 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I had to sooner or later, right? =)
max_trace 25, aa0.2
1m 42s for 821935 photons (257744 stored)
2h 16m 12s render
5432566 bytes
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'icosa39photons.jpg' (42 KB)
Preview of image 'icosa39photons.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3AD33C83.BD3498E4@faricy.net>, David Fontaine says...
> Well, I had to sooner or later, right? =)
>
> max_trace 25, aa0.2
> 1m 42s for 821935 photons (257744 stored)
> 2h 16m 12s render
> 5432566 bytes
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
Looks beautiful but dangerous!
--
Regards, Sander
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Great, I love POV diamonds!! Great looking facets. Even the render time
seems acceptable, which comes as a surprise to me.
Is it an isosurface or csg? How is your light set up?
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> Well, I had to sooner or later, right? =)
>
> max_trace 25, aa0.2
> 1m 42s for 821935 photons (257744 stored)
> 2h 16m 12s render
> 5432566 bytes
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
Very nice!. What about doubling the number of photons?
Alberto.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Looks like a picture from a catalog. VERY realistic.
Nice job!
Jim
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3AD33C83.BD3498E4@faricy.net...
> Well, I had to sooner or later, right? =)
>
> max_trace 25, aa0.2
> 1m 42s for 821935 photons (257744 stored)
> 2h 16m 12s render
> 5432566 bytes
>
> --
> David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
> My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hugo wrote:
> Great, I love POV diamonds!! Great looking facets. Even the render time
> seems acceptable, which comes as a surprise to me.
tnx
> Is it an isosurface or csg? How is your light set up?
Solid mesh :)
Just one adaptive area_light with photons... what does the area_light
keyword in the photon block of a light_source do anyway? I put it in and got
no photons whatsoever.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sander wrote:
> Looks beautiful but dangerous!
You should see the sheetmetal one I have on my computer table. (j/k. I
do have a paper one though :)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alberto wrote:
> Very nice!. What about doubling the number of photons?
> Alberto.
(gasp)
Couldn't hurt. ;)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Kress wrote:
> Looks like a picture from a catalog. VERY realistic.
>
> Nice job!
Really? tnx!
I think it's interesting how the photons kinda made patterns like slash marks.
Adds to the dangerous look.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote in message <3AD33C83.BD3498E4@faricy.net>...
>Well, I had to sooner or later, right? =)
>
>max_trace 25, aa0.2
>1m 42s for 821935 photons (257744 stored)
>2h 16m 12s render
>5432566 bytes
>
>--
>David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
>My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
It is very photoreal looking. I have an acrylic christmas ornament that is
strikingly similiar to this. Really beautiful. Yours that is. . . mine's all
old and dirty now. :)
Batronyx™ ^"^
bat### [at] cadronhsacom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nice one.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.zeropps.uklinux.net/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:02pm up 72 days, 15:47, 2 users, load average: 1.86, 1.49, 1.20
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Batronyx wrote:
> It is very photoreal looking. I have an acrylic christmas ornament that is
> strikingly similiar to this. Really beautiful. Yours that is. . . mine's all
> old and dirty now. :)
Really? Honestly it was a dink-around / slap-together that came out
spectacular...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> Nice one.
tnx!
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
512x384 aa0.2
1.90 smpls/pxl
max level 25/25
00:01:04 parse
07:39:27 render
07:40:31 total
8408986 mem
314700 shot
404968 stored
??? yes, it actually reported more stored than shot
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'icosa19photons.jpg' (45 KB)
Preview of image 'icosa19photons.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 314700 shot
> 404968 stored
>
>??? yes, it actually reported more stored than shot
Looks very nice. Wouls look better on a desk on top of some writing paper
with writing so that the reflections could be seen nicely.
Actually it should report more stored than shot as the photons are split
into two when they hit the surface, one for reflection and one for
refraction. Hope that explains it.
Kev
--
http://perso.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Ellis wrote:
> > 314700 shot
> > 404968 stored
> >
> >??? yes, it actually reported more stored than shot
>
> Looks very nice. Wouls look better on a desk on top of some writing paper
> with writing so that the reflections could be seen nicely.
>
> Actually it should report more stored than shot as the photons are split
> into two when they hit the surface, one for reflection and one for
> refraction. Hope that explains it.
I turned reflection off...
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > > 314700 shot
> > > 404968 stored
> > >
> > >??? yes, it actually reported more stored than shot
> >
> > Looks very nice. Wouls look better on a desk on top of some writing
paper
> > with writing so that the reflections could be seen nicely.
> >
> > Actually it should report more stored than shot as the photons are split
> > into two when they hit the surface, one for reflection and one for
> > refraction. Hope that explains it.
>
> I turned reflection off...
>
Did you specify ignore_photons in the glass photon block. If not then it
could be that photons are being stored on the glass surface but also going
through the glass and being stored on the ground surface. Hence more stored
photons, just another guess :)
Kev
--
http://perso.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Ellis wrote:
> Did you specify ignore_photons in the glass photon block. If not then it
> could be that photons are being stored on the glass surface but also going
> through the glass and being stored on the ground surface. Hence more stored
> photons, just another guess :)
Ah, no I didn't. It looks better without ignore_photons imo, hey, real glass
doesn't ignore photons!
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Did you specify ignore_photons in the glass photon block. If not then it
> > could be that photons are being stored on the glass surface but also
going
> > through the glass and being stored on the ground surface. Hence more
stored
> > photons, just another guess :)
>
> Ah, no I didn't. It looks better without ignore_photons imo, hey, real
glass
> doesn't ignore photons!
Well I'm glad we got that one sorted out as I had no more guesses left :)
Yeah, glass doesn't ignore photons but sometimes the photons get stuck at
the base of a glass object, i.e a drinking glass, and ignore_photons needs
to be used, but with yours only touching the ground surface at small points
it's ok
Kev
--
http://perso.libertysurf.co.uk/kevin.ellis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
