture is rendered.
> >
>         That' not too surprising: there are less radiosity samples to store,
> therefore it uses less memory.

Does it mean that a good strategy when rendering a large radiosity image likely to
cause "out of memory" problems is to render it in a batch ?
+ER300 +C
+ER600 +C
+ER900 +C
etc.

Each successive partial render picks up the image where the previous one left it
(solution not tested ?).

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 
> Does it mean that a good strategy when rendering a large radiosity image likely to
> cause "out of memory" problems is to render it in a batch ?
> +ER300 +C
> +ER600 +C
> +ER900 +C
> etc.
> 
> Each successive partial render picks up the image where the previous one left it
> (solution not tested ?).
> 
	No because in that case, either you didn't save the radiosity data and
you'll see it in the final image, or this data will be reloaded each
time and the last render will use as much memory as the whole would
have...


-- 

* Doctor Jekyll had something * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* to Hyde...                  * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
*******************************

Post a reply to this message

news:39D1EF0C.943C7518@enst.fr...
| Gilles Tran wrote:
| >
| > Does it mean that a good strategy when rendering a large radiosity image
likely to
| > cause "out of memory" problems is to render it in a batch ?
| > +ER300 +C
| > +ER600 +C
| > +ER900 +C
| > etc.
| >
| > Each successive partial render picks up the image where the previous one
left it
| > (solution not tested ?).
| >
| No because in that case, either you didn't save the radiosity data and
| you'll see it in the final image, or this data will be reloaded each
| time and the last render will use as much memory as the whole would
| have...

Seemed okay when I tested Gilles idea.  Memory remained constant on all
three partial renders.  I also used save_file to keep the radiosity info and
pass it to the next segment with load_file.  Of course you can't start out
with a +C if there's a previous test render done.
The only problem was with post_process find_edges, where it apparently uses
only the first segment to apply the change for each successive segment.
Same with depth, however soft_glow was okay (I think so) and posterize
almost did okay (not perfect).  Those were the only I checked on.
Attached image shows what I mean.
I didn't see any mention of post_process not working right with partial
renders, maybe this is one of the reasons it didn't make it into POV-Ray
3.5.

Bob

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'radiosityagain2.jpg' (5 KB)

Preview of image 'radiosityagain2.jpg'